Thomas Hearns - The most underrated fighter of alltime ??

The ring's greatest 80 fighters of alltime........Tommy Hearns 67.........

Pryor 35....................Billy Conn 57..................Pedroza 66.............Get my drift!!!!..........Not just the Ring poll but others are pretty consistent too.....Louis 4...........

Now they don't hold Schmelling against Louis...Sure he turned it around, but so did Tommy as Leonard acknowledges and Hearns also dominated the first fight...and Robbo did lose to Turpin and Lamotta..........

hearns wanted a rematch with Marv..not sure Marv wanted one..

Never in the history of Boxing has a fighter had his losses hurt him as much as Hearns..........and yet he beat great fighters in...

Cuevas, Duran, Leonard and the Hill was just superb..........Titles from 147 all the way to 175.........

Other victories against the unbeaten Shuler, Andries etc were good ones too...........Add his incredible gifts and longevity..........

If Larry Holmes is bitter God knows how this guy feels..........

Just endorsing the above. I think his longevity almost seems to count against him, as he was less devastating at the higher weights. Obviously, the chin is wuestion mark and Barkley x2 is the stain, but everyone has a bogeyman. I'd agree 60+ is criminally low for such a terrific fighter.

Barkley isn't really the bogeyman in usual terms like say a Forrest to a Mosley or junior to Marco.....

Have to remember that he was completely slaughtered by Tommy before throwing a wild shot without even looking at the target....

Hearns was sensational in that fight till the fluke...People forget that.

The fact Barkley repeated the trick does Tommy harm. Duran beating Barkley also exposed Barkley's credentials and undermined Hearn's win over a disinterested Duran.

Guess Hearns annihilating Duran exposed his.......and Turpin beating Robbo his..Norton - Ali

What dross.

Yeh the first fight was a bolt from the blue, but the second doesn't look so good... Just after the hill fight too. Struggled with kinchen as well. 

Look these are just considerations that impact his rating a bit... No doubt he's way better than the 60's.

He was  labelled as shot before Hill.........who failed to engage.....as he did so often..

Hearns jab owned the guy....

Benn > Barkley > Hearns

what do you think?

What's "dross" is the amount of excuses you make for you favorite fighters.


If they lose it's a fluke.

Robinson beat Turpin in the return. Turpin was a very good fighter in anyone's book and was all wrong for Robinson. Robinson as a true champ found a way to win the return match.


I'm just recording here and now that you threw out the abuse first with your "dross" comment. If I reply in the same manner to you all that happens is you go running into the corner crying claiming I'm abusing you. For a 45 year old man you're pathetic.

Hearns isn't a favorite fighter..

Hearns beat Leonard in a return......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Never in the history of Boxing has a fighter had his losses hurt him as much as Hearns..........and yet he beat great fighters in...

Lennox Lewis fans may disagree with you there.

Disagree........Lewis on the upside gets great kudos from beating Holy and Tyson who were past it.

Well that number 67 placing by The Ring is pretty daft for sure, especially when you look at some of the names they had above him!

However, Ring Magazine isn't the be all and end all and that kind of ranking for Hearns is an anomaly that only they'd come up with, I reckon. On the wider scale amongst those a little more in the know, I don't really think Tommy is particularly underrated. A lot of other publications (such as Boxing News last year, for example) have Tommy somewhere around the thirty mark and I think that's pretty much bang on what his career merits.

It's not as if his style has resulted in people not always being fully appreciative of what he achieved either, ala Canto, Whitaker, Tunney, Calderon etc; everyone has watched and enjoyed at least a couple of Hearns' fights and being a part of the 'Four Kings' era means his name is never far from the conscience.

It's the same old chestnuts that get rolled out when it comes to ranking Tommy, but in fairness a lot of them are true, particularly the point that he was so often a titlist in a division without ever really being THE champion of it, although to be fair to Hearns his fight against Duran would otherwise have been a unification bout at 154 had Roberto not been stripped, and nobody at that stage knew how good McCallum, who picked up the portion of the title stripped from Duran, would turn out to be).

