Gallup: Which fighter from the history is to you...

I have seen a good bit of McCallum at 154. The guy was a great fighter. Still, I don't see him outboxing Hearns. he would have to be agressive and go to the body. Wear Hearns out and KO him late. Easier said than done though to come after Hearns.

 

agREED. Good post. I would take McCallum over Benitez or Duran, but not Leonard or Hearns.

 

Guys who are "impossible top outbox" don't have a handful of KO losses on their record. One of the greatest myth's that the sport ever saw; "Hearn's is unboxable"

Right.

 

a) The most talented everFinito
b) Your personal favorite for whatever reason?Morales
c) The most exciting ever?Tyson
d) Not so great fighter that you supported keenly?Forrest
e) The most gutsy ever?Morales
f) A fighter you couldn't stand?Lewis and most heavys
g) Your current favorite?Mayweather
h) A fighter with the best hairstyle?Hagler
________
Bondage Cam

 

You mean Chavez. :warning:

 

Hearns WAS "UNboxable"...

What Fuuuuurther PROOF Do U Need Other than Ray Leonard & Wilfred Benitez, 2 CONSUMMATE "Boxers"???:dunno: ...

Ray Leonard THREW Caution (& his Left Eye) to the Wind & BOLDLY Walked Hearns Down, 2 KO him...Benitez WASN'T Willing (or Capable)of Doing So & he LOST...

Shit, Throw Virgil Hill N the Mix if U Wish, Cause he WASN'T a BAD "Boxer" Himself, yet he COULDN'T So Shit w/an OLD Tommy Hearns...

Look @ EVERY MEANINGFUL Loss Hearns Had & it's a Result of him Getting BOMBED Out...Leonard, Hagler, Barkley, etc...ALL of those Guys ENDURED PUNISHMENT to Beat Tommy Hearns...Ditto for Guys who ALMOST Beat Hearns like James Kinchen & Juan Roldan...

NOBODY Ever Walked N a Ring w/Tommy Hearns, "OutSlicked" Him & Walked Out UNscathed...

NOBODY Ever OUTJABBED Hearns or Used Defense, Movement & Counterpunching to BEAT him...U HAD to Say "Fuck It" & KNOCK his Ass Out to Beat Him...

REED

 

Ron Probably GREW UP Liking Chavez, but N his ADULT Life, Erik Morales is/was his Guy....


REED

 

Reed, email me have a question

 

Therein lieth the problem. You consider "boxing" and align it with "slickness". M cCallum was a better boxer than hearns ever was. What Tommy had was speed, power, range and a jab. McCallum had him beat HANDS DOWN in the skills department.

I say again, guys who are "perfect" boxers, don't get knocked out a bunch of times. If they were that good, you'd never get inside in the first place, never leave an opening, never eat anything flush....never see a ten count.

Hearns was difficult to outpoint. Very true. But outbox? There proof is right there. It's was done to Tommy a few times throughout his career.

 

Personally I think stepping right to a fighter and forcing him into your game like Hagler did, like Barkley did, consitutes out-boxing them. In other words, Hagler, Leonard, Barkley utilized their boxing skill to best the skills Hearns had to offer.

When you take away your opponents strengths and beat him with yours, to me that constitutes out-boxing them.

Nevertheless, if you're looking for evidence that Hearns could be outpointed over 12 rounds without being knocked out, check out the 2nd fight with Barkley. Barkley was busier, walked through Hearn's jabs, and landed more shots. It wasn't pretty, but Barkley used his skill to best Hearn's skill over 12 rounds.

And really that's my logic with McCallum. I don't think McCallum could have danced his way to a decision over Donald Curry either. But guess what? He used his skills to be in position and on-balance to time a beautiful left hook and put Curry to sleep. How does that NOT qualify as out-boxing?

Over a 15 round fight there is no way I see Hearns standing up to McCallum. Hell, he couldn't stand up for 15 rounds versus Leonard and Ray didn't have near the draining and damaging attack that McCallum owned. McCallum was an absolutely master of wear

Once again it is unfair to diminish McCallum's ability to punish and stop guys at 154 pounds. McCallum stopped all 10 opponents he faced while holding the 154 pound title. Hearns only stopped half the guys he faced at 154. Show me someone that Hearns went the distance with that had a record of stopping fighters like McCallum. Don't bother looking, because he didn't.

 

I agree completely. Another thing that has happend with the advent of the internet, is that some long held terms (not just P4P) but things like this - out boxing - have become linear and developed their own meta-narrative. As such, does anyone actually know what it means anymore? Can you find 20 people that will agree? I doubt that.

I'll ignore the rest of the post, because that is something that could take years off of your life...hehe something you should already know about.

 

I grew up watching Chavez on TV and on tape...I lived through Morales' career in person and anticipated his fights and attended many and most of his mega-bouts
________
Suzuki Fronte

 

I can see you point, but i don't think just beating someone automatically constitutes "outboxing" them.

Of course ever fighter has their own set of strengths they have to utilize against an opponent in order to win. What if you took a pro football linebacker who never boxed in his life. Put him in against professional a straw weight fighter. He walks all over the little guy. Would you say he "outboxed" him even though he doesn't know a thing about the sport just because he used his advantages to win?

 

Well, I thought we could assume that, in boxing, weight classes eliminate the ability of one guy to win just because he's so much bigger...

But in sticking exactly with the point of this specific debate, Leonard didn't just bluntly over-power Hearns, Hagler didn't just bluntly over-power Hearns, and Barkley didn't just bluntly over-power Hearns.

Each of these guys used their own skill sets and abilities in a boxing environment to beat Hearns.

If you can't appreciate the boxing skill that Hagler used (crowding Hearns, smothering his shots while being on-balance to deliver his own and not allowing Tommy to have punching room) then I guess boxing skill, in your mind, is limited to the Benny Leonard type slickness.

For me, the perfect example of this rationale has always been Mike Tyson. You could say that he simply destroyed guys with his punching power. But what about the boxing skill like his constant head movement, his jab timing, his balance that allowed him to throw 3 or 4 punch combinations with power, or ability to cut off the ring?

To me, those things don't happen by accident. They are definitely boxing skills that help a guy win.

 

What's your Email Addy???

Better Yet...

reedbtwnthelines@yahoo.com


REED

 

Again, i'm not completely disagreeing with your point. I brought up the example of the much bigger guy against the smaller one to illustrate my point. Outboxing someone has more to do than just beating your opponent.

I'm not saying that boxing skill is limited to "Benny Leonard type slickness".

Your Tyson example is a good one. The ability to cut off the ring, use head movement and so on to get inside to land power shots requires a lot of skill. Having punching power alone doesn't cut it.

You brought Barkley-Hearns in your first post. I think it's accurate to point at the rematch of someone using their abilities to win.

However let's look at the first fight. Hearns was completely dominating the fight and making Iran look like an amateur. Jabs, combinations, body shots etc. Barkley was busted up and very close to getting stopped. He landed a hail mary KO and stopped Tommy.

I assume you wouldn't consider that as Barkley "outboxing" Hearns. (again i concede on the rematch)

I guess it's coming down to semantics at this point. As any fan knows there are guys that are considered "sluggers", "swarmers", "boxers" or even "pure" boxers. (and many other terms)

For example a guy like Juan Manuel Marquez is considered a "boxer" but nobody calls him a "slickster" either. Why?

When you hear a guy in a corner instructing his man to "box" his opponent what does he mean?