Tommy Hearns & Carmen Basilio. Who else is licking their lips? What do you think, gents? They're scheduling this one for fifteen rounds, with a three-knockdown rule in effect.
I could think about this all day long --- I really could. I'll make with a trilogy. One fight is just too tight, & not decisive enough. Fight I: Hearns TKO6 Basilio (Basilio down twice in 1st, once in 6th) Scorecards: 49-44 (Hearns), 48-44 (Hearns), 49-43 (Hearns) Fight II: Basilio KO8 Hearns (Basilio down once in 3rd, Hearns down once in 8th) Scorecards: 66-65 (Hearns), 66-65 (Hearns), 65-65 (Even) Fight III: Basilio TKO12 Hearns (Hearns down three times in 12th) Scorecards: 106-102 (Basilio), 105-103 (Basilio), 106-102 (Basilio)
Ouch. I don't think this is an enjoyable night for Basillo. For all his physical strength and toughness, I just have a hard time seeing a relatively slow 5'6 man not shipping a hellstorm against Hearns. As sterling as Basillo's chin was, Hearns TKO 6.
I have to say..I love your passion for the sport. I also respect your knowledge of teh game and the fact that you don't get involved in petty squabbles on here. You're an asset to the forum. That said...Hearns beats Carmen every day of teh week and twice on sundays.... ::
An awful lot rests on how Basilio's chin responds to Hearns' power (because there is no doubt Hearns will land at some point, & probably sooner, rather than later). I'd hypothesise not well --- at least, in the beginning. Hearns knocks his socks off from the outset, & while Basilio survives round one of their first bout, he never truly recovers (& when you're talking about a cat as tough as Basilio, I can't pay Hearns any higher compliment), leading onto a stoppage loss for Basilio. I do think there's a very legitimate chance he adapts better to it with a little time. I mean, Robinson couldn't put Basilio away at Middleweight --- a division where he starched Gene Fullmer with a single punch. Even the most ardent Hearns fan would hesitate to argue Hearns could KO Fullmer at Middleweight at any point in a fight, & certainly not with just one of his vaunted rights. This speaks incredibly highly of Basilio's resilience & his jaw. IMO, Hearns gets him & shell-shocks him in their first fight, & hurts him at different points in fights II & III, but can't deal with Basilio's firestorm of activity & jarring bodywork.
Thanks. Admittedly, a lot would depend on Basilio's response to Hearns' power, which could be the defining issue. Can Basilio get past it? I wouldn't bet on it happening initially, but if he were to do so, I can't see Hearns doing anything more than out-pointing Basilio (handily, admittedly) for nine, ten or twelve rounds, but not lasting the full fifteen. He was just far too fragile. That's all if Basilio can survive, though. I think he showed at both Welter & Middle, he was tougher than tough, & harder than hard. Well, Joe Frazier did that & then some --- didn't help him much against George Foreman's punch, so...
I wouldn't think Basilio to be any less tough or durable than Hagler though, in his defense...even allowing for the weight. It is an awful big mountain for him to climb here, though. I guess I think a little more of him in the end than my fellow contributors.
I'd agree with that analysis, absolutely. The thing that leads me to come down on the negative in the pivotal question is that Hearns was just so damn expert at fighting tall that I think he'd be landing with everything but the kitchen sink and while taking very little in return. I don't think any welterweight would survive the type of 1 sided punishment I'd expect Basillo to take. Of course that the fight would be that one sided early simply because of Basillo's height is a pretty superficial analysis and one I'll readily admit to mainly basing on the Duran & Cuevas fights. Though also on the fact that Basillo's strength was so much as an infighter.
Hearns wins comfortably. Basilio is game and makes a fight out of it, but has no answer for Hearns' advantages in height, speed, reach, power and boxing skills. Basilio tries to force the fight, but he doesn't have the power to turn the fight in his favor. He will be one step behind Hearns for the majority of the fight and taking punishment most of the way. And Hearns was not fragile as myth would have it at 147. He lost once at that weight, while still on his feet, in the 14th round of a fight he was winning against one of the greatest fighters of all time. And Basilio doesn't bring anywhere the arsenal to the ring that Leonard did. Hearns by TKO 8. Basilio is still on his feet, but his face is a mess and too many clean shots from Hearns convince the ref to step in.
