Is Hearns the best boxer-puncher of all time?

spacetime

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
11,863
Reaction score
320
There are others listed who I don't agree are boxer punchers like Sugar Ray Leonard, who if defined as a boxer-puncher, obviously would rank above Hearns. But I don't agree that SRL is a boxer-puncher.

The definition of a boxer-puncher is an individual with both slugger type power and formal boxing abilities intertwined.

The only other one I can think of close to Hearns is Lennox Lewis. But his jab wasn't as good and consistent as Hearn's IMO
 
Last edited:
Sugar Ray Leonard seemed to get the better of the judges when matches were close. He could have easily lost to Hearns and arguably to hagler, making his legacy quite different than what it became, and made Hearn's legacy a lot better.
 
Joe Louis and Ray Robinson would disagree.
Yeah I would vote for both of them over Hearns. Look what happened to Hearns when he tried to duke it out with Hagler.
 
Yeah I would vote for both of them over Hearns. Look what happened to Hearns when he tried to duke it out with Hagler.

That was one fight. Hearns later revealed that he had no other choice than to duke it out with Hagler due to an injury or desease. Joe Louis did not punch on the same power level as Hearns, and I certainly don't think his boxing abilities were better.
 
Sugar Ray Leonard had at most entry level slugger power. Same with Louis. Hearns was on the higher end of the spectrum of slugger power.


don't get me wrong...I love me some Hearns….but SRL knew how to mix it up and "brawl" when he needed to.
 
don't get me wrong...I love me some Hearns….but SRL knew how to mix it up and "brawl" when he needed to.

For sure. But he did not possess all-time great power in his right hand like Hearns. Hearns was more complete. He also outboxed Sugar Ray in their first fight IMO... There was no place to go to.. Hearns was the most complete fighter ever IMO.
 
For sure. But he did not possess all-time great power in his right hand like Hearns. Hearns was more complete. He also outboxed Sugar Ray in their first fight IMO... There was no place to go to.. Hearns was the most complete fighter ever IMO.

Hearns was a marvel to watch....his first round vs Hagler...wow. even after breaking his hand, he was throwing.

true warrior
 
Hearns was a marvel to watch....his first round vs Hagler...wow. even after breaking his hand, he was throwing.

true warrior

And he didn't need to brawl with Hagler.. Being a boxer puncher means that you have strong abilities in either way of fighting. You don't have the be the very best in both. He was so strong in either one that chances are that if he wasn't the stronger brawler, he was the better boxer. That's why he is nr 1 to me..
 
Sonny Liston was better than Hearns.
 
Well, he certainly had all the tools. Everyone always recalls his big KOs but he was a master technical boxer too.

If not for the fact that he had a mediocre chin, he would have been close to perfect.
 
For sure. But he did not possess all-time great power in his right hand like Hearns. Hearns was more complete. He also outboxed Sugar Ray in their first fight IMO... There was no place to go to.. Hearns was the most complete fighter ever IMO.
How can he be more complete when his chin was average? Ray was having trouble with Tommy's range but that fight ebbed and flowed, Ray nearly had him out of there a few rds before the KO.
 
Well, he certainly had all the tools. Everyone always recalls his big KOs but he was a master technical boxer too.

If not for the fact that he had a mediocre chin, he would have been close to perfect.

yea, prior to be KO'd by Iran Barkley, he was picking him apart, and he was past his prime at that point.

Hearns was a phenomenal fighter
 
Back
Top