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

How do you work that one out ?

Hopkins was in his 40s at Light Heavyweight and never had a single stoppage at the weight.

RJJ was a H2H menace at Light Heavyweight with immense speed/power and would be in his prime.

I'm not seeing what everyone else is seeing with Hopkins this is the same Hopkins at Light Heavyweight that took a break against a totally shot RJJ acting up claiming foul when it was just Hopkins up to his old tricks with an Oscar winning performance.

A prime RJJ at Light Heavyweight would near enough shut out a 40+ year old Hopkins at Light Heavyweight.

Hearns has a far better chance beating at 40+ year old Hopkins who has low output and no real power at Light Heavyweight. Compared to a prime RJJ at Light Heavyweight who was a freak at that time regarding how good he was with KO power to end Hearns at any time.

 

Yehh you right my bad. I just think stylistically, a fight with RJJ would benefit Hearns more as he never had problems with boxers unlike the more cagey style of Bernard. That and Hearns has a puncher's chance to do a Tarver on Jones, even though RJJ can do the same to him

 

Hearns only lost a decision once in his whole career and that was to a fighter that pressured him all night long throwing cautious to the wind.

Hopkins isn't a pressure fighter has a low output and doesn't have power at Light Heavyweight so he's going have to outpoint Hearns over the distance which is not that easy to do.

People in this thread are overlooking that Hopkins lost twice to Jermain Taylor who also had stamina problems but he still managed to beat Hopkins twice over the distance. There's also some comparisons with Hearns like both men had Emmanuel Steward as their trainers, both had good jabs and right hands except Hearns had a much better straighter right hand than Taylor. And lastly both men have identical dimensions 6'2 with a 78 inch reach and that's a 7 inch reach advantage over Hopkins.

Now I know people will say "well it's a different weightclass" which is true but it was also a stylistic issue and plus Hopkins power is even less apparent at Light Heavyweight than it was at Middleweight.

Hopkins was good at Light Heavyweight don't get me wrong and he achieved a significant amount considering his age at that time. But we have to remember he was in his 40s he didn't have power at Light Heavyweight and unless you have real concussive power I'm finding it hard how you're going to beat Hearns over the distance.

 

Good point. Tommys legs just werent there at that time. And later down the road, At 175 he liked that weight and settled in nicely. But this isnt the Virgil Hill fight we are talking about which has nothing to do with the OP. I really dont see why so many are bringing up that fight,, but OK lets look at it. Tommy was already settled in for a year there , separated from Manny and now was with Alex Sherer and his brother. Both of which watched film on Hill everyday for 6 months and knew Hill inside and out and back again. This is specifically why they implemented a new game plan for Tommy which was counterpunch and throw counters over Hills counters in order to slow the fight down because Sherer knew Hearns might get a little winded down the stretch... Bot Sherer and Roach on the other side talk about the fight. I would 100% agree that Hearns of the Hill fight is much better because he had already settled in there.. But again, look what happened to Tommy after that masterful performance against Hill and in his very next fight, he lost to durability yet again.

 

I don't think Hearns lost his durability after the Hill fight it's just Barkley presents a much different stylistic challenge to Hill.

Hearns got his nose broken by Barkley early when he got floored and had to withstand that and the constant pressure from Barkley. And yet Hearns still made it a competitive fight and went the distance.

If anything the 2nd Barkley fight shows Hearns has underrated durability because it was a very tough grueling fight and Hearns went 12 rounds. And without the knockdown Hearns would've got a draw on the judges scorecards.

 

I'm not saying that Hearns lost his durability after the Hill fight. I'm saying that Hearns wasnt a great durable fighter , never really was given the 4 clear examples I stated. I think some think that going up and down in significant weight for 18 years is some easy thing to do. It is incredibly difficult on the body and it showed in Hearns career, he wasnt doing himself any favors. He looked great at 154, not so good at 160 , and pretty good at 175 after settling in. This is what I am talking about , he just wasnt incredibly durable with the weight fluxuations.
I think your post , in all due respect, is a bit of a stretch .. Barkley was 2 and 6 in title fights, with his only 2 victories being yours truly.
Unless we are calling Barkley an ATG, yes Hearns lost again to durability

 

Barkley was actually 3-6 in title fights but regardless look at who he was facing.

