Calzaghe V Hearns : Would Joe trounce him at Super middle ?

Bryon Mitchell.

 

funny name to call hopkins, nobody, but if you wish... that only makes your agument worse!

40something hopkins who had hurt noone for years. you forgot that joe lowblowed him to directly avoid getting stopped early.

 

thirty seconds after getting floored, joe turns to the ref and motions him to intercede. It could not be clearer, there on youtube, though edited from highlights of the fight for some odd reason.

 

I think you've got Calzaghe wrong there. He was a fast high out-put pressure puncher more than a counter-puncher - though he was capable of that too - and because he didn't have KO power, especially after his recurring hand injuries, he relied on work rate and overwhelming volume of punches more than well-timed quick counters. He wasn't the kind of fighter who patiently waited for an opportunity, he was the type of fighter who tried to dictate the pace of a fight and force the action.

 

Bryon Mitchell was slow as molasses and you were talking about someone fast and long. The guy was nothing like Hearns.

 

I mean, saying he is slow as molasses might be true but this means joe wasnt quick enough to avoid someone slow., so how does he avoid hearns.

Key to the argument though is joe needing his mafia ref to get him out of the fight fast after the knockdown.

So.... I am not sure you are improving your argument.

 

Hearns is one of my favourite fighters of all time, however at 168 against the best SMW of all time in Joe Calzaghe, he loses. He might win the first couple of rounds, keeping Calzaghe at bay with his jab and right hands, as Calzaghe tries to figure him out - but after that, Calzaghe would get close, swarm all over him and win by UD or possibly mid-late KO.

 

barkley and calzaghe are two different animals in there.It is hard to see how Calzaghe could pull it off.Styles make fights

 

Why mention Barkley? He only ever fought twice at SMW from what I recall, and is nowhere near Calzaghe's level as a boxer.

 

This

 

46-1 after this.

 

Hearns is ridiculously overrated.
Calzaghe was durable and slippery and bigger. He'd probably win.

Don't get me wrong, Calzaghe's resume is total crap but Hearns would probably lose to him too.
Hearns was an exciting fighter but incredibly overrated when you look at the blunt facts.

 

Fair go mate. Over a period of 15 years Hearns lost to peak SRL, Hagler and Barkley x 2. You can stretch it out to 22 years with just these losses.

His victories and achievements are endless including wins over ATG's.

 

Hearns was an animal, a freak of nature and an absolute one of a kind fighter. He also hits like a goddamn mule kick and displayed fantastic boxing skills throughout his career, I'm not here to dispute that, but let's be fair here we're talking about a fight at SMW. If we include light heavyweight, Calzaghe went 15 years without picking up a single loss, including wins over 3 ATGs.

I'm not really interested in what Hearns did against Cuevas, Duran and Benitez 20 and 15 pounds south of where this fight will be taking place. Calzaghe's resume is easy to pick holes in, but if we're judging what both men did at 168 and above, one of these fighters has a paper thin resume and it's not Calzaghe.

 

Hearns is a two time title winner at 175 which is north of 168. He comprehensively outboxed Hill who was on a good streak and figured to be the next big thing at 175. He pretty much shut out Michael Olajide there as well. His only loss at the higher weights pre 40yo was Barkley who is in the tough strong brawler mould that troubled Hearns latter career up in the weights.

I wouldn't call Hearns resume above 160 paper thin by any stretch. Given the stylistic matchup i think he has an excellent chance.