Ultimately, Hearns was involved in a lot of big (and very big) fights and won most of them, but was involved in two mega fights (mega in the proper sense, ie they were truly significant and there were no mitigating circumstances regarding the state of either man) and lost them both. There's evidence to suggest that him going 0-2 in those fights was maybe the exception and not the rule, but you have to deal in facts rather than supposition, I guess.

The talent pool between 147 and 160 in the eighties was ridiculous, however, so stick Hearns in those divisions in most other eras (like today!) and he'd make a mockery of all other fighters campaigning there, although he'd have to settle for a points win against Floyd, similar to the way he did against Benitez. If peak versions of Benitez and Leonard (both bigger than Floyd naturally) can't outbox Hearns over the long haul then you can bet your bottom dollar that the Marquezes, Bradleys, Malignaggis and Broners of this world wouldn't have much chance, either.

But in terms of how he's rated, I don't think Hearns does all that badly in most cases.

Duran's superfight record including Benitez..............

1-5................You don't hold that against him.

Wasn't Benn due to fight Hearnsuntil the Barkeley defeats?

Some fight that would have been....Not sure is the answer.

Haito would know.

seanmichaels wrote:Wasn't Benn due to fight Hearnsuntil the Barkeley defeats?

A Hearns-Benn fight was mooted after Benn began campaigning in the US but he was more closely linked to Ray Leonard (who was looking for an opponent to win another title against).

Benn claims that Leonard had second thoughts after he despatched Barkley. Ray went on to select Terry Norris. Oops!

Norris was a better fighter than Benn.............

Duran had already established a great legacy in the face of making more defences of the Lightweight crown than anyone else in history, Truss (the 'Four Kings' era made the legends of Hearns, Leonard and Hagler, but merely enhanced the already-existing one of Duran). I'm actually very critical of Duran's performance in the second Leonard fight as well, as it goes, and feel that it is a very significant black mark against him.

However, given that Duran's optimum weights were anything between 135 and 147, and Hearns' 147 to 160 (most truly great Lightweights have shown that they can hold their own at Welter but seldom do they remain top class any higher than that, and likewise most elite Welters have shown that they're capable at Middleweight while only a slither can be effective north of there), you begin to see the difference. Many of Duran's defeats in those big fights (Benitez, Hearns, Hagler etc) fell outside of his parameters, whereas Hearns' (Leonard I, Hagler, Barkley) fell within them.

Above 147 and 160 respectively, both Duran and Hearns saw their performances and wins drop and become more patchy, but at both Lightweight and Welterweight Duran was a lineal / Ring Magazine champion, whereas Tommy never quite managed this at either Welterweight or Middleweight.

Yes but you pointed out Hearns superfight credentials...........

One may counter by saying Duran...dejesus aside fought crud  at his time at lightweight...

you put a lot of emphasis on staying at a weight...I don't unless it's buzzing

But fairplay..............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Some fight that would have been....Not sure is the answer.

Haito would know.

tried to find the answer but in the meantime found what could be an interesting video. not sure if it has been posted before but it ia s kronk exhibition match between Hearns and Gerald McClellanhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEQVMb8zkC8

Got rolled like a drunk in 3 rounds by Hagler. Hardly the stuff of legends

67 is too low, but that's only in one published list, on the whole he is ranked highly by most fans. The only criticism that you can level at him is his lack of being 'the man' / decent title reign at any if his weights but he has a great record, fought great fighters in great fights, exceptionally talented and exciting.

In the book Four Kings which discusses Hearns, Hagler, Leonard and SRL there are a few interesting points made relating to this IMO

Hearns was meant to be the only man who ever really spookedDuran who seemed to be quite unnerved by him

I can't remember who said it but remarked if Hearns had the balance of Leonard he beats them all which shows he is a top top fighter

Great thread Truss! My favourite fighter of all time, though I confess to not a fraction of your knowledge of the great man. He also won the lightly regarded IBO and WBU crusierweight titles!

I think his Barkley losses count against him more than anything else as he had no place losing to that mug.

Had everything other than a chin......

