Bernard Hopkins vs Tommy Hearns @ 160

Your last paragraph I agree with we can leave it at that.

 

Hopkins is a unique case. I've made my case of him being tight at the weight. It's also been extremely well explained by other posters how age was also changing him stylistically.

There's some double standards at play here. You want to minimize Hopkins beating Pavlik and Wright because they'd never fought at the weight and Wright didn't belong there but here you are praising the win over Oscar as proof Hopkins was fine around the time of Taylor. Oscar had one fight there in his life and had only moved to 154 a handful of fights earlier. Did Oscar belong at 160?

That's getting away from my main point, which is he was tight at the weight. We've seen what can happen to fighters tight at the weight. Curry's listless performance against Honeyghan is a good example. There are dozens. Beating Oscar of all people at 160 doesn't change my mind. Sure Taylor brought more energy, size and weaponry than some recent defenses and that combined with weight struggles and conservatism made him fair better. As has been said, a huge amount of people think Hopkins won the first fight and some also plug for him in the second. What Hopkins did post Taylor is irrelevant to my stance of being tight at the weight. Far better posters than me have opined the same, and Manny as well from memory.

It hasn't been obvious? Because i believe he was tight at the weight. Taylor brought enough assets and energy to give a tired Hopkins trouble. It's not like he beat Hopkins easily in any set of sane eyes. Hopkins conserved early and it went against him on the cards.

Hopkins has an ATG chin and gets inside as well as anyone. His strategy is always bang on too when he's not drained. He wouldn't have to walk thru Hearns with reckless abandonment as he's got the skills not to have to. Are we comparing him to Barkley now? SRL didn't walk in with reckless abandonment. He had to bide his time.

He'd get where he wanted to enough times to knock Tommy over. Tommy wasn't exactly durable at 160 and one punch could turn a fight. His legs could betray him and he could get winded. It would happen against Hopkins and he'd get put away at some point. One doesn't have to wear Tommy down with sustained punishment over many many rounds.

Wright was a draw sorry. But Pavlik stopped him and then beat him comfortably by decision. Ironically Pavlik had a big right hand and very good jab, two of those things that are supposed to be Hopkins kryptonite.

Sounds a little like Oscar.

Dragging Wright up two weight divisions is an exaggeration, even if technically ok. Hyperbole. They had a catchweight of 170, just 2 lousy pounds above super middle and a sizeable 5 pounds below the light heavyweight limit. You neglect to state that Hopkins dropped down from 175 to the agreed upon 170. You also haven't stated Hopkins moved down from light heavy to 170 against Pavlik as well. It's all one way traffic.

What all those scorecards give me is a good feeling about scoring it close for Hopkins. Most of these guy were at the fight, plenty at ringside i bet. They were paid to attend and comment on the fight. They aren't all blind mice.

Due to induced conservatism IMO. And once for me, tho i haven't scored the rematch. It's also fact that almost everyone paid to actually attend the fight and score it had it for Hopkins.

 

Wright never won a fight above Middleweight he spent 51 of his 58 fights at Jr Middleweight.

You made a comment that Hopkins whooped fighters that beat Taylor suggesting Hopkins was way better than Taylor due to how Hopkins did better against common opponents.

But fighting Wright at Middleweight is considerably different than fighting Wright at Light Heavyweight.

I give Hopkins credit for the Pavlik win due to the eye test of how he looked in the fight.

Not so much the Wright fight due to how ugly the fight was and how dirty Hopkins was and due to Wright having no business fighting at Light Heavyweight.

No ODLH didn't belong at 160 but at that time Hopkins was the only fighter to stop ODLH so in context of how Hopkins won it's more impressive than his performance vs Wright.

Whether Hopkins was tight at the weight or not he could've moved up sooner in reality he was a big Middleweight could've fought at Super Middleweight, Light Heavyweight, years earlier infact wasn't his pro debut at Light Heavyweight ?

I still believe Taylor was a stylistic problem for Hopkins and you could also say Taylor was the best pure Middleweight Hopkins ever fought outside of RJJ of course.

But why is Hopkins was suddenly troubled by the weight only for Taylor fights ? this sounds like the same excuse used for Toney at Super Middleweight.

There was no evidence in regards to the eye test that Hopkins was struggling at the weight in any of his prior fights.

And if indeed Hopkins did start to have trouble making the weight that's on him no one forced him to fight Taylor.

No Taylor didn't beat him easy but Hopkins had 2 attempts and couldn't really figure out how to beat Taylor.

My point has always been Taylor shares the same attributes as Hearns in height and reach except that Hearns has a better jab and a much more potent right hand.

And i believe the Taylor fights do give us some visual clues that Hopkins would struggle against Hearns stylistically.

Hopkins is not a big puncher he's a technical fighter who likes to fight at his own pace. The fighters who beat Hearns were big punchers and they had to walkthrough Hearns's punches whilst taking considerable amount of punishment in the process.

