Not sure if this has been covered before, and apologies for adding to the endless list of Calzaghe threads, but this match up intrigues me. I'm talking about the 1989 Hearns who 'drew' with SRL against the 2006 Calzaghe who battered Lacey. Both would be early thirties, both apparently past their best according to the media, and both underdogs with the bookies, yet they both put in great performances (though I am not for one second suggesting that you can compare SRL and Lacey.....)
Hearns was awesome but Joe is too slick for him I mean how many times do we have to see the man utterly nulify his foes offence before it sinks in?
I'm a big Hearns supporter (I thought he won the "draw" against SRL), but I think Tommy would be too stretched at the weight to beat Calzaghe. Joe UD.
No one has ever outboxed Hearns except Barkley. Hearns would be past his prime at 168, but he'd give Joe a great fight. Hearns also outpointed Hill at Light Heavy. I thought that fight could've went either way. I don't know if Joe could knock out Hearns or not and I'm not sure he could outpoint him or not. I'd pick a draw.
Calzaghe in his prime hit very hard, too awkward a style for Hearns as well. He'd get him early like Hagler did at SMW, Hearns is not a SMW.
No he didnt. Big ass lie by the clown posse. We have footage, he was the damned same just more aggressive back then. More speed.
Yeah but he won title at Light Heavy Weight. He beat the guy considered the best at the time. Virgil Hill. You could be right because Hearns chin sometimes betrayed him like it did against Barkley and Hagler. I do think this is a tough one to call. Hearns did learn how to grab and hold when hurt.
Calzaghe would win, probably via late stoppage. Hearns would be competitive, make no mistake about it. But was past his prime while competing at super-middleweight. Hearns' long range boxing ability would keep him right in the fight.