Hearns vs Jones Jr

This is just wrong. Nobody in the history of Boxing is faster than Roy Jones Jr. This isn't even debatable.

This is also untrue. Leonard is a guy just from his eta alone that is more skilled than him. There are at least 10 more with more ability. Hearns was dope, there's just been better dudes.

Rather easily is also a lie. Quit fooling. Your argument is suffering here.

Jones could land at will against any fighter, including Sugar Ray Robinson. Hearns is also not a "pure boxer" and is not even close to being the best "pure boxer ever".

You need to take Tommy Hearns' ***** out of your mouth.


Never go full ret@rd kids :naughty

 

1. The fact you say almost as fast derails your argument. Hearns is a snail compared to prime Jones.

2. Hearns is not a pure boxer, simple as. He was and always was a boxer puncher.

3. Yes he can. Jones was a seriously unorthodox blend of insane speed, athleticism and reflexes. He could land on anyone. Ffs Jones lunged into punches and jumped back out of range in one single motion before his opponents even felt the punch.

4. Hagler is a good example. A guy who doesn't receive props as a boxer but fundamentally was more complete than Hearns. If he has to, Hagler would box circles around Hearns. Robinson too. And obviously Jones. There's three...one time for your mind.

 

Hagler and his team didn't think they could outbox Hearns. That's why he turned it into a fight instead of a boxing contest.

 

They turned it into a fight because of Hearns' weak chin and inability to keep Hagler off him...hence why the fight ended as quick as it did. If Hagler was to compose himself he could outbox Hearns. He had better footwork, head movement, jab and variance in his attack to outbox Hearns. Hagler is also a very underrated counter puncher and his defence was rock solid. Hearns had great skill, but relied on his physical frame too much in fights...people mistake this for boxing skill, which it is not.

 

Hagler's team saw how Hearns had boxed against Leonard and Benitez and thought their best chance of winning was to make it into a brawl. Hagler said this himself after the fight. I am a Hagler fan from the first Vito fight and maybe( a big maybe) he could have outboxed Hearns but he felt his best chance to win was to make it into a brawl.

 

I agree and clearly it was a good decision to make it a brawl as Hearns couldn't cope. If anything it serves as evidence that Hearns could not outbox him as he was forced to fight back. Hagler was very efficient. However I still feel if needs be he could outbox Hearns, and outbox him easily at that. Hagler's movement and footwork was exceptional coupled by a superb jab.

 

Hagler had sublime skills as a boxer, no doubt about it. Most people think of him as simply a beast but he had great boxing skills. However, the ref was about to stop the fight with Hearns because of the cut Hagler had. Hearns also broke his right hand on Hagler's head and had actually stunned him so Hagler did not just walk through Hearns. Hearns height and reach together with his boxing ability made him a tough opponent when he chose to go into his boxer mode. Hearns chin wasn't as weak as urban legend puts it as the people that put him down could crack. It's all opinion and who is to say who actually was the better boxer since Hagler won the fight, which is what he set out to do, by brawling with Hearns.

 

Roy stops Tommy with a body shot!

 

lol You are the only one that would make that argument.

 

And you would think the greatest pure boxer ever would've had enough defence to not get KOd in 3 rds twice.

 

I would break it down here but the only reply your posts deserve is a "lol".