Oscar De la Hoya vs Thomas Hearns, 147, somebody gets KO'd, or decision?

Hearns wins big. Either takes a lopsided decision or stops Oscar mid-later rounds.

You need more than fast hands and a left hook to beat Hearns. The Trinidad fight is a poor example- Hearns isn't getting outboxed like Trinidad. Outboxing Hearns is a tall order for anyone, and Oscar isn't doing it. He got shook up and intimidated by the jab and right hand of Quartey... Hearns is a different animal altogether. If he thought Quartey hit hard, he'd fold against Hearns.

 

Tommy is alot better he was fighting in an era with the best which means when he lost he lost to a great fighter Leonard Hagler ect, If he was put into a weaker era a more general era we would all be saying Tommy easy, he was just put into an era with extreme talent.

 

I cannot speak for him, but for myself. Tito was a left hook guy. His right was a clean up punch, but his left hook was his bread and butter. A guy watched out for that in the fight. With Tommy his right hand was his bread and butter set up by a jab which he would pick guys to the body and head with and then swell them up softening them up for the right. I think the right of Hearns would be hard for Oscar to stand up to or avoid. If you look at the guys he fought, no one had a right like Tommy, although I think Oscar is one of the best fighters of the lat 15 years. He should have waited to go to 147. At 140 he had a great left hook and was a little faster.
Tommy usually was beaten by himself and his need to make fights exciting and land his punches. If he sat back and picked guy up and down to the body and head like he liked to do, he could have won any fight easy. He was that quick. The style which gave Hearns trouble are the pressure guys. Not Oscar's style. But Oscar would not go down in one or two rounds, I think he goes into the late rounds.

 

Oscar was shown up every time he fought a real top fighter, quits or is stopped due to an accumulation of punches.

 

:good

I think Frazier's defense tends to get underrated or overrated from my own biased review of what I hear around me. However, I do think many can agree that Frazier's defense wasted a lot of energy, was not efficient, and seemed erratic and with many holes. It wasn't just missing something, it was missing a lot of things. Amongst them is the fluidity you saw with Mike Tyson's precise, terrifying, and yet guarded aggression.

Defense and offense was much better melded with one another from Tyson than Frazier, largely in part due to his fluidity, more movement variation and (in my opinion) greater punch variation than Frazier.

 

Also, I predict Tommy would win via TKO. DLH is resilient, speedy (albeit not slick, partially owing to his melanin gradient), and has a great chin. Otherwise, I'd call it as a Tommy KO.

 

probably. Both offensive fighters, that is their similarity.