CALZAGHE VS HEARNS AT 168lbs.

just wondering out of curiosity why you feel the need to make this post and explain yourself, when it has been your first post in this thread, which obviously means that you did'nt make a negative post, or have you said something bad about him before,

I'm honestly not meaning to sound like a smart ass, I just don't get it :huh

 

When has Calzaghe been hurt in a fight? He's had a couple of flash knockdowns but never been seriously hurt, let alone stopped. He also has fairly good movement and defence.

On overall skill I would put Hearns ahead (he outboxed Leonard even), however there are three big problems for him.

First, he's fighting a genuine 168 lbs fighter, a naturally bigger man, and he doesn't have a great chin. That means he has a good chance of getting hurt and stopped, whereas it will be harder for him to get a KO, and hard to come off best when fighting on the inside and in the clinches. He won't have the usual massive height and reach advantages he had in the lower divisions.

Second, Calzaghe has very fast hands and excellent combination punching. Hearns is no defensive wizard so that means he is going to get hit repeatedly throughout the fight. If we are talking prime Calzaghe before his injuries, he had respectable power and scored plenty of KOs.

Third, and this is the most important, Calzaghe has *insane* punch output and stamina which he carries the distance. He will outwork Hearns just like he outworked every fighter he stepped in the ring with.

So, you have a former 147 lbs master boxer with respectable power at 168lbs, with an iffy chin, against a natural 168lbs fighter with fast hands, good defence, good chin, and one of the best stamina & punch outputs of any fighter in the history of the sport. Sorry but this is a bit of a mismatch, Hearns will easily get decisioned and probably stopped inside the distance against a prime Calzaghe. Against the brittle-fisted post-injury Calzaghe, he'll still lose just on workrate and the good big man vs good smaller man issues.

All the factors that helped Hearns be a beast at the lower weights - height, reach, power - are nullified against a 168lbs fighter. And his boxing skill, which is what kept him competitive at the higher weights, is nullified here because Calzaghe is a pretty skilled boxer.

 

P4P Hearns is better, but not at 168.

 

Thomas Hearns destroyed Dennis Andries and beat a undefeated prime Virgil Hill (and go undefeated for another 6 years after the Hearns loss), two of the best Light-heavyweights of the era, but its still a mismatch for Hearns :roll:

 

Hearns has never scored a KO in a fight at 168lbs. Above 160lbs his KO % (which include lots of fights with journeymen) is about 50%. Calzaghe has never been stopped.

 

Styles make fights. Do Andries or Hill have styles similar to Calzaghe? No they don't. Saying that Hearns beat 2 fighters so he'd do well is just as dumb as saying Calzaghe never lost so he'd not lose this time either.

Dennis Andries was a crude fighter who was beaten numerous times in his prime way before the Hearns fight, and got beaten twice by the extremely limited Jeff Harding. Of course against a skilled boxer he is likely to get dominated. He is no way near the skill level of Calzaghe or Hearns.

Hill was much better, but he was decisively beaten by Jones and Dariusz who were the main men at LHW during his career. He also didn't have the advantages that Calzaghe had in stamina/work rate, combination punching etc. He was a bit of a one-handed jab and move fighter, whereas Calzaghe is a very busy combination puncher - totally different styles. Needless to say, trying to beat Thomas Hearns with jab and move is not the best idea. Hearns was troubled most when opponents pressured him with a high work rate e.g. Hagler, Leonard when he mixed it up in the first fight, Barkley. Calzaghe is bigger than Hagler or Leonard, and more skilled than Barkley, and had better stamina and punch output than all of them - that would cause all kinds of trouble for the older, less mobile, less active Hearns who fought at 168. As an example, Bernard Hopkins was simply outworked by the inferior Taylor due to difference in stamina and work rate. The older Hearns would wilt against a fighter who threw as much as Joe did, and Joe was a pretty handy boxer himself.

If you want to make a serious argument for Hearns being favourite, explain your view on the strengths and weaknesses of both fighters at 168, and how their styles match up. Don't just come out with some lazy "X beat Y so he'd beat Z" nonsense - that might fly in General or the local dive bar, but you need a bit more to make your case here.

 

Did you actually know anyone that picked Shuler to win that fight? I sure didn't.

 

I see Hearns winning a decision. A knockout win at 168 for Hearns would not happen probably. Tommy had some knockouts higher than 160, but not too many. Once he started to go 12 rounds with Kinchen and Leonard and Olajide and Hill his infighting and experience excelled and he even improved at an older age on the inside. I think he beats Calzaghe by decision, but a close decision. And he would have to be in shape like he was for Leonard and Hill. He cannot come in the ring soft and unprepared like he did for Kinchen. If he comes in shape and prepared he outboxes Joe.

 

I agree. The Hill which Hearns beat was undefeated and had 10 title defenses and 4 years a champ. Great win. And Andries was a good fighter in 1987. Not a great, but a solid champ who could punch. But Hill was the much better win of the two of course.

 

I did'nt come out with that statement, learn to read you patronising smart ass.

I gave my reason for my Hearns pick on page 1.

What I said was, how does Hearns beating a prime undefeated Virgil Hill and who straight after the Hearns loss go on to win both the IBF and WBA title and be undefeated for the next 6 years as world champion,

Make it a mismatch for Calzaghe, which is what you said, Now thats a nonsense statement right there.

When Hearns proved himself a brilliant Light-Heavyweight and more than capable at winning.

 

Joe was definitely hurt against Byron Mitchell, he swayed badly as he got to his knees. He recovered extremely fast, as we saw. So i think not only is his chin excellent, but also his recuperative abilities.

JC also had the ability to switch tactics mid fight, look at the Kessler fight, Eubank and others.

The Hitman, well as said he outboxed the consumate boxer in Virgil Hill. He destroyed Andries, the really crude version of a really crude fighter. He had it all at 147, 154 great jab, right hand, intimidating, fast , good legs, he was a beast.

168 and above there are negatives, he still had a great jab , right hand certainly. Legs, no they did fade. Huge power no, he hit Andries flush at will repeatedly. I remember watchingthat fight and Dennis was beyond out of his depth, he had no skills to compete , just toughness to get up again and again. And he was not a massive puncher himself.

I can see JC getting floored possibly, though at his peak it rarely happened. Less so in a big fight. Getting stopped i just cannot see. Can i see him manouvering Tommy to the ropes and opening up ? Yeah. So does Joes quantity override Hearns quality. I think it would. I can see Tommy getting stopped, against the ropes as JC throws too much for him.

Tommy is light years better P4P , but he is not a better super middle, in my opinion.

The Virgil Hill fight had a pure boxer try and outbox a good puncher who could box like a dream. Joe would fight him differently.

I think Hill would pose Joe more problems than Hearns, styles after all make fights.

 

I think better of Calzaghes chances than most here.

I think that stylisticaly he would pose a box of problems for Hearns.

 

Me too. That busy busy busy work ethic is wrong for a guy that loves that pitchers mound. You can't let Hearns set the pace and there is no way Hearns is outworking the guy. I also see that southpaw style being effective and Tommy going off balance trying to land. His legs are nowhere near as good as Joe's and he'll get turned in there. And constantly peppered from those great angles Calzaghe used.