Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

If they r same age (as long as it's below 30) & weight I can C Hearns stopping Jones at any stage of d fight .
Under these conditions it's harder 2 imagine Jones stopping Hearns .
Neither was a great fighter . Both Xtremely overrated but Hearns had somewhat more eggs than Jones .
D fab 4 and everything that surrounds them is soaked with hype .
Hearns lost 2 Leonard just because he was drained , but then he wasn't drained vs Barkley*2 nor was he drained vs Hagler .
If he wasn't such a great dehydrator he'd have been either matched more carefully during d (parallel) time he was a welterweight , or stopped even sooner . D difference between Hearns and others which allowed Hearns' longevity was d hype surrounding him which made his longevity worthier than others' . Same with Jones whom due 2 a more careful matchmaking got spent slower .
Neither man nor Leonard , Benitez nor Gomez is a top 30 p4p even if restricted 2d last 40 yrs .

 

So you mistype what you wanted to say, then accuse me of being an idiot?

If you actually knew much or anything about Tommy's career, you'll know that he peaked relatively young, and that he certainly wasn't the same fighter at 28. In fact, after the first Barkley fight, they were writing Tommy's obituary, saying he was washed up and there were calls for him to retire.
It's funny that you mention the fight with Mark Medal, against Medal and then Dewitt, Hearns looked terrible in both fights, he wanted rematches with Leonard and Hagler, and Bob Arum told him that those two fights really hurt his reputation and earning potential, due to how poor he looked against Medal and Dewitt. By the time he fought Barkley, Hearns was losing interest in boxing, if you've seen the Barkley fight, Hearns doesn't look sharp, and got careless. Really poor analogy from you and powerpuncher.

He was still a force in 88 (like Jones in 2004 - still P4P number 1 when KO'd by Tarver and Johnson), but not nearly the figher was years ago. As I said, go and watch Hearns-Singletary, Hearns-Sutherland, Hearns-Geraldo.

 

I have very little doubts in it :yep

 

FAIR Hearns was 28 against Barkley, Jones was 35 against Johnson

Go and watch some Prime Roy Jones fights instead of repeating the mantra from message boards. Jones absolutely did come forward in plenty of his fights pre-LHW and he was 1 of the biggest punchers in history from 160-168, if you don't know that you haven't watched any of his fights

Al that aside, Jones has an ATG defence, Hearns defence at mid range/inside is sub par

 

:rofl jones was way more shot than Hearns was. If you think otherwise then your clearly showing your agenda. I haven't watched a great deal of Hearns but quite clearly you've watched nothing of Roy if you realistically think Roy was anywhere near the same fighter in 04 compared to 1992-1996.

Neither man can take the opponents biggest punch in my eyes but Jones is far more likely to land it than Hearns.

 

Age is a number, as we know that doesn't always hold in boxing. For instance, at age 29 Ricky Hatton was finished and retired, at age 29 Floyd Mayweather was in his prime.

Jones did come forward, in fights against vastly overmatched opposition that were there to be beaten. I don't care how Jones fought against tomato cans and cab drivers, I'm interested in how he fought against top opposition. When he faced Hopkins and Toney, he was extremely cautious, fought on the backfoot, refused to engage and tried to counter punch on the backfoot. Now against a prime Thomas Hearns of the early-mid eighties, he's not going to come forward, he's going to hang on the backfoot, and look for openings. Against Hearns, he's going to face a guy with a 78" reach, who has an ATG jab, superior boxing skills and a right hand that can put your lights out in one shot. There is no way, none, that Jones is going to try and walk down Hearns, in which case he plays into Tommy's hands.

You're applying double standards. You're taking the best version of Roy, and putting him in with the worst version of Tommy (Barkley fight), that's not how H2H works. Also, your use of triangle theory (Barkley beat Hearns, Roy>Barkley thus Roy beats Hearns) is pathetic, we know that's not how boxing works atsch

Are you being serious!?