James Toney at his absolute peak.

Michael Nunn at his absolute peak.

Roberto Duran who had one last great performance in one of the best fights of all time.

Sumbu Kalambay at his absolute peak.

Nigel Benn fight was a bit dubious for me Benn hit Barkley when he down twice and was lucky not to get DQed. The fight for me was still up in the air and the 3 knockdown rule ruined it.

But just look at those list of opponents how many fighters in history could fight against the fighters above and not have atleast a few losses ?

No I'm not saying Barkley is close to an ATG but he's a very tough warrior who's definitely a good fighter with good power. Sometimes fighters just have troubling styles for certain fighters despite not being anywhere near as highly regarded them.

An example is Barrera losing twice to Jones I mean Barrera is an ATG and Jones is just considered a good fighter but yet Barrera couldn't beat him in two attempts.

Hearns was on the verge of stopping Barkley and had doubled him over with brutal body punches in their 1st fight. On another day Hearns would stop him but Barkley threw a hail mary right hook and the rest is history.

The 2nd fight was decided by 1 point based on a knockdown early.

Fine margins.

 

Fair enough, I know the fight was very close and I will defer to you on the memory of it because I havent seen it in years. However, I really think we are saying the same thing but just in different ways tbh. What I read above is Hearns wins those fights if Barkley wanst so DURABLE. which has clearly been my point from the get go of this thread

 

Fair enough we can agree to disagree.

Like i said i'm not a huge fan of Hopkins so again my opinion might be a bit biased on this one.

But i'm looking at the Jermain Taylor fights who as i said had identical dimensions to Hearns 6'2 78 inch reach plus with Emanuel Steward in both of their corners. Maybe Steward could find mastermind a way to beat Hopkins again with Hearns ?

I know Taylor fights were at Middleweight but i do think Hopkins did have issues against Taylor because of his speed, athleticism, and i think he could have the same issues vs Hearns. Taylor especially had a good jab like Hearns and a good right hand power which made Hopkins wary and if he was wary of Taylor's right hand he would certainly be wary of Hearns's right hand.


Now if Hopkins can get on the inside vs Hearns then he would be able to neutralize him as Hearns can't fight on the inside. But when Hearns is disciplined he's very hard to get at unless you're willing to go to war with him and walkthrough his punches and i don't see Hopkins as that kind of fighter especially at Light Heavyweight.

Now i'm not saying Hopkins can't get into the trenches and make it a rough fight. But the guys who beat Hearns as i said walked into the lions den and had considerable power to get Hearns out of there. And Hopkins didn't have the power at Light Heavyweight as evident of all of his 15 fights at the weight going the distance.

I feel despite Hearns having his 1st fight at Light Heavyweight against Andries he looked very strong in that fight, and i think him dropping down that after that as you alluded to earlier actually hurt him and he probably would've been better off staying at Light Heavyweight.

I just think Hopkins would have a hard time outpointing Hearns over the distance but that's my personal opinion.

 

Maybe our common ground will be if the majority of the fight is outside, Hearns wins, If it is on the inside , Bhop wins...
If you are in, we have an agreement .. lol , nice chatting with you DP

 

Yeah I'm happy to agree on that nice chatting with you aswell take care.

 

@Dynamicpuncher I agree with most of your points but iirc Steward wasn't in Taylor corner during those fights, he followed him briefly later in Jermain career and I think Taylor was one of the few fighters who got somehow worse under Steward. It was always a detail that impressed me.
Also

This content is protected

 

I agree and was actually going to state that in my earlier post.

 

An old Bhop at LH really does not have the style or output to make it a brawl on the inside, like a Hagler or Barkley. This is a guy who was beaten twice by Taylor who kept the fight mostly on the outside.

 

What a great post.