who has a better resume emile griffth or tommy hearns?

[rightsideup]

lets hear your thought on there resume. Also throw out your head to head prediction at both ww and mw.

[BennyST]

Griffith. He's got one of the greatest, and in my opinion underrated, resumes of all time. Hearns' is amazing too, but Griffith's is truly staggering.

You could make a case for Hearns, based on Cuevas at 147, Duran at 154, Benitez at 154, Roldan, Andries and Hill at 160 to 175....should also have Leonard. That's incredible.

But, Griffith has Luis Rodriguez, Paret, Ortega, Dupas, Moyer, Fullmer, Archer, Fernandez, **** Tiger, Nino Ben, Briscoe, and more. Outstanding.

None quite as good as Duran, but it was a past prime, 5'7" 154 Duran in comparison to a prime 6'2" Hearns.

[IronDanHamza]

Emile Griffith.

[Salardo]

Emile Griffith. Without going on boxrec and dissecting it, just from how I see both fighters, I have to say Griffith.

[Panamaniac]

Without checking boxrec and all else being equal or close, given my bias for power (KO/TKO), I'd give the edge to the guy with more of it. I'm guessing that's Tommy.

I could be wrong.

[wmute]

Griffith has the better resume. I would pick Griffith at 147, and maybe Hearns at 160.

[Ray Corso]

Emiles record is better, not by alot but he has some oustanding competition. I remember routing against him alot but he disappointed me often!! HA! Ray

[SBleeder]

Without checking boxrec and all else being equal or close, given my bias for power (KO/TKO), I'd give the edge to the guy with more of it. I'm guessing that's Tommy.

I could be wrong.

What does that have to do with whose resume is better?

Anyways, Griffith is clearly a notch above Hearns in my book. Head to head, I'd have to go with Griffith to take a 15 rd. decision as well.

[greynotsoold]

A very close friend of mine sparred extensively with Griffith. We have talked about him at length and share the opinion that he would beat Hearns at 147.

[Panamaniac]

Without checking boxrec and all else being equal or close, given my bias for power (KO/TKO), I'd give the edge to the guy with more of it. I'm guessing that's Tommy.

I could be wrong.

What does that have to do with whose resume is better?

Well, let me break it down for you in elementary terms: Boxer A has 50 wins and 2 losses with 25 KO's, Boxer B has 50 wins and 2 losses with 48 KO's. Because I place a high(er) premium on power, while both fighters share the same W/L record, I rank Boxer B's résumé above that of Boxer A, by virtue of the better KO record.