More deserving of P4P top 10: Ward or Froch?

Yeah, Jackson-Hearns, chin shrapnel all over the ****in gaff!

Hearns is just better than him and maybe that would play a part? Who knows, Jackson is certainly capable of getting the stoppage win though.

 

Griffith at his best has me thinking though, the way he puts his combos together at his times of being on all out offense was just great, he could throw them four and five punch combos from distance too, he would defo be testing Tommy's chin, I think his chances may be as good as anyone, hmm. He's beatable as we know though, and I would probably favour Tommy, not sure.

 

His jab will allow him to come inside, where he has a major advantage over Hearns. Again, durability, decent enough pop and technical ability will allow him to make the adjustments.

Not sure how his jab will fare if Hearns gets on his bike and utitlises his length. LMRs best wins at 160 (for fighters resembling Hearns' dimensions) were not against anyone that possesed the fluidity that Tommy had whilst on the retreat.

If you can't bang Tommy out but can hurt him, that is what you'll be up against I expect. If it's at mid-range, LMR has a chance to impose any fight he wants on Tommy IMO.

I say this with little info as the outcomes of LMRs loss to Cokes. I believe he had never been dropped before that shot from Benvenuti, by all accounts he had a stern set of whiskers.

Napoles can beat Hearns, if he doesn't get cut to ****:deal

How the **** did no one mention him yetatsch

 

Hearns/Jackson is just a matter of percentages. Course The Hawk has a shot, freakish power like that ensures he has a shot against anyone in history on any given night. Except McCallum with his equally freakish chin and sixth sense. However, % wise its important to note in every area except one punch power Hearns is superior so he holds all the cards.

 

I find Griffith resembles a small Floyd Patterson offensively when in full flow.

Not at Welter (may even be more relevant in a discussion about Griffiths power?) but:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSX3Oh4kJk8[/ame]

Griffith could bang, when he wanted to. I get a feeling that a mixture of the durability of his opposition, and the Paret incident, gave him a bit of a 'Eubank/Benn syndrome', and he never quite put the sting into his punches again. But the above footage shows, when Griffith timed ya', he was a spiteful puncher. It's not unfeasible that he could fare very well against Hearns, as I say, he lacks certain attributes a fighter has to have if you're pitting him in a hypothetical matchup with Hearns.

Anything less than that is seeing a decisive win for Tommy.

 

I suggest you watch the final round of the Froch v Taylor fight. It was a big right hand that was the beginning of the end for Taylor. Froch had worked his way back into the fight but he certainly DID NOT LAND AN ACCUMULATION OF POWER PUNCHES on Taylor. When he had Taylor in trouble he finished the job.

The big killer punches landed in the last round and in particular a right hand that stunned Taylor. Froch was losing the fight. The scores have proven that so I don't see where this accumulation of punches was coming from. Froch has power and enough to **** a man up.

An accumulation of punches is what Floyd did to Ricky. No really massive punch but was hitting him at will for the last few rounds before the finish. Lot of spectacular shots as is Floyds way but he broke Rickys heart more than anything.



Anyway I have pointed out 3 times that my point was coming from the viewpoint of Froch's own mentality about his perceived power.

 

Yep, that's how I see it.

THose 2 rounds of Jackson-McCallum are epic! There's a left hook that lands, The Body Snatcher thinks for a second then BANG he's in assasin mode. A premature stoppage IMO, but McCallum was only going to damage Jackson further.

One of the best chins of all time IMO.

 

Napoles, ****. He is a better boxer than Hearns outright but I just don't know if it translates to a win. For me the kind of fighter that is a stylistic nightmare for Napoles is a Basilio, physically pushing him backwards and unloading, it breaks up the rythm (which is a must otherwise you're simply going to be the clumsy dance partner that everyone laughs at). Now Hearns is not Basilio, or Chavez, or Pryor, but I think he would at some point he would just unload and **** him up I think. Otherwise we could yes, see Thomas Hearns outboxed by someone much smaller than him. I'd pick Hearns I think.

 

Yes, I wish it could have happened. I would have beat Hearns, Emanuel Steward knows it. They told Curry not to fight me. I use to beat Tommy Hearns up in the gym all the time. That's why he never fought me. Emanuel knew and everyone in the gym knew it too.

 

good post again my friend. I agree there too.

 

McCallum?

 

Napoles problem would be if Hearns' reach frustrated him and made him to lead off and try and force the fight. Not his strength.

 

Yeah, McCallum was always in the magazines back in the day trying to get a Curry or Hearns fight.

 

It does say a lot.

This guy, apparently a pretty decent boxer, didn't get much done against him either ;-)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qivgt8Q58CA&playnext=1&list=PL1EB6DCD50BF28894[/ame]

 

I always felt that Napoles was comfortable leading myself, comfotable at everything in fact. Not the marauding type no issue for him to totally **** you up from pillar to post with supreme skill and craft. Size is a factor though here, it just cannot be denied. As I say, I have Hearns.