That is the key. I see Hearns just landing at will and Basilio not landing much in return and clinging to the vain hope that Hearns will just suddenly gas out, which is very unlikely if Basilio can't get close enough to work inside.
Not too far off how I see at least one of their fights --- but it's worth pointing out Basilio was a much more damaging fighter offensively than Leonard ever was, & on a similar level as a great fighter. Simply, his problem is getting to Hearns, which would be tougher for him than it was Leonard. Any other fighter in this position, I'd be hard-pressed to give a chance against someone like Hearns, but Basilio was, as I said, harder than even the hardest of men. If anyone could get through what he'd have to in this fight & still keep tickin'...
I just don't see Basilio having the skill set to get it done against Hearns. He was tough, but if they fought 10 times, Basilio wouldn't get any taller, faster, or harder punching and would take a beating each time. And I don't know that Basilio was a more damaging fighter offensively than Leonard. Leonard was an underrated puncher at 147 with a serious killer instinct. Basilio wasn't a one punch kinda fighter, he was an accumulation puncher who needed to be close to his opponent to win. I just don't see Basilio having the tools to get that done. Toughness only gets you so far. Now this doesn't mean that I think Basilio couldn't fight, but Hearns would be a REALLY bad matchup for him. To beat Hearns, you have to hurt him and then finish him, because if you go to the scorecards, you're probably gonna lose.
Hearns boxes Carmen, he doesnt go to war with him and he wins a decision You guys are way underrating Basilio's chin and his strength... he was as tough as anyone and he could hook all night if that's what it took... he took Ray Robinson's shots for 30 rounds... Tommy is not knocking him out
I thought that at first but I think Basilo's hatred of Robinson is what allowed him to will his way through the storms in those fights. I don't think that he has that reservoir of hate to draw on against Hearns. Plus his jarring physicality worked well against Robinson but I don't know if they'd be enough against Hearns' advantages at welterweight. This is true a styles make fights scenario and the cards are against Carmen. I don't think he gets Duran or Cuevas treatment but he'd probably have two massive swollen eyes and taking brutal punishment when the ref finally stops it. Hearns by tko in the middle rounds.
agredd a 100% I think that most people forget that Robionson was clearly on the way down when he lost to basillio, and that it was a robbery. I give him close to no chance versus hearns
Could say all the same things about Duran. If that fight had never happened 'Hearns KO2' would be an insane pick. I think it's roughly the fate of any dude 5'7 or below against Tommy. He just measures and uses that range so expertly, and it's not like Basillo had particularly quick feet or was as adept at getting inside as Duran. It's not a knock on Basillo's chin to say he'd get stopped here, just that there'd most likely be nukes rattling off his jaw.
Indeed he was. I dare say he hit harder than Trinidad after watching alot of his welterweight stuff again recently. Some of those KOs he scored were just sick.
Duran would never have seen fifteen with Robinson at Middleweight. Not once, let alone twice. Basilio was bigger & tougher.
agree completely Duran was GREATER, but he was a greater SMALLER fighter hearns is not doing that to him and I also object to the idea that Basilio's hatred of Robinson is what motivated him to fight that way... what did johnny Saxton ever do to Basilio? How about Tony DeMarco? he fought the same way against those guys he did against SRR
damn right... it wasnt until he ran into an uncommonly strong Middleweight in Gene Fullmer when he was nearing the end of the line that he truly took a beating and even then Fullmer had to go through hell to do that to him Fullmer would meet a similar fate against Dick Tiger, who may have been the strongest middleweight ever
I don't know about this. Basilio faced a 37 year old Robinson who was still dangerous, but not exactly prime anymore. I don't know that Basilio (or Fullmer or Pender) beats Robinson from before he retired. Think about it, does Fullmer go 2-1-1 against 29 & 30 year old Robinson? I just don't see it. Duran went 15 with a prime Hagler, who rates a little lower to most than Robinson among all time Middles, but IMO a better fighter from the time when he fought Duran than Robinson (who was only boxing again because his business ventures and show biz career had failed) was when he fought Basilio. Does Duran go the distance with a 37 year old Robinson? That wouldn't surprise me in the least.
