Hopkins vs Hearns at 160.

:huh Hey bro if your gonna make a statement like that please elaborate!! Pavlik and Hearns are totally different fighter you sound like a newbie boxing fan with what you just said.

 

I really cant think of any fighter at Middle that would knockout Hopkins,

Hes to Cagey and he has a great chin, in fact i dont even see him being kod by anyone at Light Heavy either.

 

Not to mention, he racked up a 14 and a 15 round fight and like you said, is capable of late KO's. I think it could be a very close fight. Both same height but two very different fighting styles. I would pick Hearns as i think his movement and reach would frustrate Hopkins, who likes to wear an opponent down. If it did go the other way however it wouldn't be a massive shock.

 

BHOP takes it. One of the reasons Hearns was great a welter cause he was huge. But at middle, Hearns is average, maybe even small in frame. BHOP, on the other hand, is a pretty big middleweight fighter. At 160 and up, Hearns would have problems dealing with BHOP's size.

BHOP tends to get beaten by guys who are super fast and can beat him to the punch, like Jones. Hearns is not like that.

 

I dont see Hopkins getting inside enough on Hearns to be able to grind him down & Hops aint a 1 punch KO artist either.... I think Hearns - as long as he boxes - outboxes Hopkins to a UD... there were few (if any) better offensive distance boxers than Tommy Hearns, he wouldnt need to land the big right hand anyway (I see Hops preparing to avoid that punch & for the most part being successful) because that long jab, his movement & lightning combinations would see him thru.

Hearns UD12 Hopkins

 

It comes down to can Hopkins stop Hearns in within 12 rds because he sure aint gonna outbox him, believe that ****..... & I dont think he would stop Hearns.

 

I have to see more of Hearns. But Hopkins would be very hard to knock out. He has the chin, defense...as well as stamina to outlast a guy a like Hearns.

 

This content is protected

I dont actually agree with any of it but the **** in green is what should not even be up for debate.

Ps. Hagler > Hopkins.

 

No you didnt, you did right, I always check that **** :good

 

Good match on paper. I think Hopkins in a points bore. Hearns had good power so I think Hopkins would hold and maul alot, I imagine Hopkins getting inside those long arms to prevent Hearns landing his big shots, with Hopkins holding and hitting

 

I dunno, earlier in BHops career Hearns would nail him, Hopkins (I think got put down by guys like Mercudo/Allen?) and Hearns would be too much. Later I would lean towards Hopkins cuz 1 hed stink the place out and 2 sadly Hearns never could win the big ones.

Hagler-Hopkins would be a better matchup I think.

 

Great matchup but if i had to id go with Hearns....

 

Yeah I have. I saw him lose to one welterweight, go life and death with two more. I also saw him draw with Antefeurmo, and Hopkins wins ALL those fights. Easily. For the ****** above who says Hopkins has never been hit, I'm guessing you never saw the Echols fight, where Nard got punched dead in the face on a break by a guy with HUGE power and ate it like it was sausage and eggs for breakfast.

This Hagler infatuation has got to stop. He's popular because he was involved with the great welterweights of the day and the fact is if Hopkins was holding down the MW division you wouldn't have had those great fights between smaller fighters moving up and the MW champ, because BHops squashes them like he did ODLH and Trinidad. So does Toney and Monzon. Can't believe Hagler gets all this credit for having nip and tuck fights with welterweights, it's sickening.

 

Hearns by brutal knock out.

 

You can keep telling yourself that, but it doesn't make it true. There has NEVER been a WW who hits significantly harder than Tito. It's like arguing about who had the most power between Foreman and Shavers, it doesn't really matter because you're talking about a matter of small degrees. Get hit by either one of them and you have a problem.