Tommy Hearns was sadly underrated...

[Mintcar923]

Perhaps that's because he got KTFO by the two who are usually at the top of the list?

Those two fights could have gone either way. And many believe the first Leonard-Hearns was stopped way too soon considering the see-saw match they had been having up to that point. Tommy came very close to stopping Ray in the rematch. Maybe with a different ref such as Richard Steele or whatever, the fight would have been stopped in the 11th with Hearns winning a TKO.

Another point, you really can't judge a boxer on one fight or even two. Example, Bernard Hopkins, Mike Tyson, Marvin Hagler, and many others in the "Great" category had suffered losses to considerablly lesser fighters but that didn't deter their reputation much. And it certainly did not put their rivals on a higher plateau than them in boxing history.

[Rockin']

Granted, Hearns wasn't perfect as he lost a couple fights he should have won. He employed the wrong strategy in the Hagler fight.

Hearns' legs were not right in the Hagler fight. If you look his legs looked strangely shakey while rollin' the ring with Hagler. Somebody rubbed Hearns' legs down just minutes before the fight, Steward was said to have wanted blood when he found out.

I got to see him win his lightheavy title against Andries live at the Palace, that was cool.

Thomas Hearns is a Detroit hero
, a super man with some extraordinary skills. I was able to see his earlier bouts on local television and clips on the news being from Detroit.

One of the best jabs through time, a righthand that no man wants to be hit with and a heart that only the Detroit boxing community can raise. More so what kind of heart a Kronk boxing community can raise, in the ring they are viscious. And man I still love watching Tommy lean over and dig that wicked left hook into his opponents ribs. His gracefull use of the ring, Tommy was great!

Nobody is perfect, and Thomas Hearns is no exception. But having said that I must also say that if there was one fighter that I would ever like to be like it would be Thomas Hearns. Scary height, an even scarier right hand, beautiful movement with an awsome jab. I would definately dig that...........Rockin'

[StarshipTrooper]

Those two fights could have gone either way. And many believe the first Leonard-Hearns was stopped way too soon considering the see-saw match they had been having up to that point. Tommy came very close to stopping Ray in the rematch. Maybe with a different ref such as Richard Steele or whatever, the fight would have been stopped in the 11th with Hearns winning a TKO.

Another point, you really can't judge a boxer on one fight or even two. Example, Bernard Hopkins, Mike Tyson, Marvin Hagler, and many others in the "Great" category had suffered losses to considerablly lesser fighters but that didn't deter their reputation much. And it certainly did not put their rivals on a higher plateau than them in boxing history.

There was nothing wrong with the stoppage in the first Leonard fight: Hearns was helpless on the ropes and sponged about 20 unanswered punches. Even with a permissive ref that gets you stopped 99% of the time.

I have yet to see an occasion when a fighter goes 0-2-1 against his two biggest rivals in his prime but gets ranked higher then them p4p unless he's a naturally smaller guy who made his bones in a lower weight class.

This isn't to knock Hearns who was an obviously great fighter.....but there's a reason why Leonard and Hagler get ranked higher historically and that's because he proved to be the lesser great when it mattered: When he faced them.

Poet

[Boxing Bob]

I always maintain if Tommy would have had a good chin rather than just average, he would be recognized as the best fighter who ever lived

[Sugarj]

Perhaps I may have been a bit misunderstood. I suppose I should have been a little more elaborate in my post about Tommy being underrated. What I really meant was that many alleged experts seem as though they rate him somewhere at the bottom of the Fab-Four of the '80's. Some may suggest placing him at 3 or 4.

Although, it is a matter of opinion and many would agree it would be possible for any of them to score a win over the other on any given night.. SRL was a damn great fighter in his prime as were the others. I just say Tommy was the most talented and had the best style IMO. The man was so diverse. I understand what you are saying about Ray's inactivity and I agree it did play a part on him losing the way he did. But, he had no-one to blame but himself. Tommy was just more dedicated thus wanting to stay more active. And unlike some, he never had the reputation for ducking anyone who called him out. I don't say it's not possible he'd have lost to the excellent Terry Norris. We can only assume what would happen. But, I just can't see him losing to a Camacho even if he had 10 years of inactivity!

Camacho was still world class in 1997. Hearns wasn't. If Hearns had to boil down to middleweight at that point in his career he'd have been beaten by Camacho too.

But I agree about what you say about Hearns being possibly the most talented of the 4. Its very possible. Sadly, he did have the worst chin of the four which quite honestly did let him down a few times.....and he often fought without respect for the fact that his punch resistance wasn't stellar. His gameplan against Hagler was suicidal. I can't believe Manny Steward was behind that strategy.

