Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

RJJ would win in 4 rounds

 

Yep, Tommy's chin was so much better :roll:

 

when did he fight a guy who could jab like Hearns and have a right hand like Hearns? The guys who beat Hearns had to be aggressive. Jones was not, and the way he counterpunches works in Hearns favor. Hearns did great with great fighters who counterpunched. He beats Virgil Hill relatively easy who was undefeated and had 10 title defenses and then loses to Barkley. Hearns would have done well to fight fast guys with speed who boxed well. I doubt he would have lost much. But a guy like Barkley who was willing to stay in his face and take the punches in order to throw big punches was tough. And by the time Barkley fought Hearns, Hearns was not the boxer on his feet he used to be and he couldn't move around as much. So he had to either fight him on the inside. And that is what happened in the second fight. Jones would not be fighting Hearns on the inside.

 

Jones fast as hell with his combos from the outside working his way in and flurrying. He'd catch Hearns no doubt and KO him.

 

Hearns would catch Jones on the way in when he is flurrying and knock out Jones, or Jones can sit on the outside and not take chances and be outjabbed until Tommy lands his right in the late rounds. a prerequisite for beating Hearns is you have to have a warriors mentality.

 

Lets be honest all thouh Jones was hardly ever hit from MW to SMW, he did take shots and he never even stumbled, if he had a glass jaw at that young age, it would have been exposed. Jones makes mince meat of Tommy and ends the fight from the 8th round to the 12th depending on when he wanted to

 

If someone as basic as Barkley is landing and knocking Hearns out then Jones almost certainly would.

 

If someone as basic as Glen Johnson is dominating and putting Roy in a coma, then Hearns certainly would :deal

How did Jones handle tall fighters who used range and worked behind a jab? We saw him have difficulties with Harding, and lose a trilogy to Tarver. He also avoided guys like Michalczewski and Liles. One thing about Tommy, we learnt a lot about him because he wasn't afraid to test himself against the best of his time. With Roy, after James Toney, he didn't challenge himself, instead he fought a lot of handpicked fighters until Tarver, when we saw him struggle.

To beat a prime Hearns, you needed to be willing to take risks, come forward and absorb punishment in order to get to Tommy. Roy didn't have these qualities, in fact the more I think about it, the more I conclude that Hearns is all wrong for Jones, Roy would have more joy against Hagler.

 

You see your point is **** and irrelevant. Jones was way past his prime and at light heavyweight, whereas Hearns was at middleweight, the weight this fight is taking place at, and pretty much as good as he ever was at middleweight :deal

Oh and nice edit btw, it really took you 10 minutes to come out with even more pointless information? Where talking prime jones, not Jones that's just ballooned up to 195 and then come down to 175 at 34 years old.

 

good job on preparing d answer 2 yourself and replying 2 yourself so quickly . u may b a not so bad poster whenever Jones/Mayweather/Ali is not at stake .

 

Are you kidding? Hearns clearly wasn't the fighter he was against Barkley, that he was when he fought Hagler, Singletary, Geraldo and Sutherland all at MW. I bet you didn't know that Hearns had fights at MW before he faced Hagler (no doubt you're off to check boxrec right now)

Just as Jones clearly wasn't the fighter he was against Johnson.

As good as he ever was at the weight? Can't tell if your trolling. If you're actually being serious, go watch Hearns-Singletary, then watch Hearns-Barkley/Roldan and tell me that Tommy is the same fighter.

Hearns himself had come down from 175-160 prior to facing Barkley :deal

 

Hm, interesting matchup because both are good to great punchers with relativly weak chins. Normally, I go with the guy with the better defence, here Jones, but Hearns size and jab makes me hesitate. Also Jones tendency to be overcautious when facing dangerous fighters makes me think. You need to take more risks to beat Tommy than Jones is used too. I don´t see a knockout here actually. I see Jones fighting a hesitant fight while avoiding Hearns´ best shot while Hearns outboxes him, also sometimes troubled by Jones speed, to a narrow decision. I see a stinker here.

 

Quite how I see it. Hearns was past his prime by the time he campaigned at 168. Jones would win by decision. The Hearns of the middleweight clash with Marvelous Marvin,however,would nick the verdict.

 

wicked, you think that's an alt??

 

atsch my point came across horribly wrong. I meant to say something a long the lines of; If you think Tommy was further away or even remotely close, removed from his best at middleweight than Jones was when he was fighting Johnson (which is what I have inferred from your post, I could be wrong)
Then your an idiot. I'm pretty sure Tommy was only 28 when he fought Barkley and still a force t be reckoned with. Sure he wasn't as good as he was against the likes of Hagler, Sutherland (as you mentioned) but he dominated Medal just 2 years prior. I mean the last time Roy fought at middleweight compared to the Johnson fight was over 10 years believe it or not. So it's a ridiculous comparison in my eyes.