Is DLH our generation's Tommy Hearns? Evaluating DLH's place in history

[Colobo]

After watching DLH falling short in for the 5th time in a big, career defining fight, I couldn't help but wonder if he is our generation's Tommy Hearns, and to think what's his place in history in regard to the other "greats" of his time.

I don't mean to put DLH on the same level as Tommy, but to point out the similarities in terms of their careers. They both were very talented fighters whose place in history is based on having fought the best opposition available and having won a bunch of belts in different weight classes. Both of them have a couple of big fight wins on their records (Hearns against Cuevas, Benitez and Duran, DLH against Whitaker, Quartey & Vargas).

However, Hearns's two biggest, most important fights were against Leonard (1981) and Hagler (1985). Those were the fights that were suppossed to take Hearns to "the next level", and fights in which he truly had a good chance of winning. In DLH's case, he's had several of those, including his fights against Trinidad, Mosley I, Hopkins and Mayweather. In all of them (maybe except for the Hopkins fight), DLH was given a great chance to actually show "greatness" against a top tier opponent in his physical prime.

Both Hearns and DLH fell short on those fights. Hearns gave two great efforts, even being ahead of Leonard before the stoppage and giving Hagler the toughest round of his career (Round 1). Still, it was not enough and Tommy got KTFO in both accounts. DLH, in the other hand, was able to give good efforts in those 5 big fights, but he managed to lose them all. With Trinidad, fatigue set in and Oscar didn't show the heart or the determination to deal with Trinidad's pressure in the later rounds. With Mosley, he fought valiantly but got outworked by the smaller, tougher Mosley, and even in the rematch he wasn't able to dominate an older Mosley and got outpointed again- thanks to Mosley's constant pressure and bodywork.

Against Hopkins, what started being a good showing by DLH wound up being an example of Oscar's lack of mental toughness when, after getting hit by a good body shot by Hopkins, the man, instead of making an effort of getting up, starts spending energy rolling all over the canvas and pounding the mat violently, maybe to hide the fact that he was starting to get tagged by Hopkins and there was no point in getting up. Finally, he wasn't able to use his physical advantages effectively against the ultra-talented but much smaller Floyd Mayweather Jr. After a good start, fatigue and frustration set in and the fight escaped through his hands.

So, how can we evaluate Oscar de la Hoya, a man whose 5 losses came against the best of his time, but still were losses in his biggest fights? Is he our generation's "Tommy Hearns"?

[Awsi Dooger]

1. Both lacking, but in different ways

Hearns had distinct weaknesses -- spindly legs, poor chin and no ability to tie up. He was a beautiful offensive fighter who could overwhelm opponents who didn't matchup with his reach and speed and power.

With Tommy Hearns it was all about physical matchups. His career was defined in not defeating Leonard, who he matched up against very well. Leonard's great speed and athletic ability were all but neutralized by Hearns and Tommy had a big height and reach edge allowing him to dictate the vast majority of rounds in their two meetings. But he got caught with the big right hands in both meetings, losing those rounds badly and turning what could have been two wins into one devastating loss and one controversial draw that I thought Tommy won.

Frankly, I think Hearns could have fought Hagler 100 times and never won. That was a horrible matchup for him and I'm still amazed it was basically a pick'em fight, with Hagler only a tiny favorite. Hagler and his block head were never going to be knocked out by Hearns and Hearns' chin would give in eventually, whether it was the 3rd round or much later. I don't think it was a coincidence that Hagler fought more aggressively in a matchup like that. He had a tendency to be overly cautious, especially against Duran and Leonard, but against Tommy's offensive style he knew he couldn't afford that or he'd lose round after round to the jab. He knew Tommy was vulnerable so he walked forward without fear, getting through the artillery. I think a Hagler/Hearns fight would have been much more interesting if it had happened before Leonard/Hearns I. At that point it wasn't obvious Hearns had a weak chin and faltering legs. Hagler might have been overly cautious, at least until he tagged and wobbled Hearns.

With De La Hoya I always thought it was much more basic, that he was simply a slightly inferior athlete to the fighters he was asked to defeat in his biggest bouts. I really don't want to go much further than that. IMO, basic athletic ability is never emphasized enough in boxing. It is a sport requiring great technique and strategy but the trump card is often sheer talent. Roy Jones got away with some flawed fundamentals, and apparently hid a subpar chin for more than a decade, because he was such a freakish athlete.

