Julian Jackson Vs Matthew Hilton

I think Jackson (like many power punchers) gets a tad overrated on this forum, but I would pick him to stop Hilton in a fun short 4-5 rounder

 

Hilton was a dynamic puncher. If he landed on almost anyone clean
he probably ko's them. This is especially true for J.Jackson whom
didn't have the greatest chin.
However Hilton basically would swing for the fences to gain power
for his ko's. Though he hit hard his hands were somewhat slow.
This would be like walking through a mind field against J.Jackson.
One of Hilton's claims to fame was he was never ko'ed.
But many of J.Jackson's opponents had never been ko'ed until they
fought him.
I see this fight as Hilton comes out blazing as he usually would
do, he drops some bombs on Jackson probably hurts him though
the punches would be blocked and not landing clean, sooner than later
J.Jackson who was extremely good at counters would step into
one those looping, roundhouse punches beat him to the punch and catch Hilton cleanly.
If he wasn't ko'ed cleanly for the full ten count, he would clearly be in
no shape to continue. J.Jackson's speed,power, and excellent pinpoint
punches saves the day again for him.

 

I think this would be one sided. Basically a replay of Jackson-Baek.

Julian would absolutely destroy Matthew.

I'm not even sure Hilton beats Baek, tbh.

 

Hilton was tough and durable. A real good fighter. But I don’t think even he could just get hammered on for long with the type of punishment Jackson would be dishing out.

 

Jackson lost 2 fights in his prime. To Hall of Famer Mike McCallum and to Gerald McClellan. He had a severe eye problems before the Gerald lost.

For the person who said Jackson couldn't take a punch that also would be wrong. He was stopped on his feet against Mike in a questionable stopped. Gerald in their first fight landed bombs on Julian to stop him. The other TKO loses where when Jackson was past his prime and they weren't 1 punch stoppages.

In any case Matthew would be destroyed by Jackson.

 

Exactly.

Jackson's chin gets under-sold. It wasn't granite, but he wasn't nearly as fragile as the narrative around him would lead you to believe.

Hilton has virtually no chance here.

 

Hilton's toughness unwittingly leads him into another highlight-reel knockout win for The Hawk.

 

It's definitely not fragile. His chin was dependable, just not granite, as you say.

 

Hilton was actually very good for a couple of years during his short prime but Jackson was a bit better although his quality of opposition at 154 other than McCallum and Norris was quite weak. I'd pick Jackson in a war. Hilton was pretty fast handed with excellent power. He was certainly more durable than Norris. He actually had a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses as Jackson but Jackson was just a bit better all around

 

Damn you're underselling Hilton. He was better than Baek. The Drayton win alone is better than anything Baek did at 1954. And he softened Drayton up for Jackson.