Bernard Hopkins vs Tommy Hearns @ 160

Perhaps. But I tend to think that the guys Hearns beat at 160 were better than the guys Hopkins beat at 160. And quality of opposition means more to me than longevity. At any rate, "far" is a bit of an exaggeration, unless longevity is nearly the whole of your criteria of greatness.

 

Unfortunately Hearns had a china chin, and legs like twigs. Hopkins would treat Tommy's power with contempt, and force him to box, which he wouldn't be able to maintain for 12 rounds. Hopkins just bludgeons Tommy to a stoppage win any time after the 9th round. Much like he did to Tito in fact. another guy who could hit, but had a dubious chin.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:roll:

 

I don't think Hearns and Trinidad are comparable - aside from the two things you mention: power and chin. Hearns was a tall, rangy, fast guy with a rapier jab who could win distance fights against anyone; Trinidad was not quite as rangy as Hearns, had slower hands and feet. So Hearns could out-box Hopkins, whereas Trinidad had no chance. Also, Hearns could land power shots from distance, since he has better reach and his money punch was the straight right; Trinidad had shorter reach and his best punch was the left hook, so he had to get in-close to land the hard stuff.

 

FIrst of all, I certainly acknowledge it's a close call, which is why I said "gun to my head, or money on the line I'd go with Hopkins."

I do think through the course of his career he displayed better over all boxing skills at that weight, which is probably what I should have said the first time.

 

This claim would not have been so bad if he said anyone Hopkins "beat," not "fought."

 

Yeah, I am myself unsure who wins this with any level of certitude either and would only go with Hearns if I were forced to choose.

 

Trinidad and Hearns are not comarable at all.

 

Hearns should decision him in fantasy land, but then again Khan should've decisioned Danny Garcia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I actually wouldn't be surprised if this fight doesn't go a lot like the Hopkins v. Taylor fights. Sure, Hopkins was rather old in those fights, and one would assume he'd be able to muster more activity; but, on the flip side, Hearns likely hit harder than Taylor, and that would make Hopkins more cautious, too.

 

Oh yes they are. Both were very good at stopping Welterweights, but notably worse at stopping higher weight guys. Both also had sh!t chins, particularly when naturally bigger guys hit them.

that's plenty for you to be going on with.

 

I assumed we were talking prime for prime, as opposed to a prime Tommy v a 40 year old Hopkins.atsch

 

I've already mentioned why they are different. Most prominently, Trinidad could not box at all and combined to win maybe three or four rounds in 24 against de la Hoya and Hopkins; in contrast, neither Leonard nor Benitez - or the much larger Virgil Hill - could out-box Hearns.

Even in terms of the power you mention, Hearns did knockout several durable guys at higher weights. Trinidad did not (of course, I guess Joppy had not been knocked out either prior to Trinidad, but given his opposition up till then - and how badly he took the first meaningful punch from Trinidad - I don't think it means much).

 

Yes Tommy could out box Hopkins. Conversely he could be put on q"eer street at any time during the fight. If Hopkins can drop Calzaghe whose chin was exceptionally good with a shot he could easily have Hearns doing the chicken dance. There is no way Tommy can hold Hopkins off for 12 rounds.

 

That's true. But conversely, Tommy could also drop Hopkins. I think the one unknown - and possibly determinative - factor in this fight is how Hopkins takes the Hit Man's punches. Hopkins had a great chin, but it's not Hagler's chin.

Once again, I don't know for sure how this fight would turn out. This isn't like Duran v. Arguello or Duran v. Pacquiao (the two hypothetical match-ups I saw posted recently here), where I feel very confident about what would happen. So I am not really questioning your conclusion. Instead, I am more or less questioning the reasoning that led to the conclusion - which seems to me Hearns = Trinidad, thus Hopkins beats Trinidad. Inappropriate a-n-a-l-o-g-i-e-s are one of my pet peeves, and too many people consider two things the same, if they are similar in one area. (The stupidest a-n-a-l-o-g-y I've seen here is surely the Arguello = Hearns version I've seen that led some folks to claim Pryor would beat Hearns.)