Thomas Hearns 1987 v Matthew Saad Muhammad 1979

Hearns 6`1 - 78 reach - chest 43
Saad 5`11 - 75 reach - chest 39

yeah Hearns was far bigger than Saad and even fought at cruiserweight of 190lbs

 

no it's not trolling, it's called "knowledgable debate" something you obviously don't understand or comprehend.

 

Quarry you are a joke.

On the other hand Saad does have a really good light heavyweight resume

Marvin Johnson x2
Mate Parlov
Jerry Martin
Yaqui Lopez x2
Lottie Mwale
John Conteh x2
Richie Kates

 

I don't think anyone has an easy time with Thomas Hearns.

 

Hearns was greater than Saad. Stylewise not a great matchup and not Tommy's best weight, but Tommy had a great right hand always and good skills. If anyone moving up could beat Saad it is Hearns.

 

Hearns has no chance of outboxing Saad for long periods, he's not got the range or legs anymore to get away with standing in front of excellent light heavies with his hands dangling by his stomach and his chin right up in the air.This isn't a one-armed choker with no inclination to aggression in the face of adversity like Hill.

Tommy would get his fair share of jabs in for a few early rounds, but he would be caught with them in return and it woouldn't be long before an accurate follow up right caved the side of his head in.

 

Hearns outboxed every opponent he ever fought including Ray Leonard, Benitez, Hill, Olajide and out-punched punchers like Roldan, Duran, Andries & LaPaglia hitting Dynamite Denis Andries so hard he almost done a somersault i see this fight pan-out the same way as other than his warrior approach Saad Muhammad brings nothing to the fight Hearns will not have faced before.

 

Including Barkley like resilience and power. I would be a mistake to count a warrior like Saad Muhammad out in this fight.

 

Hearns may win a couple of rounds, but Saad would catch up to him and between the 5th and 7th round, he would knock him out.

 

This.

 

I like Matthew Saad Muhammad, but he was far from being a perfect boxer, as seen in his fight against Lopez (he won, but had troubles) and against Dwight Muhammad Qawi. Hearns is taller, has a longer reach and is a better boxer. He wins if his chin holds on (big if, I know).

 

I'm fairly certain that anyone that watched the career of Saad would be questioning the rationale of using a Dennis Andries victory as a barometer for much. He would've been a brutal ko victim to Saad as well, and sure wouldn't have stayed in the fight long once hurt. Nobody would pick Andries do win that one, unless it was > Winbush.

 

Its a pretty bad example considering Andries was 35 and never beat any top comp besides middleweight brawler in Tony Sibson. Comparing that to Saad Muhammads wins is ludicrous and shouldn't even be considered in my opinion.

 

Saad would eventually find and break down Hearns.