Bernard Hopkins vs Tommy Hearns @ 160

I watched those fights. I think Bernard would have trouble to get on the inside, against Hearns though. Not easy to get past that jab and hard right hand.Hiopkins best would be to hurt Hearns in the later rounds.

 

I agree. Tough and durable as Hopkins was, I don't see him trying to steamroll Hearns a la Hagler. I'd think he'd rather try and pick his spots under a more systematic pressure and be rough and physical in the clinches. If he stopped Tommy it wouldn't be by one big punch, but rather by attrition and wearing him down, I think.

 

Unfortunately for him though he can be out fought, particularly by guys who can take his shots. Hopkins takes them as easily as anyone else who did and stopped Tommy.

Therein lies the difference.

 

I see Hearns's speed playing the main role and winning on points, the fight would be at range and Hearns's winning the jab battle with the timing and speed and throwing fasts combinations later on and putting Hopkins in his shell

 

Tommy UDs him.

 

I got Hearns winning a competitive decision and Outhustling B hop .

Bernard who had respectable pop still didn't have the power of an Iran Barkley who was a heavy handed puncher who stood in ur face and mauled you relentlessly for 12 rounds .

That's not B hop style , Hearns Jab would be key to winning this fight over the distance.

B hop would then claim he was robbed after the fight was over.

 

Hopkins stops Hearns late at 160lbs, he crowds him, makes it rough and wears him down to a late stoppage.

At 175lbs I pick Hearns on points, because Hearns was 28 at his best at 175lbs (against Andries) whereas Hopkins was 41 by the time he moved up to 175lbs.

A catchweight at 156lbs is where it’s the most interesting, and we know Hopkins can make it because he made that weight at 39 against De La Hoya, so Hopkins can obviously also make that weight in his prime.

 

I do largely agree with this, however I do believe Hearns can hurt Hopkins if he lands clean, I just don’t think Hearns can take what Hopkins will give as well as Hopkins can take what Hearns can give.

Hearns is a lot more fragile at 160lbs than Hopkins, and Hopkins is better in terms of IQ, he’s more sensible and his decision making in the ring in general.

Hearns is more athletic and can take the early rounds, but Hopkins grinds him down with the perfect gameplan and utilising his advantages.

 

Hopkins couldn't grind down Taylor in 2 attempts who had suspect stamina.

Taylor had identical attributes to Hearns in height and reach. Except Hearns is a bigger puncher with a better jab.

 

Hopkins was an outstanding counter puncher. Plus, Hopkins has a better chin.

 

Hopkins was tight at the weight by that stage and 17 years deep into his career. Hagler nor Monzon's career lasted 17 years. Hopkins output at 160 was well diminished against Taylor and he was uber selective with his pacing. Even so he finished over the top of Taylor in the first fight and won on heaps of cards. You could see the extra life and energy in him as soon as he moved up.

 

Hopkins was a late bloomer his most notable wins against ODLH, Tito, K.Holmes came in his late 30s.

Even his win over Tarver which is considered one of the best performances of his career was at age 41.

Whilst Hopkins may of not been in his absolute prime vs Taylor he was still not that far off it.

Taylor had stylistic issues that caused Hopkins problems his speed, jab, athleticism, and enough power in the right hand to keep him honest.

Also Hopkins has never been a high workrate kind of fighter he can be rough yes but his workrate has never been one of his strong points.

As for Taylor/Hopkins 1 scoring I've always had it clearly 7-5 for Taylor. Hopkins simply didn't do enough in the first half of the fight.

 

Hopkins was 40 years old in those fights and still could have got the decision in either of those fights.

Hopkins, while still good at 40, would definitely have been substantially deteriorated from 8 years earlier when he stopped Glen Johnson for example.

I don’t think a 40 year old Hearns (hypothetically if he kept his weight down to 160lbs) would have done much better against Taylor at that point.

 

Exactly.

A Prime Bernard Hopkins also went 12 rounds with Average fighters like Andrew Council , Gilbert Baptist and Lupe Aquino and couldn't grind them down....


But I'm supposed to believe B hop is going to grind down one of greatest technicians in boxing history ?

Yeah No... That's not happening here. B hop is NOT stopping Hearns.

If there's a stoppage in this fight , its gonna be Hearns stopping Bernard .

But my prediction remains the same , Hearns will outhustle B Hop and win a decision.

 

There are virtually no boxers in history who peak past 35. Hopkins was past it at 40, he was just that good look at what he did to Tarver at 40. It's like saying Beterbievs best win is Bivol therfor he was in his prime at 39 it's dumb