With a chin of Hagler's calibur he would have likely decisioned Leonard and possibly even outpointed Marvin himself. Great fighter, I guess you can't have every attribute.

[Sugarj]

Those two fights could have gone either way. And many believe the first Leonard-Hearns was stopped way too soon considering the see-saw match they had been having up to that point. Tommy came very close to stopping Ray in the rematch. Maybe with a different ref such as Richard Steele or whatever, the fight would have been stopped in the 11th with Hearns winning a TKO.

Another point, you really can't judge a boxer on one fight or even two. Example, Bernard Hopkins, Mike Tyson, Marvin Hagler, and many others in the "Great" category had suffered losses to considerablly lesser fighters but that didn't deter their reputation much. And it certainly did not put their rivals on a higher plateau than them in boxing history.

A ref like Richard Steele might have jumped in awarding Leonard a TKO win in rounds 5 and 12 of the rematch. Even Hearn's fans have to admit that he did look on the brink.

Even after Leonard was dropped with that sickening combination the fight didn't look close to being stopped (granted that many wouldn't even try to rise after those rights). But Leonard wasn't staggering around when the fight resumed.

Oh and see what I've marked in bold. You judged Leonard on Norris and Camacho.

[Daddy T]

Well as Emanuel Steward once said when talking about fighters hes trained and ATGs etc "nobody and thats NOBODY outboxes Tommy Hearns."

His chin though not diamond, wasn't 'weak' as some people claim, he had massive power and like steward said whatever about fighting toe to toe and gettting dragged into a war (like he did with hagler and at points in leonard I - who he was outboxing early on) when it comes to boxing I can't think of anybody that would be sure to get the better of him.

[Sugarj]

Well as Emanuel Steward once said when talking about fighters hes trained and ATGs etc "nobody and thats NOBODY outboxes Tommy Hearns."

His chin though not diamond, wasn't 'weak' as some people claim, he had massive power and like steward said whatever about fighting toe to toe and gettting dragged into a war (like he did with hagler and at points in leonard I - who he was outboxing early on) when it comes to boxing I can't think of anybody that would be sure to get the better of him.

Probably right. Especially at welterweight. Robinson and Mayweather would certainly have trouble outboxing prime welterweight Hearns.

[Ray Corso]

I remember Tommy as a JO in the ABF and he towered over all the kids at 139lbs. He dropped straight right hands behind a very long jab and was extremely difficult to fight. The problem Toomy had as he began to fight good fighters was he could fall into the trap of "fighting" instead of boxing. He also could be bullied into the ropes and knew thats where his height advantage was negated. The other issue was his length of legs and their size, I believe that tall fighters that get hit with real power take longer to recoup then shorter thicker legged fighters. He was very thin and fighting at a weight (147) that simply wasn't enough pounds to be able to handle big shots. Thats what happened when Dundee told Leonard he needed to fight and not box and Tommy fell into the fight mode and went to the ropes and got caught and couldn't recover.
As far as under appreciated I can't recall anyone saying Hearns was over rated he fought hard in all his fights, he came to win and never offered excusses in defeat. He won more than he lost and bagged a few titles and alot of money too!
I believe that Mayweather would have his worst nightmare with Tommy in front of him. He couldn't go to the ropes or counter facing Hearns, he'd have to fight!! That would be fun to see!
Tommy and Leonard should have fought once a year for 5 years and they would be entertaining bouts.
Tommy was tuff to out box because of his size not so much skills. He did fall into traps pretty easily and thats how he was defeated most times. Hagler wasn't gonna box around with a long legged long armed guy who could hurt you with that right hand so he took it to Tommy and Tommy was willing to trade. He lost by being out smarted by a veteran Philly warrior. No shame in it but thats what happened.
Theres alot of better boxers in boxing than Hearns. Tommy didn't have ALL the punches and combinations in his rep. but he did have a good jab and a straight right hand that could say good nite!!! Didn't punch the body really well, couldn't box inside at all (most Kronk guys can't) he had a decent hook but rarely was in position to throw it. I think hes a top twenty Welter and a top one hundred fighter but not an all time great. My opinions go back to the beginning of 1900s and thats alot of fighters to choose from. I personally like Tommy because of his attitude and heart but theres others with better over all skills. Ray.

[JAB5239]

Tommy didn't have ALL the punches and combinations in his rep. but he did have a good jab and a straight right hand that could say good nite!!! Didn't punch the body really well, couldn't box inside at all (most Kronk guys can't) he had a decent hook but rarely was in position to throw it.

Ray.

Hearns was a vicious body puncher. It wasn't his forte, but he was excellent at it when he wanted to be.