Gennady Golovkin vs Thomas Hearns

Hill had similar opponents to GGG yet even better opponents and Hill was a 4-1 underdog. That is significant. Hearns won relatively easy. That is why I mention it. Hearns is a greater fighter and fought much better opposition and his power and speed in my mind is better than Canelo. If Jacobs could almost beat GGG Hearns would beat him absolutely. You talk as though this is one of the other weak opposition guys GGG has fought. When he fought better guys even Jacobs he struggled. And you think he would just stop Hearns that easily. If you wanted a better argument for GGG he should have beaten Canelo. That hurt his legacy significantly.

 

GGG stops Hearns after four rounds. Hears got destroyed by Hagler, crushed by Barkley and fought for his very life vs Kitchen and Roldan .. Hearns was not a great middleweight. GGG would have taken him past the early rounds and stopped him ..

 

I agree 100% that’s why I said on condition he could take the Hearns right hand.
I don’t think Golovkin has been floored either amateur or pro, so his whiskers are probably A grade.
Certainly as a pro he hasn’t faced a puncher of the standard of Hearns and Golovkin does take shots his defence can be breached.
There is certainly a bit of the unknown in this one but I suspect Golovkin would come through the Hearns bombs and wear Tommy down especially with his body attack and stop him some time after half way.
I don’t say this with 100% conviction though!

 

Is your whole argument really a fake triangle theory? Talk about the matchup.

 

Many feel he did twice.

 

Complete nonsense.

Canelo had used his legs to move around the ring approximately ZERO times before he fought golovkin. The same canelo who was criticized for being flat footed. An "outside slickster and mover" are the last words id use to describe canelo before and after his 2 fights with Golovkin.

If Golovkin was the so called "best at cutting off the ring" he wouldn't have struggled to cut off a mediocre mover like Canelo. Nor could he could cut off Danny Jacobs.

 

Some feel he didn’t twice

 

What is this fake theory nonsense. Is this like Trump's fake news? My points about Hearns fighting better fighters is significant. He was better than all the guys GGG fought and you know this because it is true. A lot has been made of the Leonard and Hagler fights, but GGG is not the great Leonard is nor the great Hagler is with the southpaw stance and solid chin. Duran had what some would call a rock solid chin and look what happened. If someone gives Hearns the opportunity to land he will GGG is good and he puts pressure but against the lower levels, but he never felt the kind of punching Hearns would put on him. Hearns would have to be smart. No brawling. counterpunching with the right. Hearns weakness more after Hagler was going for the knockout and making lesser fighters more significant by bringing them into the fight I think a fight plan would work like in 1987 for the 175 pound title. More like the Andries fight. Even in that fight which was post Hagler, he would get too eager yet if he stayed back jabbed and waited forcounter punching, he got the punch in and GGG is too open for Hearns right. My point is about quality of opposition and weight and other things which prove Hearns would win but that means a lot. What GGG could do to Hearns is less than what he could do to Rosado. You want what I think would happen. I think the fight is a simple one. Hearns would basically be a jab and right hand fighter in this fight, and Emanuel would tell him that to avoid GGG getting advantages when Hearns mixes too much of his punches, which could be a problem at times post Hagler. Stick to the jab and when GGG comes in throw the right and then go back to the jab until he can land the right again. Don't go for the knockout and wait for the counters. The simpler the fight for Hearns the better to control it with what he could do well jab and counter and exploit GGG low left hand and lack of head movement. I don't even think Hearns should throw the left to the body because it opens him up to the right hand and it could become a brawl. If Hearns fights the right right, this is an easy enough fight. Hearns did make fights harder for himself. Hagler? That was a tough fight for Hearns always. Hagler was southpaw and was willing to take those punches in that fight to land his punches. I wwould love to see how Hearns would have done had he been able to fight Hagler more when Marvin was right handed. I think he does break his him and he hurts Marvin more. But point about Marvin was, Tommy could not punch to the side as much like he would with orthodox, so he had to punch straight on and Hagler's neck muscles handled that better than he would a chin punch. The punch which hurt Marvin was on the top of the head... Not in the center ring.

 

He really didn't win once. The fact is when GGG fought better guys he went 12 rounds with Jacobs and Canelo, but people will say on here he would cut the ring off on Hearns and stop him as though it would be easy. I want to see GGG fight one more top guy and see what he has. Because, his record fighting better guys is not great. He did great against the Macklin and Rosado types. I want to see him move to 168. The Ward fight would have been interesting before.

 

GGG could simply KO him in the centre of the ring.

IsaL, what are you doing in Classic? It's clear YDKSAB if you think Canelo and Hearns are in any way comparable as fighters. They're not. Hearns is a sitting duck compared to that slippery bastich Canelo. Given that GGG made Canelo miss with nearly 70% of his punches, its clear that he has an excellent defence as well.

 

Opinion. Given its your opinion, its a wrong opinion.

 

A triangle theory is:
boxer A beat boxer B
Boxer B beat boxer C
So boxer A would beat Boxer C

You have mentioned several times that Hearns is better than Jacobs(even though they obviouslynever fought) so because Jacobs had a close fight with GGG, Heanrs would therefore beat GGG. That's why it's fake because #1 GGG beat Jacob's and #2 Hearns and Jacob's never fought each other

 

I know you're very impressed with Golovkin KO a bunch of lower tier fighters.

Reality is the two times he fought top quality fighters, his power didn't seem as devastating.

GGG is not outboxing him, he's not out jabbing him, he's definitely not faster, he's not more accurate, has a significant reach disadvantage, and is not as experienced which goes a long way.

Golovkin's only chance literally is the punchers chance which every boxer has.

Which sure, Hearns was KO by aggressive fighters at least 3 out of 4, but just based on both Canelo fights and Jacobs fight I don't see GGG fighting that aggressively. Hearns isn't a Martin Murray or Willie Monroe, he's many levels above those guys, and he has also proven to be levels above Golovkin.

You definitely overrate Golovkin.

 

They don't need to fight each other to see who's a more complete fighter. When you look at Hearns you can see an ATG fight like an ATG. When you see Jacobs you see a very good Top MW who will likely not achieve Hall of Fame (unless he beats Canelo this May).

While I agree using the triangle theory is is dumb, you can see how GGG reacts to certain things and compare.

 

We are not talking about boxers more like eras and quality of opposition since I don't think there is connection, unless we do the fighter connection. GGG fought Canelo who fought Mayweather who fought Manny who fought Oscar who fought Hector Camacho, who fought Leonard who fought Thomas Hearns.

So let me understand this. Are you saying that we cannot really compare fighters of different eras because they never fought, and this triangle theory demonstrates this problem? So in this situation Rosado or Macklin are as good as Hagler or Leonard.