Even the Duran biography by Christian Guidice says the same thing, CJB; basically that Duran also seemed to be unnerved and made to feel uncomfortable by Hearns' presence, even years before they fought and even when Tommy was just being himself, rather than trying to get inside Duran's head. According to Manny Steward, a couple of years before they even fought at some kind of event, Hearns came up behind Duran and gently tapped him on the shoulder to politely say hello with a smile on his face, and Duran seemed to jump out of his skin when he turned to find out it was Hearns. Apparently he looked as if he couldn't wait to get away.

A bit odd, considering that outside of the ring Hearns was a pretty amiable and bashful bloke, and Duran seemed to savour his run ins with the likes of Barkley and Moore before he fought them, both of whom went out to intimidate their opponents and cultivate a thug image far more than Tommy ever did - but for whatever reason Roberto definitely didn't feel himself whenever Hearns was about!

As a side note, what do we all think Tommy's best win was? I know a lot will plump for Duran because of the 'wow' factor, and his performance in destroying a fearsome hitter like Cuevas while aged only twenty-one was exceptional, too. His win against Benitez was a consumate performance on top of that.

But for me, it was beating Hill at the tail end of his title career. The reason it stands out to me is because it was a very unusual kind of Hearns victory, in the sense that rather than just being able to overpower and boss his man, he instead had to use his brain, some guile, call upon experience and show great powers of concentration, all things which many felt he wasn't capable of. Hill wasn't much of a puncher, but he was one of the fastest guns in the west - his speed had Hearns looking desperate early on. But the way Tommy slowly figured him out, started timing him and turned the fight around is great to watch.

Strongback wrote:Duran defeated such men as "Sugar" Ray Leonard, Carlos Palomino, Jose "Pipino" Cuevas, Iran Barkley, Davey Moore, Esteban DeJesus, Hiroshi Kobayashi, Ken Buchanan, Saoul Mamby and Edwin Viruet

Saoul Mamby, Viruet, Palomino, Moore..........are hardly special...

Cuevas was on his last legs..........Duran should be higher than Hearns but it's a poor argument..

Given your previous comments regarding the poor quality of  his opponents at LW, being 1-5 against the fab four, and your long held view of him having problems with slicksters, and losses to the ordinary Sims, Laing etc. I am suprised that you think the Duran should be rated higher than Hearns- Would like to hear your reasoning Truss.

People get the wrong idea about my views on Duran.....I don't think he's a top 10 p4per....

I don't believe anybody who gets completely hammered and outclassed whilst still capable should be in a top 10..........he was outclassed...

Buchanan....Leonard........Dejesus.......longevity..........

Deserves to be ahead of Tommy but below Ray.......

But Tommy had good longevity, and quality opponents that are a match for Buchanan, Leonard and DeJesus, and loses to Barkley are no worse than some on Duramns record. Prersonally would have Duran higher but could understandit if others disagreed.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Duran defeated such men as "Sugar" Ray Leonard, Carlos Palomino, Jose "Pipino" Cuevas, Iran Barkley, Davey Moore, Esteban DeJesus, Hiroshi Kobayashi, Ken Buchanan, Saoul Mamby and Edwin Viruet

Saoul Mamby, Viruet, Palomino, Moore..........are hardly special...

Cuevas was on his last legs..........Duran should be higher than Hearns but it's a poor argument..

Mamby - 5 defences of WBC belt 

Palomino - 8 defence of WBC belt

Moore - 3 defences of WBA


Your "hardly special" looks very decent to other peoples eyes.  Duran was beating up good world champions.

Geez...You're reaching Mate..........I saw all these guys..

Juan Coggi defended his belt on a number of occasions also..

Yeah I suppose they were handing out the WBC belts in lucky bags back then. 

No fool wins 6 or 9 title fights for the best belt.

Mamby was a good fighter, I've seen his fights, he was classy and hard as nails.

I said they weren't special..........Just leave it...

For me Hearns was a fantastic fighter may be underrated by the so called experts but not by me,prime Hearns in any era of boxing is a hard nights work for anyone.