Bernard Hopkins vs Thomas Hearns- at MW

At middle weight, I'd have to slightly favor Tommy. B hop could be troubled by big, strong, fast and athletic middle weights i.e. Taylor, Roy, Pascal and Dawson. Although Bhop was a good puncher he wasn't particulary devastating, and i'd add that Tommy was more skilled than anyone of the guys I just listed. The most skillful on that list being Chad Dawson, who Bhop would never beat, hence his two losses to him.

 

Hearns UD

 

Hearns by split decision.

 

Let's ask William Walker if there was a knockdown, Lol.

 

Lol. Well with Hearns there's at least normally one!!

 

Hearns by one-sided decision. At MW Hopkins thrived on B-level opponents and blown up welters. Tommy was stronger at 160 than he was at 147. That’s saying something. He was a better all around boxer and would not succumb to Hopkins rough housing and dirty tactics.

 

Bhop had real troubles with Echols at 160. Yes the first fight was a massive lopsided decision and Bhop scored a tko in the second fight but in that fight Echols was scoring. But Echols had many rounds (with his basic offense which relied mostly on power) where that he tagged Bernard and had Bhops taking shots on the ropes consistently. Hearns has that one shot power but as you said delivered from a more powerful bigger frame. Hearns takes a wide decision, BHop might be hugging a lot early as he rides out Hearns power. Plus Bhop's offense off the backfoot will not be as effective with Tommy's piercing jab stinging him.

 

Hopkins too good at 160. He'd find his way in on a consistent basis and go to work. Peak Hopkins hit hard and had plenty of workrate. TKO 7-11.

 

I have BHOP winning this fight. I love Tommy Hearns but I think BHOP gets on the inside and stays in his chest the majority of the fight. The Middleweight BHOP that was in his mid 30's was not the cautious technician that most people think of when they think of BHOP. He was a grinding physically strong guy that was tough on the inside and defensivly sound. People may not like him on here but the guy was one smart fighter who would find a way to win against all styles of opponents.

 

Another vote for Hearns by decision.

 

Tommy Hearns by easy decision. Hopkins in my opinion was overrated. As stated he feasted on guys who were smaller than him and for the most part was boring even when he won. Hearns was a far better boxer than Hopkins and as stated Hearns was stronger at 160 in comparison to him weighing 147.

 

pretty much this ^^^^

but combine Tommy being one of the most loved on the site and Hops among the most disliked and we will probably get a consensus in the opposite direction.

 

I am a huge Hearns guy, and he was among my non Philly favorites growing up. But I don’t see him stronger at 160 especially in contrast to other 160 lbers.

 

Sounds like a sore loser. It has been explained. Hearns is the better boxer and Bernard never was a big puncher. So Hearns decision is the logical pick, at least he has to be favoured.