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

I guess that's where we differ then John. Maybe paper thin was a stretch, but I think it's quite insulting to Calzaghe to attempt to argue that their resumes are even close north of 168, or even 160 for that matter. Not saying your trying to do that, but personally that isn't justifiable.

I see Hearns getting the best of the action early on at range, landing the cleaner and crisper shots and having to work extremely hard to do so, then Calzaghe taking over on sheer volume from 5 onwards, Hearns having his moments still, but having to take off rounds and breathers due to backing up and working hard avoiding that 90 to 100 punches a round output that Calzaghe was able to put up when he got going, even into the later stages of his career.

Sadly Hearns was before my time, I might see it completely differently had I been 20 years younger. Calzaghe is in his element here and I don't think Hearns was at his best at this weight. I'm not simply whacking 15-20 pounds into a prime Hearns, I'm taking the guy that lost twice to Barkley, who made a name off beating Hearns and Olajide and losing to every other significant fighter he faced.

 

All good, if we all thought the same it would get rather boring. The Barkley losses aren't daunting me too much as he and Calze are so different as fighters. It was just one of those things where a far lesser fighter was suited stylistically. As it was Iran walked thru a thrashing to pot shot Hearns into sudden defeat and the second mauling affair was actually quite close.

It's all about styles hence why Duran was able to defeat Barkley even tho Iran defeated Hearns and Duran had been utterly decimated by Tommy.

Calze would start favorite i think but i deffo give Hearns a shot.

This thread like all head to heads badly needed a poll too.

 

To be fair you're spot on about the Barkley defeats. He mixed it up with a ridiculous selection of great fighters, no shame in Hearns losing to him. Barkley's record doesn't do him any justice either and it doesn't take a great fighter to beat a great fighter.

You're completely right about styles being the key as well. I actually think someone that could walk through Joe is the right style to beat him, because if your trying to dictate and slow down the pace of the fight, it's only a matter of time before he adapts and starts finding angles and his engine takes over. Just a very hard guy to beat in my eyes, but again, he was one of the first fighters I ever got to watch in the flesh so they'll always be a bit of euphoria and hero worship surrounding him through my eyes.

 

Joe's a top fighter for sure, absolutely. On the whole he is still even now underrated.

 

Just a shame he came around a decade to soon otherwise we'd get a better gauge of how great he was. The Middleweight division's (including light and super) were absoloutley stacked in the 90s in Europe and world wide!

 

100% agree. That would make a good thread one day. Great fighters that came along at the wrong time. Bring Holmes back or forward an era and he'd be right among greats for example. Hagler goes back an era he has Monzon, forward he has your stacked era or thereabouts. Bob Foster too.

 

Hagler against the likes of Toney, RJJ, Kalambay, Nunn, Hopkins, Benn, Eubank, Collins, Watson, McCllelan, Curry, Graham, Jackson, McCallum! Yes please!

 

This is on point. Add to that, Hearns did unofficially beat Leonard at 168 pounds.

 

I think SRL and Barkley would certainly lose to Calzaghe.

Benitez, Cuevas, Duran would have no hope against Calzaghe. And Calzaghe would deserve no credit for beating them.

Hagler, I don't know. Could he beat Calzaghe ?
I'm sure at the very least Calzaghe would last longer than 3 rounds, and actually he might be too big and fast and mobile for any version of Hagler. He's an extremely tough assignment for a smaller man.

Hearns beat some great fighters but they were men who were great at 135 to 154 pounds. Calzaghe, for all his weaknesses, was a 168-175 pounder of very good quality. I put him a clear cut above Virgill Hill and James Kinchen and certainly Andries.

 

Joe stops hearns at 168.

 

No way.. I like Tommy here .. Joe has the work rate but not the power .. Fight is fought on the outside and that is fine for Hearns who has the better jab and the power .. 1st loss for Joe C

 

No way boxeo

 

Good post but i'm still not counting Hearns out. TBH i think he would have more chance of beating Calze than all the guys you named including Hagler.

 

No way? A lot of you guys are talking about hearns like if he was an elite all time great at this weight and it is not truth at all, joe was naturally bigger and stronger and in fact he was great at 168 . Hearns was chinny and i have no problem picking the greater fighter at 168 winning by stoppage