The best version of Floyd Mayweather versus the best version of Tommy Hearns

He didn’t give a **** about Canelo’s bodywork. Hearns wouldn’t break his body.

 

The gibberish you just posted has nothing to do with analyzing who wins this hypothetical matchup

Please enligthen us on how you see this matchup playing out in Floyd's favor

 

I see you’re backtracking through the thread bc I’ve made points that can’t be disproven.

The only way I could see Hearns winning this is if he fights a safety first, disciplined fight like Bivol against Canelo, but he often didn’t. Floyd could win if he takes Hearns’s jab away, breaks his rhythm, and keeps his punch output low. By default, Floyd would outperform Benitez bc he was similar but superior.

 

You raise fair points. AT welterweight, after the Leonard fight, Hearns had only fought 134 rounds, I think it was, as a pro. Mayweather would be by far the more experienced fighter. In my opinion, Hearns became much better after he hurt his right hand and was forced to develop the rest of his game. You saw against Leonard that he was still very much an amateur in parts of his game.
I have a friend that sparred with Floyd many times, well over 40 rounds, and he sparred similar numbers against Marquez, Canelo, Lara, and many other well known fighters. He said that the hardest single punch that he was hit with was a right hand from Floyd. Of course the problems he had with his right hand- the Mayweather curse, because every Mayweather had issues with the right hand- limited his ability /willingness to punch hard throughout a fight.
I don't think that Hearns would come out bombing against Mayweather; he didn't against Leonard. But Leonard also had a willingness to push and to trade that wasn't there in Floyd at 147, most likely because he didn't trust his hands to hold up. I don't know that Floyd would be able to get close to Hearns if Hearns decided to box him, and I don't know if his hands would allow him to stay there and work if he did. If there was ever going to be a time when Floyd could draw Hearns into making the mistakes that would let Mayweather potshot him, it would be at 47.

I'm not of the belief that Hearns was an unbeatable force at 147, I think that many of the top guys would beat him. Of course his right hand could change the course of any fight, but I wouldn't want to try to beat Floyd by landing right hands because he is too smart to get hit with more than a couple. You would have to set a different trap every time. If hearns starts jabbing and moving like he did with Leonard that is playing into Floyd's game.

 

Any unbiased person could see Pacquiao was further removed from his peak than Mayweather was from his, when they fought, despite being 2 years younger.

Mayweather should be given credit for having the superior longevity of prime/close to prime, when evaluating their respective careers.

 

Absolutely not. Manny went on to beat Bradley and Thurman. Mayweather retired. He was just better than Pacquiao despite being more past it. And it’s obvious that he was always better if you saw the Marquez fights.

 

Pacquio's win % before Mayweather was 89%. It was 71% after Mayweather.

Facts, not feelings.

 

I mean, you can argue he beat Horn.

 

You can and my quote was tongue in cheek. What would the Pacquio that beat Cotto have done to Horn, though?

Arguing Mayweather would beat Pacquiao prime for prime at 147lbs is reasonable.

Arguing Mayweather is greater than Pacquiao is reasonable (I have FM 1 spot higher on my list and can see it either way).

Arguing that Mayweather was as far or further removed from his peak, than Pacquiao was from his, when they fought isn't reasonable. That's imo and I suspect a poll on the subject would reveal in the opinion of the majority.

 

That's funny I also have Floyd one spot higher lmao

 

Not how that works.

 

Name some examples of champions fighting after age 35 with at least a two year age gap where the older one wasn’t at a disadvantage. I’ll wait

 

You won't be waiting very long, fella. Hopkins vs RJJ 2. Or do you disagree RJJ was further removed from his prime than Hopkins?

 

Of course it isn't. It's an example of taking one perspective on one element of the available data, holding it as the definitive determining factor and ignoring everything else. Did my post remind you of anyone?

 

Whilst NoNeck's posts are clearly biased in favour of Mayweather, up until now I've assumed they're genuine. Have I made a fool of myself by interpreting his posts as serious, whilst those in the know realise he's laughing as I mistake his biased posts as authentic?