Chris Eubank (1990) Vs Tommy Hearns (1985)?

Gonna have to go with Eubank. Something like a cheetahesque left uppercut in the 7th

 

Eubank late stoppage or comfortable decision

 

Suddenly Hearns has my vote.

 

Hearns was far better than Breland and Eubank was not a good pressure fighter.

 

Against the taller fighter?

 

Hearns had a better jab than anybody Eubank fought.

 

Hearns would out-jab Eubank, Chris never beat a fighter with a 78 inch reach, it would be like Hearns fight v Hill except easier because Eubank had a shorter reach than Hill and couldn`t fight on the front foot.

 

Not in their sparring in 83 he wasn’t.

 

In fact Breland edged it

 

Benitez would have beaten Breland as would Duran, sparring is just practise, no way could Starling have beat Heans and he would have toyed with Aaron Davis, Hearns was awesome at 147-154.

 

Sparring means nothing at all, i've seen journeyman hold their own and even get the better of world class fighters in sparring.

 

Joey Olivio had a batter jab than anyone Eubank fought…but Joey ain’t beating Chris either. Not sure I get your point

 

The point is getting past Hearns jab with a 73 inch reach would be difficult, Eubank liked to fight on the backfoot on the outside and that was not the way to beat Hearns.

 

Far from comfy.

Eubank on Tommy’s jab;

This content is protected

 

Eubank was an elite middleweight, Hearns was not, he was a good middleweight.