Would have Nigel Benn have defeated Tommy Hearns when both were prime at 160 lbs?

Hearns recovered plenty of times, see Juan Roldan fight which was also at Middleweight. And he flattened iron chinned Roldan in just 4 rounds, after being rocked and some rough moments.

Because Barkley was very much in the fight, and 3 knockdown rule ruined the fight. Look at Marquez for example, he comeback from 3 knockdowns in 1st round and made a great fight.

Barkley himself had badly stunned Benn in the 1st round, and could of weathered the early storm and made a great fight. Benn himself was also very dirty, as I've pointed out hitting Barkley when he was on the floor numerous times.

 

Benn was ferocious, rugged and a dynamite puncher. Hearns had a laser piston jab and a laser bean of a right hand.

At 160 this is a 50/50 fights for me.... whoevers chin holds up the longest

 

Did you just go there with JMM? Ridiculous how that rule wasn't in effect.

I'd take Benn any day of the week.

 

It would go about like Hearns fight with Barkley, Tommy would be looking good in control when one of Benn's hooks has him wobbling like a wino on Colt 45 malt liquor . He gets stopped between 4-6 rounds

 

Yes.

 

Well JMM did go on to win most of the rounds after that, so how is it ridiculous ? If anything Marquez was more badly hurt than Barkley was, and also suffered broken nose. Barkley was in the fight and hurt Benn in the 1st round, and could of weathered being caught cold early, and go on to make a great fight.

And for some reason you keeping ignoring the fact, that Benn hit Barkley numerous times on the floor. Which easily could of resulted in a DQ.

But forgetting Benn vs Barkley, my whole point was regardless if Benn beat Barkley. Doesn't mean Benn necessarily beats Hearns because Barkley beat Hearns, and Benn beat Barkley, as I stated ABC boxing doesn't work like that, and also Hearns was not as good in 88.

Benn was more wild at Middleweight, and gassed vs Eubank, Watson, aswell almost being stopped by the very average Anthony Logan. Benn improved his skills at Super Middleweight, and arguably was a bit more durable aswell.

At Super Middleweight I'd favour Benn over Hearns, but at Middleweight not for me personally.

 

I actually think Benn is capable of stopping Hearns at 160. Tall order but it can be done if Benn fought the right fight.

 

Because how many times do you need to be knocked down before a fight is stopped? They were legit knockdowns too.

Tommy's whiskers will fail him against a genuinely harder hitting bigger man.

 

Well it depends they can be flash knockdowns, I've never liked 3 knockdown rule personally.

Just think had the 3 knockdown rule been implemented in JMM vs Pacquiao 1, we would of missed out on a whole heap of great fights between the two.

I think Barkley still had his wits about him, and could of gone on and gave us great fight. Not saying Benn wouldn't of gone on to win anyway, but I think 3 knockdown rule robbed of us of what could of been a great fight.

As for Benn vs Hearns I'm not gonna try and change your opinion on it, but Hearns for me was better fighter of the two. And Benn's chin was not exactly granite either, and as I said he was alot more wild at Middleweight compared to Super Middleweight.

 

I disagree. If you go down properly 3 times, that's enough.

When Tommy got hurt he stayed hurt. Nigel was at his most dangerous when hurt. And he was the bigger man and puncher. And a quicker starter.

 

What a fight!! I'll take prime Hearns

 

Probably Hearns gets him out early. If he doesn't, I lean towards Benn putting Tommy out.

 

Benn was hurt by Barkley and Tommy was far quicker than Barkley.

 

Benn gassed v Watson and Eubank at 160.

 

Benn was all over Barkley, he was far too quick, Barkley looked really sluggish.