Better pound for pound all time: Ocscar De La Hoya or Thomas "Hitman" Hearns?

Question

Better pound for pound all time: Ocscar De La Hoya or Thomas "Hitman" Hearns?

Answer 1

Close, but I think Hearns takes it by a notch.

Answer 2

good question johnny:

hearns won titles in 5 divisions (6 if you include the wbu cruiser strap), and de la hoya also won 5, and at 34, almost beat mayweather,who is considered the best around today.

because of hearns fights with leonard, hagler and a surprise win over virgil hill to win his second light heavy title, i will go for the hit man as the better pound for pound fighter.

Answer 3

Hearn's boxing skill are easily overlooked due to his incredible power. He out boxed Leonard for a lot of their first fight. His achillies heal was chin. He had the most powerful right hand in the history of the welterweight division.

I think about the De La Hoya vs Trinidad fight as a measuring stick. Oscar was out pointing the stronger but slower Trinidad, that would be far more difficult against the longer, taller and quicker Hearns. Oscar lost that fight because he ran away from Felix in the last two rounds. Hearns was far more explosive than Trinidad. I think Oscar would have ran most of the fight or get KO's as he did against Hopkins.

Hearns was better.

Answer 4

Hearns is better all time p4p......

De La Hoya has a great resume of "really good wins", he might have even more of this type of wins than Hearns himself does, BUT Oscar  lacks the great elite level wins that Hearns has, where he fought other men who will go down as all time p4p candidates.  Hearns has wins over Wilfred Benitez, and Roberto Duran that De La Hoya just cant match.  Add to this Hearns excellent showing against Ray Leonard, before he got TKO'd late and you have a nice top level resume.  Then you add in his really good - great level opponents and he  has a better resume than DLH.

Answer 5

hearns all the way. hearns has fought alot better competition. every big fight oscar fought in he lost. he lost to trinidad, lost to shane mosley twice, he lost to bernard hopkins, and floyd money mayweather. De la hoya beat lesser boxers when he had the chance but when he boxed great boxers he never was able to win the big fight. He is very over rated in my opinion. Espn even rated him as one of the most over rated boxers of his era.

Tommy Hearns on the other hand is a legend. A 7 time world champion and even won the cruiserweight title. De La Hoya will not be around at the age of 40. His last fight in 2006 he was 54 years old and he won the fight. Hearns is far superior to De la Hoya as best pund for pound boxer.

Answer 6

Two all-time greats, its very difficult to break this question down by comparing wins and losses, both had mixed results against all of the best fighters out there (two of the best resumes in boxing history) - I think Oscar's style makes him better suited to take on a larger range of elite fighters; but Hearns was more dynamic.

I'd give the edge in pure boxing ability to De la Hoya, he is underrated as a boxer (and probably a little overrated as a puncher) - Hearns was a bigger puncher, and maybe had a bit more speed.

Pound for pound I'd have to give a slight edge to Hearns, I think his legendary power and size put him ahead of Oscar.  I'd probably have these two guys right next to each other on my list.

Answer 7

De La Hoya will probably the first to tell you that Hearns is better, Hearns is considered one of the greatest all time boxers , he is part of that elite group that consists Hagler,Leonard,Benitez and Duran, one of the hardest hitters to ever step into the ring, he was a seven time world champion in different weight classes and was part of some of the greatest fights in the history of boxing (the war with Hagler and the fights with leonard and duran) De La Hoya has some really great wins but he lost against most of the great boxers he faced, he practically outpointed Trinidad but ruined his chances by wasting the last rounds running without fighting much, he lost against Mosley and got clearly outboxed by Mayweather jr (if you watch the fight you will see that he was not landing that many punches while mayweather always landed his) many people feel he is over rated and there is no doubt in my mind that he would get Knocked out by Hearns if they had ever fought in their primes, Hearns is the greater boxer,there is no comparison

Answer 8

That's a very good question.  Up front I will say that Hearns is the better P4P fighter.  However it might depend on how you view it because there are also strong arguments in Oscar's favor.  

