1986 Thomas Hearns vs. 1990 Nigel Benn at MW

This idea that if Barkley did it Benn could does not apply with Hearns. Hearns beat better fighters than Barkley. Dewitt knocked down Benn and never came close to knocking down Hearns in 1986. Totally different fight Benn vs. Hearns and Barkley vs. Hearns, especially the 1986 Hearns. Barkley did not beat Hearns with speed, and Benn is not durable like Barkley. Styles make fights. Remember Hearns was too fast for Barkley in the first fight and was landing at will. Doug Dewitt managed to drop Benn with a counter left. Dewitt would have never dropped Barkley with that punch. Benn had beautiful punches and could punch, but his durability is what was always in question since his fight with Michael Watson in 1989. He got more experienced later, but Hearns would not have just rushed at Benn like Barkley did. Regardless of Barkley beating Hearns, Hearns still was a much better fighter than Barkley. He would not have rushed Benn. That is the key.

 

That's what swings it for me too...obviously Hearns is the greater fighter anyway but at the higher weights he was also smarter (apart from the Hagler fight)

Hearns could have easily kept Benn at a distance for a few rounds, if Benn got careless at any time he'd have been taken out with the big right. I've warmed to Benn a bit over the last few years even though the man was an absolute **** back in his hey-day. Even so, I'm 99% sure Hearns would beat him handily.

 

I like Benn. I think he was a great fighter and exciting. The main glitch on Hearns record is Barkley, and anyone who fought Barkley and beat him, well people use that against Hearns saying that proves the guy who beat Barkley would beat Hearns, which is not true. Virgil Hill would have easily beaten Barkley, and Hearns relatively easily beat Hill. Amazing how losing one fight against Barkley gives people the argument that other fighters would beat Hearns.

 

anyone in the same stratosphere of power as benn stands a chance against hearns, plus nigel had very fast hands, a never say die attitude, and was even more dangerous when hurt, while tommy has shown he could become careless when blood is in the water.
Regardless, hearns is a much better schooled fighter and would land his first. hearns KO early, don't blink.

 

The Hearns of 1986 who iced the late James Schuler during the triple hitter card of June 1986 takes the wild, but formidable Benn apart in 3 rounds. Benn would invariably wobble Hearns though ala the likewise super-aggressive but erratic Juan Domingo Roldan did in 1987. But Hearns was still very fresh in 1986 and he would brutally kayo Benn probably early cause that is the kind of fight this would be - short and very violent.

 

Barring Hearns hurting Nigel with a right, Benn will do what Hagler did.

 

I don't think so. Remember Hagler had a chin of stone. Hearns hit Hagler clean on that chin and the top of the head and Marvin was wobbled. If Hearns hit Benn with that punch the fight is over. Marvin used his great chin and toughness to take a punch to give a punch. Benn is not Hagler and does not have his toughness. No matter what. Saying he would do the same to Hearns I do not see it. I see him fighting a very sloppy fight trying to get Hearns along the ropes and Hearns landing the right hand. It would not be a punch for punch war.

 

Both have serious power and somewhat vulnerable chins.

I'd pick Benn.

Benn was extremely dangerous when hurt and could hit with full power and take men out when he's in a haze.
And Hearns wasn't hard to hit. And once he started wobbling the end was usually fairly near.

I'd pick McClellan over Hearns too.

 

I like Hearn's early but would not bet it ... this one could go any way ...

 

In a lot of ways this is a tossup. Yes, I think if Hearns landed shots on Benn like those on Hagler, Nigel may well go down. But there's a flip side to that coin. Nigel was a powerful puncher himself, and given Hearns' china chin...

 

I see what you are saying, but Hearns didn't have a china chin really. He took all the legends punches. He did not go down very easily, and Nigel's chin is not great himself. There is no way Nigel could just walk right in on Hearns. Hagler and Barkley had better chins than Nigel Benn, which is what helped them with Hearns.

 

How can anyone pick a winner? I see it as a 50/50 and a 5 rounder max. What a fight!

 

I'll probably go with Hearns early. I can see him whipping in body shots early to slow Nigel's bobbing and weaving, then landing the head shots to finish in the 4th maybe, maybe the 3rd. If Nigel just came out swinging non-stop ala Logan-Watson-Barkley-Eubank, though, I can see Tommy blazing him out in the first 90-120 seconds.

What a fight, and Hearns would definitely be wobbled regardless!!

 

2 of my favourite fighters. Both fighters are capable of KO'ing the other as both hit hard and could be hurt. Hearns superior skills and speed means he is more likely to land first so he'd have to be favourite the land big first but if he got reckless when looking to stop a stunned Benn he could easily find himself on the canvas being counted out.

Benn being the natural middle would do better then some would think but despite that I think Hearns stop him in about 5-6 rounds. It would be an exciting fight while it lasted with both fighters being hurt but Hearns superior skills are the deciding factor.

 

No.No way in hell Benn survives the punches Tommy hit Marvin with.NO WAY.