Also, De La Hoya strangely and undeniably botched the strategy in several fights. Not merely last night. You described De La Hoya as getting fatigued and lacking heart and determination in the late rounds against Trinidad. I've watched that fight a half dozen times and it always looks like pure stupidity to me. Oscar thought he had it won and ran away the last three rounds. I don't see Trinidad doing much of anything other than inheriting those rounds when De La Hoya gladly forfeited them. It was fuzzy overconfident math in De La Hoya's mind and his corner, and it cost him maybe the biggest fight of his career.

[H2O Man]

2. I agree with most of

what you say here. Tommy was an offensive fighter, who actually had his knees buckled by a number of lesser fighters.

I think that Tommy was afraid of Haglar. That's one reason he tired out so quickly. The other was that he had broke his right hand when he landed the first hard punch of the fight.

He should not have fought Ray at welterweight. He was growing, and it drained him to make the weight. I will give Leonard a lot of credit for always being honest about losing the second fight; however, it lacked the significance of the first.

Hearns had other big fights. Cuevas was a tough man; watch his fight against Duran. Tommy butcher him .... and Duran, as well.

Oscar's record speaks for itself. He fought most of the top fighters of his era. Some were getting older -- but that is the nature of the sport. The only top guy he has refused to fight is Winky Wright. That may have been because a fight between them would not have sold well. As good as Winky is, I think Oscar would have decisioned him.

Against Tito, I think Oscar knew that he would risk being TKOed in the later rounds. That's what Tito's strength was -- the late rounds.

As fighters, both belong in the top ranks with the greatest champions in boxing's history. They could have fought well against the very best of any era, and beat most of them. But, with both, the very best would have to be favored.

The biggest difference between the two, in my opinion, was what Cus D'Amato called "a matter of character." It's how a man conducts his life, both inside and outside of that ring.

[Awsi Dooger]

3. Tommy was one of my all time favorite fighters

He also beat Benitez, by out boxing him as opposed to the devastating early knockouts of Cuevas and Duran.

I agree Tommy was always a class act. I hate to see him fighting so long, including last year. When I've seem him interviewed lately I've had to turn the channel since his speech seems somewhat slurred.

Admittedly it's a secondary reason, but I liked Tommy because I had a good feel for his fights from a betting standpoint. The only one I got wrong was the first Leonard fight, which I thought he would win. Otherwise there were many fights with contrasting styles but the ones I bet I was able to handicap correctly including the Virgil Hill fight and the rematch with Iran Barkley. I had a nice size bet on Tommy in the rematch with Leonard in '89, taking more than 2/1 odds. That really sucked walking away from that fight not only with Tommy robbed, but my wager a mere refund.

[H2O Man]

4. I didn't think

he matched up well with The Blade. My brother used to attend a lot of Hearns' fights, and thought he would have an easy fight (in the first one).

Leonard gave Manny and Tommy advice on how to fight Benitez. It remains one of his best fights, because it showed the skill he had when he wanted to outbox a skilled fighter. I love chess matches in the ring.

Below is Tommy training for a fight.

[TroubleMan]

5. You think De La Hoya would out-decision Winky Wright?

I'm curious as to why.

Just looking at their fights vs Trinidad and their fights vs Mosley, it would seem Wright would win. I don't know as much about boxing as you do, but I don't see Wright losing that. Are you thinking he might be too defensive, and thus loose the decision? From the way you guys describe De La Hoya's fight with Mayweather, I would guess that a fight with Wright would end up the same way. De La Hoya would throw a lot and miss a lot (or get his punches blocked), while Wright would throw a lot less punches, but he would punch with pinpoint accuracy.

[H2O Man]

6. Good questions.

One thing in boxing is that among top fighters, it doesn'y follow that if "A" beats "B," and "B" beats "C," that "A" would be favored to beat "C." For one historic example: Rubin "Hurricane" Carter beat Emile Griffith; Griffith beats Dick Tiger; and Tiger beats Carter. It was a matter of styles, rather than ability or size (Griffith was the smallest of the three, and twice beat Tiger, the biggest).

Winky is a very good fighter, and I have a great deal of respect for him. He certainly could have won a fight against Oscar when they were both at their best. But a couple things would have been in Oscar's favor. First, Winky tends to fight in Oscar's "range." Oscar can land punches on an opponent who is in front of him. Oscar does best with someone he can hit with more than one punch. Now, Winky has uncanny skills at blocking punches, but as Taylor showed, a fighter who puts a few together can get through.

Also, Winky has a good crisp punch, but he is not a powerful puncher. His strength is landing a steady pattern of accurate, well-timed punches. At the times he is throwing his punches, he is the most vulnerable to getting him. In his prime, De La Hoya had the ability to punch inside (between) another man's punches.

