Bernard Hopkins v Tommy Hearns at 160

How hearns chose to fight Barkley and using that to justify those defeats is excuse making. I'll make concessions for him being past prime in the rematch but that's about it. If this is a prime for prime matchup, then B-hop wasn't at his best at 175, but then again neither was hearns. Frankly I think the heavier we go, the more favored Bernard should be... In any event I agree that its a tough call and any man can take it, so I'll leave it at that. My only issue is that I think its selling Hopkins short to say that he'd lose to James Kinchen. That was the only thing I wanted to address in the first place.

 

It would be very tough for Hopkins to win on points his workrate wasnt good enough....besides beating Hearns on points wasnt a option nearly everyone, Kinchen suprisingly did very well Benitez boxed him ok to...Hearns handspeed and foot speed would be serious factors....

 

Maybe you're right.....I would just say that Kinchen has a chance, but its definitely not guaranteed or highly probable...

 

Yeah, I'm not sold on Hopkins' quality of resume at 160 either, but it is a mighty long streak of consistency.
That's the reason I'd pick him over Hearns.

 

Hopkins in 2001 (the version that kod Tito) had some punch, he lost it a few years later, but I would go with Nard, Hearns wouldn't have a size advantage here, and let's be real Tommy never had the most reliable chin, Hopkins had the chin to take Hearns shots, but Hearns I think would have rubber legs in the late rounds and get stopped or lose a UD..

 

Hearns prior to Hagler outboxes Hopkins easily. The post Hagler Hearns struggles and could lose.