Hearns wasn`t very impressive at 168, in the few fights he had at that weight he didn`t stop anyone so Froch should have been able to take Tommy`s power pretty, the problem is Froch waas very easy to hit and Hearns did stop Andrie at 175, however by the time Hearns moved to 168 he had lost half a step and his KO ratio went through the floor after 1987, I`d say it would be a 50/50 fight despite Tommy having a far better reume P4P.
Hearns is one of my favourite fighters but at 168lbs he was well above his best weight and someone like Froch who had the chin to take his power at this higher weight and who would just keep coming, I could see Froch taking everything Hearns threw at him only to come from behind and stop Hearns much like Barkley did. Maybe Hearns can survive and win a decision but either way I don't think Hearns has an easy time dealing with Froch.
Hearns would get knocked out at 168 , he adjusted his pace at 175 in his win against Hill but Froch is still too big, too strong for Tommy.
I never understood the too big too strong canard. Tommy was a very strong and muscuylar 175 pounder and was able to go the distance with huge Barkley who went up as far as HW, and fight Virgil Hill a natural 175 and win, and Kinchen who had a lot of power. What about Froch showed he is " too big too strong".
Barkley was tailor made for Tommy still he couldn't keep him off and lost both times , when Hearns fought Kinchen he was dropped twice and almost koed in the fourth and the only reason that fight went to him was because Kinchen didn't press him enough and was just content tagging Hearns at will . He won the Hill fight because Hill was trying to outbox Hearns and never planned to use his size advantage so naturally Hearns was the superior jabber and the boxer so he won the fight. Froch had much better stamina and power and has proven his mettle against solid competition at 168 , there's no way Hearns isn't getting Taylored.
Froch would be able to take Hearns power shots, which were most effective when Tommy was a WW. Carl had a solid jaw, was tenacious and tough. Froch by ko rd 8.
Hearns was muscular at 175 v Andries but against Hill, Leonard 2nd fight and Barkley rematch his body was softer and he looked quite slow, I really don`t think he looked as quck v Hill as he did at welter but he was as quick as Froch and would have a reach advantage, his long jab could win him this fight like it did v Hill who threw more jabs than Froch did.
I think Hearns dominates up until the point Froch knocks him out. I see it going much like Hearns vs Leonard 1. Hearns will just light him up from the outside, Froch will have no joy with his jab, his footwork will take him no where, and he's gonna lose the timing battle. At some point late on, when miles behind, Froch bites down on his gumshield and goes to war, a war Hearns can't survive.
