Gennady Golovkin vs Thomas Hearns

And a round and a round we go … we could look at things like this .. Hearns has 2 1/2 height adv. 8" reach adv … GGG aint winning this from the outside ...Hearns had a better jab, although GGG was great too, Hearns more power in his right and left hook to body... GGG better stamina, better chin, better D, cutt off ring … GGG NEVER faced a fighter like Hearns who would test his chin no question about it, and Hearns was in wars with greats .. Fair to say that GGG is in un chattered waters here a lot more than Hearns .. Experience counts for something .. I like Hearns in this fight

 

Firstly, mathiness is not your forte.

Secondly, if my aunt had a set she would be my uncle. But she doesn't and she isn't.

 

Hearns had no base when he moved up. At the slightest fatigue or difficulty, his footwork got sloppy and this sloppiness worked its way up the ladder. This is highly problematic against a great like GGG who would solve the puzzle at every rung. If a sloppy street brawler like Barkley can figure this out, GGG might do it one-handed.

 

It does not mean those guys would beat Hearns. If someone fights enough and moves up like he did and did so much yo yoing up in weight, he can come in weak like I think he did with Kinchen. But I think Kinchen is a guy Hearns would have done much better with had he fought him later on. The guy who Hearns beat Hill knocked out Kinchen in one round. Hearns knocked out Shuler and beat Virgil Hill, and Hill is regarded as much better than Barkley. Barkley does not fight like GGG, and if GGG took the punches Barkley did against Hearns, I think he would be stopped. Remember Barkley was a big strong guy who could fight at heavyweight. GGG doesn't even want to leave the middleweights.

Well that was the quality of opposition I am talking about. He moved around divisions so much, yet even his middleweight resume is a whose who of middleweights of the 1980s . Singletary,Sutherland,Hagler,Shuler,Dewitt,Roldan,Barkley,Kinchen,Leonard,Olajide I have to include 168, but in reality he went there much earlier than GGG would or will. I am not sure what happened with this message. I went back and the early part I responded is up above. I don't know how to maneuver this site well, I hope it works without me confusing who wrote what.

 

I don't know if I would call GGG great at this point. He is getting there, but he needs more elite wins or that win which puts him there. Again if Jacobs could trouble him, Hearns would beat him I think, it is just a guy who can do more in everyway. Canelo was moving up and GGG had trouble there. Barkley had a style of exchanging in the middle of being tagged and that style was trouble for Tommy. You cannot have a career fighting the best and not have some tough fights, but GGG is a little too open and he lets his left drag too much to not be hit clean by the left, and we are matching him with a preHagler-Hearns? Hearns would win. Post -Hagler Hearns is more difficult to say. But I think the jab and being patient and waiting to counterpunch as he would with GGG, I think Hearns wins. Nothing is ever a sure thing, but Hearns experience and the levels he fought at is what gives him the win. GGG seems to falter a bit when he fights guys a little better. And it is not age. Between the Canelo fights he had that fight where he looked good.

 

Can people please stop referring to Sutherland, Dewitt, Kinchen and Schuler as high quality wins. It's triggering my better sense.

 

Either way it is a hard comparison, because you get proven resume with Hearns and eye test … And with GGG resume is lacking and you get eye test, however resume not as much for me because I have him out pointing Canelo in both fights and at that age.. So I rate him with those wins for me.. Look this is a tough fight here,, I'm not so sure either guy steam rolls the other guy … Hearns too many adv.. height, reach, top 5 jab, power, experience… GGG everything else

 

Ggg beating Hearns one handed is about as realistic as Leon Spinx knocking out Oliver McCall.

 

I'm not sure I entirely buy this analysis, but it's quite well written.

 

My gut says Golovkin chips away at him and fells him all of a sudden kind of like Frazier did Buster Mathis, but that's obviously heavily contingent on his not getting jabbed dizzy and brutally KO'd by Hearns earlier on, and I don't know enough about Golovkin's chin to assess how likely he is to avoid that.
My pick is GGG with a confidence of about 65%.

 

It started out pretty well ….. then faded fast

 

I kind of chuckled at this mental image.

 

If Tommy boxes like he can he wins ud,if he goes for ko I give ggg the edge

 

LMAO The only good or even decent(Barkley) fighters on that list are the ones Hearns lost to.

 

The fact is those guys Hearns fought are better than the defenses GGG had in his defenses except for Jacobs and Canelo, who went 12 with him. Which is what I am trying to explain. The better the guys he couldn't knock out, which is significant. And this is a guy moving up in weight. GGG did not fight top fighters. Hearns always moved up and looked for more challenges. Probably not GGG's fault, but a weight Hearns moved up to he fought decent fighters who would have been a step up for GGG. The Hagler fight, anyone who fights that way against Hagler will probably lose, and Hearns still took Hagler's best and made it one of the best fights ever. Barkley? Hearns was careless and had Barkley on the verge of a TKO with cuts and body punches in June 1988. And Hearns beat Hill rather easily. His wins prove he can beat top fighters with any style. Hall of famers. That is my point. GGG fought one humpty dumpty after another and didn't want to move up and test his skills when he might not be as strong. I think Hearns offense at middleweight would still be too much for GGG to handle. Hagler said, Hearns offense was his defense, which might be right. He had good offense.