Naturally bigger maybe. But Hearns was a poster boy for successful weight gain and maintaining a high standard of prowess as he rose through the divisions. That’s pretty obvious. He had some frailties but he was a force from 147 thru 175. A great, great fighter. I’m happy to keep the conversation going. It’s a good match up. I’m a big fan of both guys.
Thats true....not by 1987-1991 but the wins he did have at LH .....20 defence man Virgil Hill ....3 time champ Dennis Andries....and 1988 Olympic gold medalist Andrew Maynard....are very good ones....enough to make a worthy discussion that Tommy had a shot against some top 30 LH"s of all time perhaps
Hill was a pretty damn good boxer and younger and undefeated and Hearns put on a clinic against him. I think he’d do the same to Eubanks.
Eubank is like 20 lbs naturally heavier than hearns, Eubank would be too big and Eubank is 100x better than Barkley and sets his punches up better and has better timing and that is how Barkley beat hearns in the 1st fight
I meant miles better that was just a way to put it, he obviously isn’t 100x better, but Barkley would get battered by Eubank
Imo Barkley would beat eubank by smothering him.He has the perfect style to force eubank to work hard whilst not giving him room to land the looping right.it would be a rest of strength. Eubanks doesnt have the fluid footwork of a kalambay or nunn to do it the other way imo.
About sums it up. Tommy would not win in a punching exchange with Eubank so it would need to be a Hill type of performance. Eubank could be quite lazy and he would find that he would need a stoppage to win as he ain't ouboxing Hearns.