View Single Post
Old 10-10-2007, 11:59 PM   #49
East Side Guru
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 7,550
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Tommy Hearns vs. Oscar De La Hoya

Originally Posted by cuchulain
On this forum, I'm usually defending Oscar against JackPresscott, Kayb and other 'haters', but I consider myself objective and a bit more realistic than some of those dudes. That being the case, and considering that Hearns beat Virgil Hill (who subsequently lost a close decision to the current best 200 pounder), I believe that Hearns is just too big and strong for Oscar, who was at his best at 140-147.

Hearns' chin was probably tested more by more big shots in the first two rounds against Hagler than Oscar's was in any fight he's had. At the start of rd 3, he was still unfazed. He was in with lots of other hardhitters as well.

I don't recall Oscar being tested to the same degree.
De La Hoya's chin wasn't tested to the same degree because he started off three divisions below Hearns, who quite obviously faced more physically imposing fighters. Hagler, Barkley, Andries, etc.

The biggest fighter De La Hoya ever shared a ring with was Hopkins, which wasn't a bombs away affair like Hagler v Hearns. He was KO'd with a bodyshot, but he never matched up to Hopkins physically the way Hearns did with Hagler. De La Hoya to his credit took Hopkins' head shots with no problem.

Hearns was in with harder hitters because he could carry the weight up past middleweight and hold his own with the opponents he squared off with as he had power as his equalizer. Roldan, Andries, and Hill among others. De La Hoya clearly never fought opponents with a comparable size because he had limits on how many divisions he could move up.

De La Hoya fought some very good punchers and was never stopped. Quartey, Trinidad, Mosley, and Vargas.

Not only was Hearns stopped more times than De La Hoya, but he was also wobbled and hurt during fights on more occassions than De La Hoya as well.

Nuff said.
Robbi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote