If Tommy Hearns had an iron chin, wouldnt he have been one of the most complete boxers ever?

Question

He would have been a beast and undefeated for a longer time than he was. Just the thought is scary.

Answer 1

People don't seem to realize physical strength against the stronger fighters would always play against him. Regardless of his chin, he'd still lose to a guy like Hagler the same way he lost to Barkley in the rematch.

Answer 2

Without doubt, Hearns would of been unbeatable if his chin was like Haglers. Tommy Hearns still goes down as one of my top ten of alltime favourites some of the demolition jobs he done on fighters were absolutely out of this world but i still think its hard not to think of those 3 fighters doing a number on him. Hagler was understandable he just had a better chin, but Tommy had Leonard without doubt in both fights but in the one his chin let him down badly and it still baffles me to this day that a fighter like Barkley can have a much better fighter like Tommys number.

Still often hear in boxing forums that if the big 4 of that era (Hagler, Leonard, Hearns and Duran) had there best assets thrown together then that is how we would get the most compete boxer ever.

Also great answer Galactus.

Answer 3

Thomas Hearns despite not having an iron chin, was still one of the most complete fighters in boxing history.  He could box, had a great jab and of course great punching power.  A lot of times his spindly legs let him down to go with not having an iron chin.  They would get wobbly after getting hit with a good shot.  He had kind of a freakish build particularly at welterweight having a light heavyweight upper body, and a lightweights legs behind a tall frame.  Also sometimes I believe that his stamina let him down somewhat late in fights.  Yes if he would have had an iron chin and the legs to support him, he may have never lost a fight.  He was a great fighter anyway and I would have him in my top 10 complete boxers list despite all else.

Answer 4

That's an interesting question.  Excluding his 4 most publicized losses, Leonard, Hagler and the two losses to Barkley, it's a bit easier to assess Tommy's place.

He's certainly  a better boxer than Barkley and would have beaten him had it not been for the fact that his chin failed him against the relentless attack of Barkley.  When they fought at 160 Iran caught Tommy in the 3rd.  At 175 he decisioned Hearns.   Tommy's chin held up a bit better at 175 and he would have won on points if not for the knockdown.

Against Leonard it wasn't just Tommy's chin that let him down.  His other weakness, which others were not always able to exploit, was his body.  Leonard found that out in round 6 of their fight in 81.  Tommy's chin wasn't the problem there.  It was more the fact that he killed himself making weight and, on top of that, he over-trained, coming in as 145.5, MUCH too light for his 6'1" frame.   Leonard was wise not to give Hearns a rematch at 154, Tommy's best weight.  

With all due respect to Marvin Hagler, this is the one fight Tommy would have won if not for his chin.  Hagler was wise to engage Tommy as he did.  He won in the only way he could.  This is how you MUST beat Tommy Hearns.  

NO ONE, OUT-BOXES Thomas Hearns, not even master boxer Leonard.  You HAVE to take him out if you want to beat him.  Hearns lost on points to Barkley but NOT because Barkley out-boxed him.  He overpowered him and scored a knockdown.  

Hagler was able to take Tommy's best punch and FIGHT him.  THAT is how you must beat Hearns.  If he had a chin like Marvin Hagler's, Hearns would certainly have remained undefeated until age caught up with him.  

Answer 5

would have been better than sugar ray robinson

Answer 6

might be

Answer 7

yes with out a doubt,he had everything else in bundles if he had a great chin he probably would have been the greatest boxer in any weight to ever step in a ring it would have been amazing to see