This is all irrelevant anyway, as we know that Reluctant Roy would never step into the ring with a prime Thomas Hitman Hearns. Powerpuncher you constantly post up the same nonsense defending Jones over and over again, and the fact you think he would try and walk down Hearns tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of fighting :hi:

Neither guy was shot, they were both past their primes, but that doesn't mean they were shot. Jones was ranked P4P number 1 when he fought Tarver. Indeed you haven't watched a great deal of Hearns, the fact that you thought he was in his prime against Barkley says it all.

The problem in judging Roy Jones, is that the disgraceful level of opposition he faced between Toney and Tarver, gives you a skewed opinion of how good he actually was. Don't forget, Hearns fought brutal wars against Leonard and Hagler, prior to facing Barkley, and was coming down from 175-160. Jones was never in a war, and took very little punishment, before Tarver and Johnson stopped him with single shots.

Now I don't think Roy was the same fighter in 04 as in 1992-96, but then I also acknowledge that Hearns wasn't the same fighter in '88 as he was in '83, so you're applying double standards. You're taking the best version of Roy, and putting him in with the worst version of Tommy, that's not how H2H works.

 

I wish I could see Hearns' face when he finds out very quickly that his jab is not working (missing 4 out of every 5 times he throws it), and he has no plan B.

 

Ahh I notice you haven't bothered deny that you haven't watched any Jones fights :good You're someone who didn't follow boxing at the time and has just gone along with the rest of your Calzaghe fans who sprang into existance in 2006 onwards (there wasn't any of you on here or any forum prior to that)

Jones fought something like 30 ring ranked opponents 20 world champions FYI, against plenty of them he came forward and took them apart. Those are the facts, I'm sure you'll try and spin them though no doubt

Jones is widely considered by most to be done by the age of 34, he is a reaction based boxer and reactions are the first thing to go. He actually looked slower after the age of 30. Your bias will ofcourse won't let you acknowledge this, but you are a laughing stock

 

I think Roy Jones Jr would beat Thomas Hearns.

I think people seriously under-rate RJJ's power, and his aggressiveness too.

 

I didn't bother to deny it, because it's another childish comment by you. What does Calzaghe have to do with anything? We're discussing Thomas Hearns v Roy Jones. If you'd like to discuss Calzaghe and Roy Jones, make a thread on it and I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

Nice facts, if we break things down a little more realistically, the likes of Mccallum was shot, Hill was considerably past his prime and coming off a loss to Michalczewski. Some of these champs include fighters like Grant, Del Valle, Telesco who were all sub standard, wins over these guys doesn't impress me at all. McCallum - had recently been beaten by Tiozzo. Griffin - was a novice with no great LHW wins. (Dont say Toney who had a terrible SMW and LHW resume and did nothing at LHW). Another one of these 'champions' was former 135'er Vinny Pazienza, who had recovered from an almost career ending neck injury, now fighting at 168 atsch

Now, let's look at how Jones fought against top opposition, against Toney and Hopkins he refused to engage, and fought them on the backfoot. Those are facts, I notice you avoided these points. As I said, I don't care how Jones fought against the likes of Pazienza and Frazier, I care about how he approached top opposition. This is how he would approach an elite fighter like Hearns, and it plays into Tommy's hands. You know it, Jones will not try and walk down, and engage Hearns to get to him.

Of course he looked slower, wasn't this around the time he got caught with banned anabolic steroids in his system? It's not a coincidence that there would be a decline after this.

He was P4P number 1 going into the Tarver rematch :hi

As for your argument about age, consider this, G.Johnson was younger than Roy when they fought, he was the same age as Tarver, and only slightly older than Calzaghe. That should tell you how much age means.

 

Your a ****ing dick. You twist words so badly. I never said that once. I said that Jones was further out of his prime in 04 than Hearns was in 88 and like I've said, if you don't think that's the case, your an agenda driven twat. Hearns prime was probably 81 when he fought Leonard or 82 against Benitez, whether you consider his best weight 147 or 154. Also the steroid part shows how ******ed you are. Steroids repair your muscle tissue quicker, although you can train speed, it's very much something your born with. Watch the Jones-Lacy fight, which clearly shows if Roy was on steroids it didn't effect his speed at
all.


