Who is the better all round fighter Thomas Hearns or Roy Jones Jr?

Saint Primo let the discussions begin.

 

Roy's prime he was too fast too talented & very powerful. Almost everything he did was based on his youth that gave him those explosive twitch muscles.

Whereas Hearns the puncher, out boxed Ray till stoppage, robbed of a draw. 14 years later upset Virgill Hill for the LHW title.
14 years into Roy's career Taver & Johnson back to back stopped him. He never won a major title since

Past 14 years Hearns from 1992-2006 (14 more years) lost 2 decisions
Past 14 years Jones 2004-2015 (11 more years) lost 6x 3 by KO/TKO.

Better all around fighter was Hearns. Can't believe I'm typing this! Roy was the absolute phenom of fighters. But unlike Hearns he didn't have anything to fall back on in terms of fundamentals. Hearns KO power didnt get him the LHW title over Hill, he used knowledge, his reach mixed in with some great jabs and power shots.

Roy had nothing to fall back on as a result he even offered to give a match to fight a fan then went about pouncing on them like it meant something.

 

Hearns, more versatile. Better skills ect. He's also better at WW than Jones was at MW, both are imo #1 H2H at 154/168 respectively.

But Hearns has the wider range of skills and was a better boxer, who also could destroy people with sheer physicality

 

Gotta be Hearns for me, but I don't have a problem with anyone picking Jones. Its close imo.

 

Mr Jones

 

Excellent post.

 

I think Tommy, but I am partial toward Tommy always. I think Hearns had greater fighters to showcase his skills on the bigger stage than Jones did. Toney and Hopkins were tops, but they are not Cuevas, Leonard, Benitez, Duran and Hagler added all up. Maybe had Jones had that level to fight every couple of years or year he would have had the same image. Hearns fought more iconic guys and had to stuggle to get wins against fellow greats, and those skills he used to get those wins show what a fighter he was. Jones was so fast he didn't need the skills for a long time. It is hard to answer this one. They were both tops as far as fighters. Jones was so fast putting his hands behind his back and landing. Regardless of the opponent, he was incredible. Hearns just had more fundamental skills, yet Tommy also had some flaws. When he moved on his feet he did not move laterally as much as in and out and back and pivoted. Whereas Ray Leonard could move laterally throughout the whole ring, which made beating Hagler easier. I am not sure Tommy could have outboxed Hagler the way Ray did. I think the way I could see Tommy beating Hagler is with his greater offense. Use the jab and counter and cut up Hagler and stop him by TKO in about 8. The only criteria I use is Tommy outboxing Ray after being hurt or hurting his hand against Benitez and winning a decision. Yet Jones won decisions against a young Hopkins and Toney. Tommy fought the better guys and used different facets to win than Jones did. Who used basically speed. But that speed was so good-possibly the greatest speed in the history of boxing that he did well.

 

Hearns had more fundamental skills yet was more vulnerable in his prime

 

I don't think anyone could land on Jones. He landed so quickly and he would just counter it simply. It was incredible.

 

I prefer Hearns personally but the clear answer to me is RJJ

 

It seems to me the big deciding factor is Jones's surreal prime against Thomas Hearns resume and longevity.

 

I’ll give Jones the edge in athleticism but as for being the more we’ll rounded ? Tommy all day.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Ditto

 

Tramell basically killed this thread. Hearns is easily a better rounded fighter than RJJ. But RJJ was a once-in-a-generation physical phenomenon in his prime.