Golovkin vs Hearns

He was always losing that war against Hagler, though.

Haven't seen the Kinchen fight in a long while, but he certainly didn't look "shot" in the next fight, against Leonard, even less so against Roldan and Barkley. The Roldan fight was only a year and a half after he destroyed Schuler for chrissakes, with no tough fights in between. When was he ever not at shot at MW, in your opinion? For those two and a half rounds against Hagler?

It really isn't more difficult than that Hearns always was vulnerable against opponents who could come inside. I believe there's a good chance Golovkin would, and if he did he'd make shorter work of him than Hagler did.

 

Bummy Davis, you sure that will be enough? Cotto, Quillin and Chavez Jr.? Those 3 you couldn't even be sure that they will win their next bouts let alone still be around at or near the top when Golovkin gets around to facing them.

Not Golovkin fault of course. The MW's are just in as bad a state as people can remember, Golovkin aside.

 

It was hearns chin and the effect a shot had on his legs which went at this point. His punch resistance had gone. nothing wrong with his speed or power unless he got hit.
If an opponent was kept outside most of the night like leonard (who himself was 33 and was having just his 5th fight in 7 years) or later virgil hill, this problem never sufaced and hed look a million dollars. but the ring wars and the kronk gym wars had taken their toll, he just couldn't hold a decent shot anymore without his legs turning to jelly.
You ask me to provide the moment that this happened to hearns? or the moment it happened to roy jones? its a question which cant be answered but its clear that the hearns who swapped bombs with cuevas, benitez, leonard, duran and hagler was not the same bambi who was wobbling around from average punches in the fights you mentioned. Still world class? yes. But go back to the literature and films of the day, hearns chin was shot and everyone knew it.

But all of this is drifting off subject, you should probably start a new thread if you want to go on about it further

 

Well, it was a direction you turned it to.

Hearns never swapped punches with Cuevas, Duran or Benitez, since they never got to him. The one who did, Leonard, stopped him. Hearns never really proved his chin against anyone.

So that a banger like Roldan, one of the hardest hitting MWs of his generation, would shake him up when he landed is hardly surprising. And Barkley's vicious right would have anyone in desperate trouble. The problem there wasn't Tommy's chin (he did well to get up, actually), but a defensive mistake. He ducked inside Barkley's jab, losing eye-contact for a second, and brought his head up afterwards with the chin in the air and without brining his left hand up to shield it. If you're in with a heavy puncher your own size, you are going to pay for stuff like that.

A WW puncher like Cuevas never got the chance to get close enough to exploit opportunities like that. That's the difference. Not any decline. Leonard was the only one below 160 that managed to exploit Hearns's defensive flaws (he hurt him twice in the middle rounds with left hooks when Tommy traded with his chin held high and his hands held low), but at 160 and above there were quite naturally more that managed to.

But if you want to persist thinking that the Tommy that faced Hagler was the only non-shot version at MW, I'd give Golovkin a good chance to come inside and finish that version too. As I said earlier, I'd like to see Golovkin tested against better opposition, but as of now he looks to me to have both the defence and chin to get inside of Hearns. And he certainly has the power and accuracy to finish him off once he gets there.

Perhaps a skilled puncher with long reach will come along and show me all wrong here, but as of now I don't find it difficult to envision Golovkin finishing off any MW version of Hearns.

 

Golovkin through no fault of his own is avoided as though he has e - bola. I love Tommy, but GGG destroys ANY version of him. Great chin which will allow him to get inside and take away Tommy's leverage on his punches. As has been mentioned, Leonard did it in their first fight, Hagler did it in their war also. The Russian has far more power than either of those 2.

It is as easy as that.

 

Difficult and unfair to say at this point - you could easily overestimate Golovkin or undersell Hearns.

 

It's hard to put a guy who was in a life and death battle with a washed-up Kassim Ouma, and who's best opponent was an ESPN-level fighter (Stevens) in with Hearns.

I like tripple G, but let him beat, Oh, a top ONE HUNDRED level middleweight first.

 

Which top one hundred level MW do you think Hearns beat?

 

If we're looking strictly at MW, does Hearns really have the better resume?

Wins over Schuler, DeWitt and Roldan is good, but not really world beaters and only the win over Schuler was totally convincing. No shame in losing to Hagler, even though many non-ATGs made it past 3 rds against him, but being iced by Barkley is not that impressive.

Don't know Golovkin's resume as well, but he has no losses despite more fights at the weight (haven't met a Hagler, of course), and has he really nothing close to wins over the likes of Schuler, De Witt and Barkley?

Tbf, I think it's reasonable to also weigh in his wins against Duran and Leonard (Tommy should have won the rematch) as well as his exploits at higher weights to a degree. But if we just for the sake of it only look at what he did at MW.

 

None, but he had one of the greatest fights ever against a top 5 welterweight, and the best fighter I've s.een in my lifetime (Leonard) and then should have won the rematch.

Beat a top 10 junior welterweight (Benitez).

Beat a blown up, but still good version of one of the 20 best ever (Duran).

And beat a top 10, Light heavyweight (Hill)

He destroyed the "good" fighters he fought (Shuler, Olijide, Curry, Cuevas, Shields, Hutchings, Medal, etc.) and these guys were better than GGG's best.

No offense to GGG, but people were hyping Matthysse on this level 18 months ago.

 

Good synopsis, but Curry doesn't belong there. They never crossed paths. And Cuevas certainly wasn't a better MW (did he even fight there?) than anyone Golovkin beaten.

You're right that the jury still is out a bit concerning Golovkin, but I don't think Hearns ever proved himself a great MW, even though he had the chance. In fact, I think it's seems quite reasonable to say that Golovkin is better than anyone Hearns beat at MW. At least next best to Leonard - if you count their the catch weight fight and that as a win for Tommy. The reverse of course also being true.

And I think Golovkin has the stylistical edge here.

 

Paths never crossed? I must be losing it as I remember watching hearns ko curry in 3 rounds. you sure you know what youre talking about?

 

golovkin has a significant disadvantage in reach...8 inches.and 3 inches in height.

 

That was mccallum knocking curry out in 5.