Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hearns was a freakishly big welterweight?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    #1

    Hearns was a freakishly big welterweight?

    I'd say he's the biggest welterweight i've ever seen, but some posters disagree and see him as paper thin and delicate at 147..

    What do you think?
    34
    He was freakishly big at 147
    97.06%
    33
    He was thin and delicate at 147
    2.94%
    1

    The poll is expired.

    Tags: None
    #2
    Originally posted by mickey malone View Post
    I'd say he's the biggest welterweight i've ever seen, but some posters disagree and see him as paper thin and delicate at 147..

    What do you think?
    yeah he had huge shoulders and back

    Comment

      #3
      Originally posted by Joey Giardello View Post
      yeah he had huge shoulders and back

      He was also 6'1" with a 78" reach.

      Comment

        #4
        He was friggin huge.

        Comment

          #5
          Paul Williams looks bigger

          Comment

            #6
            Originally posted by Castor_Troy View Post
            Paul Williams looks bigger
            He probably is. But could he have made weight and been effective in the days of same day weigh ins?

            Comment

              #7
              Originally posted by JAB5239 View Post
              He probably is. But could he have made weight and been effective in the days of same day weigh ins?
              I dont think so.

              in terms of size alone Paul Williams definately is bigger but Thomas is more effective at the higher weights as of date. His power comes along wherever he goes too.

              Comment

                #8
                Originally posted by mickey malone View Post
                I'd say he's the biggest welterweight i've ever seen, but some posters disagree and see him as paper thin and delicate at 147..

                What do you think?
                I am almost finished reading his biography written by Brian Hughes. Malone, you should read it. I recommend it for all fans of both the sport and Hearns.

                Comment

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Castor_Troy View Post
                  I dont think so.

                  in terms of size alone Paul Williams definately is bigger but Thomas is more effective at the higher weights as of date. His power comes along wherever he goes too.
                  The only other fighters I can think of who remotely fit the bill at 147 would be Mark Breland, Maurice Blocker and Milton McCrory who were arguably on the delicate side and nowhere near as effective as Hearns.. As pointed out by Joey Giardello in the 1st post, Hearns had back and shoulders, not at all condusive to a beanpole.

                  Comment

                    #10
                    Originally posted by 1SILVA View Post
                    I am almost finished reading his biography written by Brian Hughes. Malone, you should read it. I recommend it for all fans of both the sport and Hearns.
                    Cheers, I'll make sure i pick it up..

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP