Well, the flaw that he'd exploit on Hearns would be his stamina and vulnerability in the later rounds. As far as hand speed alone Pascal is probably one of, if not the fastest light heavyweight at the moment but the thing is, he has a flaw (defense, stamina). Hearns (like Pascal) fades completely when his opponent gets inside and becomes a lot more hittable as the fight wears on. Hopkins would have trouble if Hearns could keep it up and was better at maintaining distance, but i just don't see that happening, not at all. Look at how easily Kinchen and Roladan was able to get in close on Hearns. One thing about B-hop that you have to admit is that hes one of the smartest, most intelligent fighters that has ever lived. He would get inside, one way or the other and that's where Hearns would get into trouble.
yeah but fighters have fights like Kinchen and remember Hearns was moving in and out of different weights at that time.. He fought Kinchen in Nov. of 1988. In October of 1986 he fought Medal at 154, then moved up in Oct and fought Dewitt, then moves up in March of 87 to fight Andries at light heavyweight, then moves back down to 160 in October to fight Roldan and then in June at 160 Barkley and loses, then this kinchen fight was at 168 in Nov. A lot of jumping around. When Jones did that he lost to Tarver and everyone uses that as an excuse. it is acceptable. An in shape Hearns beats Kinchen easily and if he stayed focused he could beat Hopkins. There were times when Hearns had a fight easily and he saw he could hit his opponent and he went for a knockout tiring himself out. It was frustrating. He saw boxing as entertainment for fans. but if he boxed I think he beats Hopkins.
So basically you're saying that Hearns has a valid excuse for most of his losses/poor performances at middleweight? I've personally never heard of Hearns struggling or having weight issues. Jumping up and down from weight or not, i think Hearns will always struggle against physical type fighters because of how bad his stamina affects him. When Hearns fades, his chin always became more vulnerable and he became more hittable. The reason why Duran didn't give him any issues was because of the style match up. Hopkins has better defense than Duran, would be obviously more effective at pressuring and he definitely cracks harder at middleweight. Hopkins would force him to fade even sooner because of his rough house tactics and size. I just can't see Hearns keeping him off of him. Lesser fighters than Hopkins was able to get inside. Early on as i said, it would be a struggle for Hopkins but that would be Hearns best opportunity. He would either have to get rid of Hopkins early (which has never been done) or be stopped late himself.
no I was explaining the Kinchen fight since it was right after he lost to Barkley just a few months and after all the ups and downs. Remember this Hearns never had trouble with guys his own height as surprising as that sounds. His right hand landed even better than against other guy. Shular was 6-1 like Hearns and Hopkins.
B-Hop roughs Tommy up too much for him to be comfortable, if he tried to box Hearns things would be a lot more difficult, but Hop always fights to his opponents weaknesses, which is why I'd pick Bernard to stop Tommy around the 10th or 11th round.
How can you compare a natural welterweight with a Light Heavyweight?? of coarse hopkins would beat him but hearns was a better p4p fighter over all.
Hopkins is a great fighter just on his opponents but the Taylor fight shows that Hearns would have had ease landing on Hopkins. You cannot compare guys like a light Wright,Delahoya and guys like Tarver to Hearns. And Calzaghe beat him. Regardless of that not being at 160, the fact is Hopkins still has not shown he can beat up a caliber of Hearns. Tito was not Hearns.
Not so sure about that. Hearns was the better boxer definitely (and cracked harder), but Hopkins was more complete in more area's and is the greater fighter IMO. Also Hopkins in his prime was a middleweight.
The more I think about this the more I think it would be Taylor-Hopkins rather than Barkley-Hearns. We know both Taylor and Hearns are very fast outside but quite vunerable inside when dragged into a slugfest. But Hopkins never managed that with Taylor and Hearns is ofcourse a much superior version. Then again Young Hopkins had a higher workrate and more aggressive style to force the fight inside but he'd still get beat to the punch against the faster man like with Taylor and Jones
Jermaine didn't hit the wall as bad as Hearns did, and he also had a pretty good chin as well on top of being much physically stronger. That's why i really think Hopkins wasn't that comfortable with Taylor in the first fight. He couldn't impose his will and get away with those rough house tactics inside because Jermaine was just as strong as he was and would fight his way out. Highly doubt Hearns had the strength to do that.
I wouldn't by any means say he landed on Hopkins with "ease". In fact the only reason he got the nod in both fights were because of those youth type furies/showier punches but both fights were controversial (i personally had Taylor wining the first and Hopkins winning the second fights).
I'd just consider Hopkins style an absolute nightmare for Hearns, Iran Barkley and Juan Roldan weren't Hopkin's caliber (or Hearns) and yet they still got to Tommy, and one beat him twice. I'll stick to my prediction that Tommy takes low blows, butts, and the possible thumb, gets frustrated and gets caught with one of Hopkins' withering right straights somewhere down the line. If we all agreed none of this would be fun my brotha :good