Thomas Hearns (Andries fight) vs Bernard Hopkins (Tarver fight)

Hopkins by UD.

 

Hearns by decision.

 

Hopkins split Dec

 

I'm going with Hearns by decision he was never outboxed in his career where as Hopkins lost two decisions to Jermain Taylor who did nothing better than Hearns.

If Taylor can find a way to beat Hopkins twice with his jab and speed then so can Hearns.

Hopkins had 0 stoppages at Light Heavyweight so it's not like he has the power to 1 shot Hearns out of nowhere.

Another aspect to this match up is whilst Hopkins is as tall as Hearns he has a significantly shorter reach by 7 inches.

 

Hopkins found a new lease of life once he freed himself of the burden of making 160 long term. His tactical mastery would see him crowding Tommy and bullying him inside. He'd wear him down over several rounds. He wouldn't play ball sitting on the outside and getting outboxed like Hill did, which would stifle Hearns power advantage. He's got a great chin too so he'd ship what he had to. TKO 10'ish.

 

It’s funny because I actually think the best Hearns matches up very well against Hopkins who was no big puncher.

 

Hopkins is a bad style matchup for Tommy in his/their careers first lhthvy contest. Hopkins is too strong and cagey for Hearns and Bhop was a master of taking away the rt hand. He would spoil Tommy. and I am a Hearns fan .. my take on it

 

Hopkins was a master at nullifying his opponent's strengths with obstructionism, neutralizing Trinidad's left hook and Wright's jab. I think he would have done the same with Hearns' jab and angled shots. Obstructionism, taking away time and distance from his opponent and landing the few clean shots needed to win the rounds. I say Hopkins by UD after a less than spectacular match (as Hopkins' matches often were).

 

I do too like I said before if Hopkins lost to Taylor twice there's no reason Hearns couldn't replicate Taylor's performance when Hearns did pretty much most things better than Taylor.

Yes it was a different weight but still Taylor had a troubling style for Hopkins and he was a fighter that relied on his jab/right hand like Hearns except Hearns had a much more devastating right hand and a better jab.

Hopkins may have more of a resume at Light Heavyweight but he never scored a single stoppage at the weight. So more than likely he would have to go the distance with Hearns and I see Hearns being able to outpoint Hopkins over the distance.

Like I said before people in this thread are not taking into account the huge reach difference. Hopkins has a 71 inch reach where as Hearns has a 78 inch reach which is significant.

Hopkins liked to fight in spurts especially at the age he was at he's not like a Barkley that's going to be throwing caution to the wind pressuring Hearns from the opening bell.

Yes Hopkins could make it an ugly fight and maybe neutralize Hearns on the inside but he's going to have to get there first whilst risking taking a thunderous right hand from Hearns.

 

The flip side of the coin would be the Pavlik fight tho, where Kelly was 6 2 , 75 inch reach and a big puncher. Hopkins is stronger than Hearns, better engine than Hearns, with a Chin. That usually spells disaster for Tommy as that was his Kryptonite up in weight. Tommy would need to be patient and sit back and pick his shots. But Tommy was his worst enemy at times because he wanted to Knock every one out, ditch his game plan at times and slug it out. ... Bhop is too cagey for Hearns, and the fight goes down as JT described for the most part

But all good to disagree , have a good one

 

Nice post JT. Ray Leonard was too durable for Hearns, so was Hagler, and so was Barkley. One would be hard pressed to make a case that Bernard wouldnt be. , as Hearns would be conceding strength, stamina, and durability here. Hearns lost those type of big fights conceding that. This fight probably comes down to Hearns rt. vs Hopkins chin. Sort of like the Leonard and Hagler fights did as They took everything Tommy had to offer and the fights came down to the inside game and durabilty. That was Bhops wheelhouse

 

I don't see it ... Hearns was taller, had three inches in reach, a better jab, was much faster and hit much harder ... he outboxed a prime Benitez in Wilfredo's prime and outboxed Leonard for most parts of two bouts ...

 

Pavlik is a come forward aggressive fighter and much slower than Hearns and much more basic he also has no resume at Light Heavyweight.

Hopkins used to average about 30 or 40 punches a round he fought in spurts his engine himself was not the greatest especially being in his 40s at that time. He deliberately took time out in fights vs Calzaghe and a shot RJJ to get a break.

The fighters who beat Hearns engaged him in a war and Hearns only lost 1 decision in his whole career. Hopkins wasn't a noted a puncher at Light Heavyweight and went the distance in all 15 of his Light Heavyweight bouts.

Maybe I'm being biased because I'm not a huge fan of Hopkins to be honest but I see this as a winnable fight for Hearns.

Hopkins fights in spurts isn't a big puncher and Jermain Taylor under Emmanuel Steward found a way to beat Hopkins twice via decision and Jermain Taylor's stamina was even more suspect than Hearns.

I'm sticking with Hearns by decision I'm not saying I'm right but that's my personal opinion.

 

I think Benitez was slightly on the decline when he faced Hearns at superwelterweight, while Hearns was in his prime and in a category where he gave his best. But beyond that I think Hopkins at light heavyweight would have been a totally different opponent in terms of characteristics compared to Benitez at superwelterweight.

Then obviously Hearns was a great champion and would have had his chances against Hopkins, undoubtedly it would have been an interesting match.