Rate these fighters as middleweights

H2H @ 160
Leonard
Griffith
Hearns
Duran
Trinidad
Napoles
DLH

Very hard to place considering the different styles. Griffith is the most accomplished fighter on the list, but Leonard has a problematic style with his flurrying and circling. Hearns could possibly outpoint Griffith at the second spot.Trinidad would be capable of KOing Hearns but losing to motivated Duran at the weight. Napoles could possibly beat the Duran on points who lost to Robbie Simms. I feel comfortable where I placed DLH though.
On any given day, I guess.

 

I can't see how you fancy Trinidad's chances at WW against Hearns. For starters, Trinidad was a slow starter and was often knocked down against opposition a few leagues below Hearns. His whole style and fighting posture doesn't bode well for Hearns' speed, jab, and free-flowing hands. Hearns got out of the traps for quicker with his punches than Trinidad, who happened to be precise with his hands and static on his feet. I just can't see how gelling these styles together with some knowledge that Trinidad comes out on top. He has a puncher's chance. But it must be said that Hearns gets to Trinidad before vice versa. The whole style element of both points to this, IMO.

Both fighters could punch and both were vulnerable. But when looking at things closer, only one winner.

 

Why isn't Barbados Joe Walcott on the list?

Would be interesting.

 

Yes but Napoles was by no means a MW, he was very out gunned against Monzon (albeit a great middle but Napoles did just not have the size to compete)

As for Carter i really dont see it, Napoles was tough and clever i cant see it happening look at the pounding he took from Monzon without waivering

 

Griffith
Hearns
Leonard
Duran
Tito
Oscar
Napoles

 

Okay Robbi i clearly never said i fancy Trinidad.

The post blatantly says i think higher of his chances than i know others do on this board. Then i explain why, i've seen and studied as extensive footage as i think i possibly could. There's no bias here, i stated on the first page that Trinidad hardly gets a win here.

I've said clearly that i don't think Trinidad was hardly ever hurt at 147, if ever, and that stands. I don't think that poor balance ever means a great fighter gets stopped without a serious issue in the form of being in serious danger of being separated from his senses. And like i said, i think Trinidad is more durable than the statistics suggest. I just don't think it's a lock for Hearns, that is all i said, yes? (no?)

I'm of the thought that a vast percentage of welterweights that ever lived would possibly make a mistake by making it their business to brawl with Felix Trinidad. A welterweight that can be hurt by top level accurate fists and likes to fight way more than people like to think can be beaten by him, not to say he definitely does though. You give me a more stylistically complete 154-160 pound Thomas Hearns with a better defence and much more composed and watch me pick Hearns every time, and most think Trinidad was better at 154 pounds. Try that for unbiased!

 

I'll not make a comeback and defend myself for the sake of it. :good

 

It's okay Robbi, i whole-heartedly respect every opinion you ever put forth to me, and i'm not stubbern and do consider your opinions as well, take them on board fully. Sorry if i came across a bit argumentative there.

 

You never came across as argumentative. I put my case forward, as did you. Just thought I'd cease the debate rather than responding for the sake of it. :good

 

Oh ok, that's how good debate's should be carried out, i like that. Later mate.