Some of the big names Oscar beat were a little past their primes when he fought them. But, that's boxing. Oscar still beat guys like Ike Quartey (2-13-99), who had a tight defense, and who had a lot more power than Winky. They fought a cautious fight, with a lot of great jabs by both warriors.When Oscar relaxed, he was able to deck the tough Quartey in the 12th with a heck of a left hook. It was enough to seal a split-decision victory for Oscar. (One card was 115-114 for Ike; the others were 116-114 and 116-112 for Oscar.)

Winky was always confident he could beat Oscar, and he would have had a good chance of winning. I would have wanted him to win. But because of styles, I would have given Oscar a little better chance.

Winky has a pretty tough fight coming up, against B-Hop. That should be interesting.

[TroubleMan]

7. Now that you mention range I thought Wright had a decent reach advantage.

However, I just looked it up and they're pretty much the same height and have the same reach. That changes how I see the fight a little. I see what you're saying, in that Wright doesn't actually dodge a lot, he mostly blocks punches, and that would make it different from facing a guy like Mayweather.

Still for some reason I see Wright winning a close decision - might just be bias on my part. Also, I'm giving a edge in the "intangibles" to Wright. In big fights Wright seems to win them, and Oscar seems to lose them (well...after the 90's ended he started losing the big fights).

[H2O Man]

10. Winky might

have won a fight with Oscar. Maybe in a close fight, or maybe in a fight with lots of close rounds that go Wright's way.

One of the worst things in boxing is when a good fighter gets "locked out" of fights against the top guys. And to a large extent, that happened to Winky. In part, it was due to his style -- we can see on DU that the casual fans do not always appreciate defensive skills. But it was also because of a couple of promoters, and because some of the top fighters didn't want to meet him.

Oscar has been a promoter and a boxer. He could have, and really should have, given Winky his opportunity years ago. When experts rank Oscar high in his era, it is largely because he "fought everybody." He lost all four of his "super fights," but had many outstanding wins over some of the very best of his era. For some reason or reasons, he avoided fighting Winky Wright, and the more Winky's fights are shown on tv, the more fight fans will question why Oscar refused his challenges.

[Awsi Dooger]

8. I would pick Winky

Like you, I was surprised when H20 Man suggested Oscar would defeat him, and I almost commented on it.

Winky would stick that relentless southpaw jab in Oscar's face all night. Winky is a tough customer who exceeds expectations in every major fight, especially in the first meeting and versus name opponents, and I see no reason it wouldn't happen vs. De La Hoya.

Maybe I'm biased because I like Winky is one of my favorite current fighters and I've never cared for De La Hoya, partially due to the phony personal aspects that H20 Man has hinted at.

[H2O Man]

9. It could be

that Oscar avoided Winky, because he recognized there was too much of a risk involved. It is true that Winky never expressed anything but a desire to fight Oscar, and a willingness to accept almost any terms. And Oscar never wanted to fight him, under any circumstance.

It could have been a very good fight.

[H2O Man]

11. Hearns ...

One of the Hit Man's best fights was versus Roberto Duran:



It's hard for me to imagine Oscar doing well against either Duran or Hearns.

[Awsi Dooger]

12. LOL, I'm still mad at myself regarding that fight

I was working in LA but driving to Las Vegas on weekends. For months I put away money to bet on Hearns in that fight. I was convinced the odds were too low based on Hagler's struggle with Duran, which wasn't relevant to a Hearns/Duran fight.

Anyway, I was in line to bet at Caesar's Palace and overheard the two guys in front of me. They were betting on Duran and very cocky about it. One of them said, "as soon as Duran realizes Hearns can't hurt him, the fight is all over."

I backed out of line and hesitated. Once I finally got back in line I was a wimp, betting only half the amount on Hearns that I had intended for months, including only minutes earlier. When Tommy destroyed Duran I almost felt like I had lost. But it was an early lesson to trust my own judgment and keep my ears closed, other than to people I know and respect.

[H2O Man]

13. I have a series

of photos my brother took. Though they are from a pretty sad excuse for a camera, they show what happened! He was actually pretty close to the action .... two rows ahead of Magic Johnson (he got a few shots of Sugar Ray Leonard and Magic talking before the fight).

That was an outstanding time in the welterweight - middleweight divisions. It is interesting that it followed a similar high-point in heavyweight history (Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, etc). When we consider that two of the high-points in the heavy- and middle- weight divisions came so close together, it helps explain why the casual boxing/sports fans came to expect the sport to produce massive quantities of "super fights" ..... and to think the sport is "dying" because we are in a different phase in the cycle.