Hearns v Roy Jones at either 160, 168 or 175 eras for eras who wins?

It is how Tommy fights.. If he fights smart like Virgil Hill I think he outboxes Roy at 175.. and 160 pickem. Roy was more inexperienced but Tommy older,, 168 Roy.

 

RJJ beats any version of Hearns. That's just how good RJJ was. Now pitting a prime Hagler against RJJ is another story...

 

I am not sure. Stylistically I think Hearns has a great style for Jones and his reach. If he stuck the jab in Jones face I think Tommy wins. Jones did not fight the quality of opposition Hearns did,, and that makes a difference.

 

It is a tough one. Hearns had more equals to fight and guys to move up and fight. He fought hall of famer after hall of famer. Roy did a couple of times, but not like Hearns and Hearns fought most of the legends he fought when they were champions. Something overlooked.

 

This is a tough one.. I would say very close.. Roy didn't lose in his prime like Hearns did, but he didn't fight guys like Leonard or Hagler to test that one out either. And Hearns had other fights in his prime where he beat greater guys than Roy did. I think very close. I think both Roy and Hearns are in the 15-30 range in top fighter ever. Neither.. Roy lacks the great fights in his prime to put him on the map as the greatest ever and Tommy lost his 2 biggest fights but fought great fights and other greats. We saw Hearns tested a little more.

 

RJJ looked better than Hearns when moving up, so I guess my answer is yes.

 

How did Roy look better than Hearns. Hearns was the first man to win titles in 5 weights. First welt to win the light heavy title.

 

Can't believe you're asking me this question. Well, here goes...Hearns got plastered against Hagler. Got plastered against Iran Barkley. Barely beat James Kinchen. Beat an undefeated yet boring Virgil Hill to then lose, again, to Iran Barkley.

Roy Jones Jr. defeated, barely losing a round, every one from 1988-2003. Middleweight, Super Middleweight, Light heavyweight and even Heavyweight. RJJ blanked John Ruiz, (Despite being a single WBA trinket, Ruiz is the same man who went 1-1-1 against Holyfield, beat Rahman, Golota, Kirk Johnson, and a few other ranked contenders).

I shouldn't need to go on...

 

Hagler was a great fight and is remembered as such for both guys coming out to fight. When has Roy had a great fight at all. Tommy has had several. Barkley? good style, but he almost beat him in the rematch. Barkley was bad style for him, and that is proven by Iran Barkley losing to most good fighters he fought. So you mention the year he started to diminish, yet he came back and should have beat Leonard or got a decision.. Beat an undefeated Virgil Hill who called him out and was 5 years younger with 10 title defenses., but you are saying you cannot believe I ask you this. Roy was a great fighter who ducked tough competition for years, and that fact has been forgotten. Completely. He started fighting tougher guys when he started to lose, then he was the one being knocked out again and again. Let's look at Hearns career. 3 of his titles were won against Hall of Famers. Cuevas 147, Benitez 154 and Hill 175.. First man to win the light heavy title after winning the welt. First man to win 4 and 5 titles when that was an accomplishment. I loved Roy as a fighter, but he never had a great fight and he ducked fighters. He will be remembered well for his speed and skills, but there will always be a level of who could he have fought. With Hearns you don't have that.

 

It's just not talked about enough or at all the Hearns beat Leonard in the rematch.. He is 1-1 with Leonard. He was as good as Leonard when you look at everything career wise , imo … Hearns should get more credit for this because he has way more fights than SRL and fought everyone .. This is something that Ray can never say that he just wanted to fight to be the best like Tommy did

 

Roy's shut out of James Toney and win over a young B-hop with a broken hand is more impressive than getting bombed out by Hagler in 3 and according to the judges never beating SRL. I love Hearns, but when he fought the best of his time he proved he wasn't quite on the level of the others. Roy dominated his biggest fights in his prime. For 14 years, excusing the Montell Griffin DQ, Roy destroyed or toyed with everybody they put him in with.

 

so the Hagler fight, a great fight encapsulates Hearns? And the other 66 fights do not? I don't think you love Hearns. As for Jones If that encapsulates Hearns, then Tarver rematch encapsulates Jones. or Johnson.. Etc.
Hearns knocked out 11 defense of the welterweight champion Cuevas in two rounds. Hall of Famer. Benitez. (hurt hand also) probably at his best weight. Hearns wins that title.. Even his losses were great fights, Virgil Hill undefeated and Hearns was 5 years older. Roy didn't fight the great fights Hearns did or the great fighters. That is a fact. Hopkins was not the Hopkins we knew later when Roy fought him before or after. Toney was a great win, I cannot take away from that. The Ruiz win at heavyweight was a joke as was Ruiz as a champion. Roy avoided tough competition in the same way Floyd Mayweather did. I do respect Roy, but when it comes to fighters and putting your all out and giving great fights, Hearns wins this ones and wins it easily.

 

Yes, exactly. I wish Tommy would have come out in round 12 boxing and winning that round. Yes I think he was as good as Ray and his career just as iconic if not moreso with the Hagler fight, which made he and Hagler remembered uniquely.