Chris Eubank Snr vs Thomas Hearns

Eubank would've lost to Barkley on points.

 

Both of these guys perform much better in fantasy fights than they ever did in their career.

Hearns was knocked out twice in his prime as a MW but both times he lost to pressure fighters who were willing to walk through fire to hurt him. Like Benn would do for example.

Eubank is seen as a master boxer but never really beat anyone good in his whole career. I don't think he ever cracked the top 2 spot in any division he competed in.

Styles make fights and I don't think a passive posturing counter puncher will beat the rangy quick attacks of Hearns.

 

At super-middle the other champions were Mauro Galvano, Victor Cordoba and Darrin Van Horn. Eubank was a class apart for me.

 

Iran at that point had faster hands,more power and just as good a chin as eubanks.

The Benn defeat in 1 had to be stopped on the 3 knockdown rule. If it hadn't I think we wouldve had lyle-foreman revisited.

No one ever outboxed Tommy...and how is Eubanks going to wear him down...assuming he makes it past the precision laser shots...of a 1985-87 Hitman....yeah a guy like DeWitt took it all and so will Chris...but its a landslide points win.

I like Chris...but theres nothing to suggest hed ever beat the killer elite of mw hearns,nunn,toney,hopkins,hagler,jones jnr....as he never beat a B level world champ other than Benn...

 

Eubank was a master of range and reflexes, but he didn't counter the jabs that wouldn't land flush, and so he could be outworked. He was a great counter-puncher toe-to-toe in terms of beating you to the punch, but Hearns put the right hand behind a feinting jab or threw it untelegraphed.

Eubank liked to step in with a double jab, which he did tremendously, but Tommy could back off, let them fall short then suddenly tense up to let off the right hand from its cocked position with speed, then follow up with a tense fast cluster including a hook downstairs. It's all wrong for Eubank who preferred a methodical flowing fighter to off-set and time

 

Prime for Prime Hearns was getting ko'd by Leonard, Hagler and Barklay

Barklay ko'd Hearns and beat him again while being a lesser fighter than Eubank

 

The TKO was a stoppage between rounds by the ringside doctor, Eubank was fine aside from eye being shut and not happy at all

 

Thought about it, and belive this is most likely scenario.

 

Hearns was getting along in yrs against Barkley. He lost to two of the greatest ever in Hagler and Leonard. Banks never fought anyone in that level. Like I said befor Barkley runs Banks outta the ring too..
If your comparing Banks with Leonard and Hagler maybe you should follow another sport

 

Hearns was prime and only 29 in the first Barklay fight and he'd go onto beat Hill, Kinchen and draw with Leonard. He had good wins before the Barklay fight, it was the stylistic weakness against punchers, which saw him lose.

Eubank would school Barkley like Kalambay, Toney and most decent boxers did. Benn who Eubank beat had Barklay down 3 times to stop him on the 3 KD rule. Different levels of middleweight. Barklay was very unskilled compared to Eubank. Just had the chin and dig to take it to Hearns

 

Again your so off on your time lines it's just not worth me talking to you anymore. It's rather comical to be honest

 

And didnt Banks go up by then as also? Your acting like Bsnks fought the man at 160.
Yet Hearns taking Andreas shots when he moved up doesnt count.
I swear some of you guys only want to see things one way.
Who did Banks fight that is near the people Hearns fought? Hearns fought in how many weight classes and won how many belts. Hearns fought everybody. Who did Banks fight. Watson wasnt great. Collins a good solid fighter beat him both times but wait befor you cry he was past it then how many fights are you guys including when Hearns was past it? Hearns won his first belt on what was it 1980? How much more milage did he have against great fighters. Banks also got a gift in the Benn rematch so again who did he really fight?