It's like comparing Lennox Lewis to Rocky Marciano.  Marciano usually ranks higher in terms of "Over all Historical Impact".  However, anyone who thinks Marciano would actually beat Lewis IN THE RING is just not being realistic.  

People don't like to give Oscar credit but he has accomplished a great deal in boxing as has Hearns.  Others tend to rate Oscar based on his impact on the sport.  Like Hearn's contemporary, Sugar Ray Leonard, to whom Oscar is often compared, Oscar is the draw in boxing.  Some of Oscar's opponents (Trinidad, Quartey) were compared to Hearns because of the comparisons between De La Hoya and Leonard.  

People also make reference to the fact that Oscar didn't do well at middle weight where Hearns excelled.  They forget that Oscar started at 130.  Hearns, naturally bigger, started at 147 so they're about equal there.  

Both lost some major fights.  Forget the fights Hearns lost late in his career.  Hearns lost twice to Iran Barkley but do you hear anyone saying that Barkley is greater?  He lost to Hagler and Leonard.  He was robbed in the Leonard rematch and destroyed Duran and Curvas.  He also outboxed Benitez, no easy feat.  

Oscar lost to Mosley (twice), Hopkins and Mayweather.   By right he deserved the decision against Trinidad.  He had a close one against Whitaker, a gift.  

Overall, Oscar could give Hearns a good fight at 147.  He would do the same thing he did against Trinidad if they fought during the same time.  He waited until Tito struggled to make 147.  Tito, like Hearns, started there and killed himself to make weight at least 2 years before he actually moved up.  

He could never outbox Hearns.  Neither could anyone else.  To beat Hearns you have to KO him or simply BEAT HIM UP, like Barkley did.  If Hearns is still standing at the final bell, chances are you lost.  

After close review I have to say Hearns is the better overall fighter and would also win IN THE RING.   Oscar, however, possesses some of Hearns' weaknesses.  He would always have a chance to turn the fight in his favor.      

Hearns has the tools to keep Oscar off balance.  Also, Hearns' army is better than Oscar.  He lost to Leonard and Hagler who are slightly above the men who beat Oscar.

Answer 9

Thomas Hearns is a cut above Oscar in all respects, and historically he set the precedent began by Henry Armstrong.  Armstrong was the first three division champion in boxing history.  Hearns took it three steps higher than Armstrong and won titles from 147lbs through154, 160, 168,175,  200 to become boxing's first six division champion.  Tommy's list of career accomplishments surpasses 98% of current Hall of Fame inductees, and without a doubt Hearns eclipses DeLa Hoya in all comparisons.

Answer 10

I would probably say Hearns was the better P4P fighter. He was pulling it out the bag at Light Heavy when he was past it. Another reason for my selection was that Oscar was given his fight against Felix Sturm at Middle.

I would say Hearns had the bigger fights, against Leonard, Hagler Duran and Benitez, and because of this legacy most people would put him ahead of DLH, pound 4 pound. But DLH had some massive fights as well, and was only stopped once (at 160), whereas in the first three fights that Hearns lost (1981 - Welter, 1985 - Middle, 1988 - Middle), he was halted early in all three. Worth bearing that in mind.

Answer 11

Sacrilege, bro.  Oscar never beat anyone besides a chewed up Vargas.  The Hitman made a career out of making world class opponents take a nap at a weight class that is not known for early KO power.

Answer 12

Let's put it this way.  Hearns at any weight class DeLaHoya ever fought at-DeLaHoya is KO'd every time.  Hearns was much better.  One of few fighters who carried his power along with him as he fought in the higher weight classes.

Answer 13

The Hitman comfortably. Even though he had a shaky chin, he was a great fighter in a great era. ODLH is a good fighter in a great era.