Lets get on to resumes if you want to try a dick all over jones. His best 3 performances are as follows: a draw (he arguably won) against a well past it Leonard. a win over Duran who was 25 pounds above his best weight and was 3-3 in his last 6 before fighting tommy. A win over Benitez, obviously his best win in my eyes, but he had previously been KOed by SRL and was 34 years old and past his best.

So you see knockout artist, every win in history has something wrong with it if you go deep enough under the surface, whereas the reality of Jones best win was against Toney the number 3 P4P fighter in the world and he completely schooled him, which is better than any other win on Hearns resume.

 

Great debate!

Obviously Tommy's peak was at Welterweight, and he aged a lot faster than Roy did. I think Tommy was way past his peak in his 89 rematch with Leonard, even though he was only in his early 30's.

Tommy vs Roy in his early 20's at 160, I think would have been a great fight. I could see Roy being cautious and I think Tommy would have troubled him a lot.

Tommy vs Roy at 168 in his mid 20's, I think Tommy just has a punchers chance. Tommy at 168 was finished, and Roy was at his absolute peak. I think it's unfair to even speculate on a fight at 168.

Of course if Tommy lands it's over in a second. But I don't think Tommy would be able to land on Roy at SMW. There's no point comparing Johnson and Hearns. If Johnson could knock out Roy, then yes certainly Tommy had the power to. But IMHO he'd never have had the opportunity. Just like Johnson wouldn't have had the opportuntiy if they'd have fought earlier.

Great debate, but you can't compare a former 147 great, past his best, vs Roy at his absolute peak. Tommy at his peak was awesome though.

Regards, Loudon.

 

lol nah man, I don't have any more ALTS anymore, they've all been banned.

 

I'd consider Hearns prime from Cuevas-Hagler.

Your exact words were

[url]http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13107103&postcount=25[/url]


Your words Webbiano. Now you consider Hearns of '88, to be the fighter he was 6 years ago? I didn't twist anything, those are you words :nut

Of course Jones was talented, but let's not ignore that steroids can enhance speed, power, explosiveness and stamina, four vital facets of a boxers arsenal, especially one who relied on athleticism like Jones. Now look at the disgraceful level of opposition Jones fought now as a clean fighter, then, when he stepped up his competition he got found out against Tarver.

Tommy's resume >>>> Roy's. It would take the most ardent Roy Jones fanboy to try and argue with that.

Benitez was 34 years old when he fought Hearns? Benitez was born in 1958, and fought Hearns in 1982, so how did you work that out? He'd only suffered one loss prior to that. He was also coming off a win against Duran.


Let's not forget that prior to facing Hearns, Duran had pushed prime Hagler all the way. After, Duran was still operating at world level, and defeated Barkley for a MW world title years later.

You're also ignoring his win over prime, undefeated Virgil Hill, potential future HOF'er (Who Roy beat years later when Hill was way past it.)


His 2 round blow out of prime HOF'er Pipino Cuevas


You think the Leonard rematch was one of Tommy's best performances? atsch

James Toney is a better win than Benitez? No way. James Toney is another overrated steroids cheat. James Toney in his prime was also going life and death with Dave Tiberi (who he got a gift decision over), Montell Griffin (x2), Merqui Sosa and he lost to a club fighter in Drake Thadzi. Some of these guys also share wins over prime James Toney - Dave Tiberi was robbed.

Now consider that only prime SRL also had a win over prime Benitez, you see how impressive Tommy's victory was (Benitez coming off a masterful performance against Duran). Benitez is another HOF'er, and arguably an ATG.

 

Some people seriously overrate how Jones looks on film imo......
I´m sincerely not more impressed on film by Jones than I´m by SRL....

With that said......Jones was a bigger man, very strong, and could beat Tommy at MW.....