How did you score Hearns-Benitez?

9-6 for Hearns.

Wilfred actually looked the better boxer, but he wasn't working, and Hearns boxed a winning performance.

 

Just re watched and scored it on mute.

12-3 although i could have went 10 - 2 - 3 and i guess the 2 almost even rounds could be scored either way i just think Hearns dominance made me lean towards him.

 

Now I gave the 2nd round to Tommy...but I hear some people making this out to be lopsided. Move ahead to 2:45, and count how many of Tommy's punches land, and I don't count 1 that landed very good. They look great in real time, and make the crowd go ooohh and ahhhh...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7J6OiNFahA[/ame]

 

10 to 5 over 15 rds for Hearns....... 145-140 (Hearns)...

Benitez was still slick and savvy in late 1982, but his offense was shutdown by the taller Hearns to a great deal... Hearns used all he had to take Benitez' WBC title away down in New Orleans... The fight was tactical; not very thrilling...
hat

MR.BILL:bbb

 

Tommy threw about 10 punches, I saw about 4 that landed. Benitez didn't throw any. Kind of the fight in microcosm............I had it about 146 - 140 or maybe 5 points difference. Benitez just didn't throw enough punches. It's a little easier to be brilliant defensively when that is your main focus.

 

Well you had it a little bit closer than I did.
145-139 Hearns
9-3-3
Even though the score by rounds is not close, every round but the 6th was cometitive. I would liken this to Hopkins-RJJ I or Camacho-Rosario in that the winner of the fight should be clear enough for most to see, but that there was not many rounds that were just dominated by a boxer. Round 6 was the closest you could come, and I don't see anyway to justify a 10-8 rd there.

One thing that I was wondering was the ring seemed unusally large, and reminded of Camacho-Mancini & Leonard-Hagler. Does anyone know what the ring specs were and did one side make that a stipulation in this fight????

A brilliant technical masterpiece (that means some will say boring), by both guys...Hearns was just a little bit better this night! the only heated exchanges of the fight occured in round 10, by my estimation.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRP_-A1FUUA[/ame]

 

To those who had it close, what rounds did you give Benitez, and if so would you mind posting them and giving your reasoning?

As has been stated, his defense was brilliant, but you can't give rounds based purely on defense if there is little in the way of offensive output mixed in, especially if the opponent is landing more (little though it may be). It's not as if Benitez was mixing particularly hard, stinging counters in there.

 

you mean when he barely swiped Tommy's forehead and Tommy sort of tilted back as he was leaning away from the punch? yeah neither were legit either way.

 

very similar to the Leonard fights in a way, or the early rounds of the rematch. Both guys having trouble hitting the other guy and trying to find an opening. Hearns/Benitez and Hearns/Leonard were similar except for the fact that Ray was more impatient for a knockout than Benitez was, and that is why Wilfred did not take as much punishment early in his career like Ray did. Ray was great, but he could not have kept Hearns from hitting him the way Wilfred did, and yet Ray beat Wilfred 2 years before. So styles make fights. Hearns hit harder than Ray but went the full 15 with Benitez and didn't come close to stopping him, and Ray stopped Wilfred in 15.

 

Actually after rewatching it today either KD could have been the one JT meant. But, by my estimation both were legitimate...

RD 5 Hearns tags Benitez (not flush), and benitez is off balance...more of a balance KD than hurt by punch...but still legitimate.

RD 9 Benitez catche Tommy to the top of the head, tommy dances away while throwing a punch and goes down..again much more balance related than the first, but the KD in both instances is warranted.

More troubling to me was why Tommy was deducted a point at the end of rd 4. (This made one of my even rds that would otherwise have been 10-9 Hearns). I didn't see anything severe enough to warrent the deduction and saw no earlier warnings to suggest that Tommy was doing anything flagerant or intentional???

 

I don't know if my card is close as it inbetween what the 2 judges who scored the fight for Tommy did on theirs.

But mine reads:
1. 10-9 Hearns
2. 10-9 Hearns (20-18
3. 10-10 (30-28
4. 9-9 (39-37)
5. 10-8 Hearns (49-45)
6. 10-9 Hearns (59-54)
7. 10-9 Benitez (68-64)
8. 10-9 Benitez (77-74)
9. 10-8 Benitez (85-84)
10. 10-9 Hearns (95-93)
11. 10-9 Hearns (105-102)
12. 10-10 (115-112)
13. 10-9 Hearns (125-121)
14. 10-9 Hearns (135-130)
15. 10-9 Hearns (145-139)

 

I had Hearns by about 4 or 5 points...Pretty comfortable margin in the end as I remember.

Benitez looked great but as had been mentioned several times before he just wasnt doing enough to win rounds. Tommy had him under wraps for most of the fight.

 

About 10-5 or 11-4 in favor of Hearns. Benitez showed incredible defense, but threw maybe 10 punches per round, and wasn't landing them effectively enough, or at a high enough rate to earn many of the rounds. That's one thing that people tend to forget... Tommy's defense that evening wasn't all that bad, either, and he boxed pretty damned well in his own right.