Is Hopkins the type of fighter to engage Hearns in a war ? in my mind no.

Hagler and Barkley walked through Hearns's punches to beat him and engaged him in a shoot out.

Leonard had to take alot of punishment and kept coming forward.

Hopkins is not the type of fighter that will risk taking alot of punishment to get the win. And that was his issue against Taylor he was too passive and Taylor's right hand power kept him honest.

So whilst Hopkins has a good chin his mentality is not the same as the fighters above.

At the time there was alot of talk of controversy because Hopkins was a very established champion on a historic long reign and he had the most dominant rounds in the fight at the end which gave people the impression it was a bad decision.

Now the dust has settled so to speak years later i think the general vibe about the fight is that Hopkins simply started too late in the fight. And even if you did score it for Hopkins at most it would be 7 rounds to 5, and really there's not 7 clear rounds Hopkins won in the fight that's for sure.

 

48 by my count, at best. Duran had a huge amount of fights at lightweight then skipped to welterweight and beat a top shelf fighter and an ATG. Going up in weight despite spending a great many years and fights well below doesn't automatically mean one can't fight there.

Thankfully fights aren't scored on such. Duran had no business fighting at 160, and even 147 too, but BOOM he certainly went OK.

Oscar was miles up in the weights. Hagler and Monzon would hardly have to be at their best to stop him either.

You don't think he was chasing history and the record number of defenses?

I'd say it was a combination of him being a bit more of a challenge and Hopkins getting more restricted.

Well it has to show somewhere? It came suddenly with Donald Curry and others too. I've agreed the opponent was more difficult than the likes of Eastwood and Oscar as well, so a couple of things came together. Toney gets allowances for numerous close fights and robberies he got, it's hardly that sort of pattern with Hopkins. He doesn't need it.

Well history may have. He was building something special.

Past peak Ali didn't really figure out how to beat Norton decisively either. One judge scored round 12 in the first fight for Taylor, or it would have been a draw. Even your good self scored that round for Hopkins. Scoring that for Taylor is a disgrace, no if's or but's. Hopkins finished way over the top of him in the late rounds.

Hearns would never be a walkover for anyone, but he's too fragile when pushed deep to beat a guy like Hopkins.

He's certainly not feather fisted. He's got more than enough sting to knock Tommy out. He doesn't have to have some silly war on the outside to win.

No, but he'd go a long way toward taking away his assets and get brutal in close.

Hopkins is a winner, a winner who knows how to get it done. Against the very best Tommy often struggled to find the finish line. Peak Hopkins isn't going to run around hiding and not try to win the fight.

People watched the fight and scored it. Most of them scored it for Hopkins. One judge gave Taylor the last round or it would have been a draw and title retained. Did said judge forget which one Hopkins was?

Where is this general vibe to be found? 10 vs 8 on the classic forum with only about 4 Taylor cards transparent? In reality there's not 7 clear rounds for Taylor either, that's for certain.

We'll just have to disagree on this one mate.

 

Great debate...i currently have this 50/50. This debate forced me to think some more and with no bias

 

@JohnThomas1 I don't want to keep going back and forth on this so I'll do a short reply to agree to disagree on a few things.

1. We can agree both the Taylor fights were close.

2. We can agree maybe Hopkins had issues with the weight at that time.

3. We can agree Hopkins is a great fighter even though I'm not a fan.

But I would like you to agree to disagree with me on some of my points below.

I still think Taylor was a stylistic problem for Hopkins and whilst Hopkins was older the level he was fighting at before and after the Taylor fights means those wins were legit for Taylor even if they were close fights.

I do still think with Hearns having identical attributes to Taylor in height and reach along with Hearns having a better jab and right hand than Taylor. For me the Taylor fights give us enough visual clues that it would be a tough match up for Hopkins.

Finally in hypothethical match ups between two great fighters it's all opinion based anyway so no one is right or wrong. But I think to beat Hearns you need to be aggressive you need to have the mentality to walk into the lions den knowing you're going to take serious punishment to walk him down and of course having a good chin.

Hopkins has a good chin I think his power is above average but nothing special. But my issue is I don't think Hopkins has the mentality of a Hagler, Leonard, Barkley, where he will be aggressive on the front foot, willing to take alot of punishment to get the win because I don't see Hopkins as that kind of fighter.

But that's just my two cents and I'm done with this topic now and to everyone I've debated with have a good one.

 

Hopkins would win this.

 

Interesting points .. 15 favors Hopkins . Hearns did never settle at 160 .. he may have been on his way but the disastrous Hagler strategy and fight wiped that out ... still, Hearns was never outboxed, only outslugged and Bernard was no slugger ... Tommy was as big, had a slightly longer reach, was faster and hit much harder .. an interesting watch up ... I'm not huge fan of Hopkins but he may nutmugTommy as the fight goes on .. depends on what the ref allows as well ..