Hopkins vs Hearns at 160.

hop can always take away an opponents best weapon, and as good as hearns was, hopkins can take away a right hand. of course, it depends on what time era. if they fight in hearns' era, hopkins wins from defensive skill and ring generalship. if they fought in this era, hearns wins based off of aggression.

 

hopkins doesnt have the power to ko hearns...he went 12 rounds about 17 times in his career...went 10 rounds a few times, and had quite a few of his KOs in the 9,10, 11,12 rounds.... Hearns could punch and box...Hopkins could box...doubtful he would hurt Hearns at 160 . Hearns would def hurt him
anything can happen in a fight...but if they fought 10 times, hearns wins 8 out of 10

 

You can't really play ring general on Hearns. In order for Hopkins to win this one, he's going to have to be the aggressor and rely on every dirty in-fighting trick he knows to rough Hearns up and get him out of his comfort zone. In a boxing match Hearns holds the edge over damn near anyone from Welter to Middle who lacks one punch KO power.

 

Hearns beats him, Hopkins has never faced a beast like Hearns.

 

I disagree with you Ice. Hopkins was a good puncher at Middleweight,and was more aggressive than the now 45 year old version, I dont know if hed knock Tommy out but he would be very capable of hurting Tommy.

Actually this is a pretty even matchup and one of the few that im not to sure about.
This would be all about what fight plan Tommy would bring. I really think Tommys best chances would be if he fought like the Motor City Cobra instead of the Hitman version. I think the MC Cobra takes this by decision. Id say the Hitman has a 50/50 shot.

 

yeah Tommy doesn't have the best beard. i would give it 60/40 for Hearns. Not many dcould beat BHOP at 160.

 

Hearns had a weaker chin than Trinidad, and Tito was just as powerful as Hearns. Hopkins handled him like it was just another day at the office. You people are ******ed. Hopkins hit just as hard as Hagler, has just as good a chin, and has better skills. Why is this even a debate?

 

I do not remember Hearns losing "on defensive skills and ring generalship" in his own era to anybody, and he fought better opposition than Hopkins. Sure, anyone with good power have puncher chance against him, and that includes Hopkins, but decisioning prime Hearns... well, if SRL wasn't able to do it, I think I can rest my case

 

Tough one.
Hearns probably

 

You're going to have trouble with this one. Hopkins doesn't really get hit, so we don't know how good his chin is. Hagler's chin was proven iron-solid against Hearns, Mugabi etc. Hagler is also has clearly more proven power, stopping the vast majority of his challengers. On the other hand, Hopkins went the distance with some pretty weak opponents.

Hearns is much faster and much bigger than Trinidad, and is a clearly more accomplished boxer. Ray Leonard couldn't even outbox him! Think of the stylstic trouble Taylor gave Hopkins. (And Taylor wasn't even that good.) Now add to that superior speed, greater reach, greater movement and much more punching power. That's Thomas Hearns. You see where I'm going with this.

 

This is pretty much the reason I voted 4 Hearns.

 

YOu think that Tito was just as powerful as Hearnsatsch Dude Hearns is a way different fighter than Tito(I would think you would know that) Every time I thik that you are coming around you say some way out ****.


Although i do agree that Hopkins has a great chin(he wouldnt be kod) and he does hit hard enough to hurt Hearns(but he didnt punch as hard as Hagler) Skill wise were pretty close,but id give it to Hagler


BERNIE : Have you ever seen Hagler fight:huh

 

Hopkins wins this fight. The fight would similiar to the pavlik fight but more competitive because of hearns boxing ability.