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

Dude, you will never stop.

 

I'd pick Jones. Hearns would be dangerous as hell, but Jones was so fast I think he could evade it, Jones was a very good puncher too, and there's a pretty good chance of him stopping Hearns. Jones honestly probably has the better resume, and is naturally bigger too.

 

This sums up my feelings on this fight pretty well. Roy catches him sooner or later.

 

Ironically. after McCallum fought Jones he said Hearns could beat him. What that means I am not sure. But Hearns with a jab and dropping in the right in a smart way I think he could beat Jones. I remember when Hearns fought Ray in 1981, he pretty much stayed jabbing and throwing right hands.. very simple fight plan. in 1989 he actually did a lot of the same but adding in my body punches, but sometimes against the top fighters who are fast guys have to fight simple and not mix up many punches to give a guy more opportunity. He did not give Virgil Hill much opportunity either.

 

Just googled it and Roy would also be carrying a massive reach advantage over Duran (a full 8 inches) I love Roberto Duran and absolute respect his skill set and abilities. But He had problems with taller faster fighters. Roy probably makes it look easy either by KO or decision. I'd be suspirsed and impressed if Duran took 3 rounds off him.

 

LOL Marvin's jab was his least effective punch in that fight. With 8 inches of reach and his speed Roy would be near impossible to hit. Though Roy did tear Vinne Paz up with his jab. It looked stellar in that fight, I suspect because Roy actually decided to use it with the reach advantage. I think unlike Hearns Roy wouldn't bomb out Duran. I think Roy would humiliate him. Mix how Ray beat him and how Hearns beat him. Either stops him late or decisions him handily. Hearns jab mostly went to the body, and after a few up high Roy would be landing hooks down low. Hagler fought FAR too respectfully. Merchant is an ass.

 

I see nothing but a focus on Hagler positives and Jones negatives. Jones was one of these rare god given talents that didn't need to depend on your common jab. He won almost every round he fought in his best years without needing one. Jones was far more explosive than Hagler and his ridiculous speed and reflexes had him landing plenty of punches. Just look at how easily he completely dominated a defensive master in Toney. It's absurd.

Only someone dying to criticize would possibly bag Jones via a claim of missing too many punches in his 2 1/2 minute decimation of Griffin in their rematch, a guy that had never been stopped and was rated the third best light heavyweight in the world.

Boxers don't have to be boringly orthodox to be great Mark. The Jones agenda will gain you no traction.

 

But then apart from those two who did he really fight?

 

Both tremendous fighters, like asking which is better a Ferrari or a McLaren........