Hearns vs. Sibson

That's because the title wasn't split as yet but when it wasn't, they both faced the same titlist you king sized moron and if memory serves me right, Tommy only got half as far as Tony.

Stop embarrassing yourself please and get a brain.

 

Ah, but Hearn's had the longevity and courage to come back from a heavy loss to win the title down the track. Need i remind you which one of them didn't have this capacity?

Just face it, your built up middleweight fantasy boys were just good fighters, nothing more, often less. Sibson, Roldan, Scypion (ok contenders in a poor era), Hard Rock For Red/Green (clubfighter), Le Animarl Fletcher (exciting clubfighter) ****, nearly forgot the sleepwalker, Dwight.

 

Any of those you mentioned could win a split title if they're still capable. Look at lightly regarded Obel who a title at 168.

On the other hand, not all great fighters win titles. Look at Langford. Look at Burley.

It all depends on what opportunities are available.

I'm surprised you haven't figured yet JT. Give up now, you're not smart enough to match wits with me.

 

Yeah, look at the 168 division when Obel won the strap, just started and nobody any good at all. Chong Pal Park he beat for the crown. Yeah, who?

Split title? You've already told all and sundrey what a great fighter and enormous puncher Roldan was and now anybody can beat him for a split title? You always run true to form, contradictive and plain hypocritical. You're posts have more holes than swiss cheese

You to wit is what Frank Le Animarl was to defensive skill

:good

 

Good to see the old rivalry back lads. :bbb



Meanwhile, my gut feeling here has to be Tommy. But Sibbo's style, strength, durability and left hook make this a tough fight to call. My prediction is Tommy to survive a knockdown around the 3rd and a further jelly legs session in the 6th to score a knockdown and stoppage in Round 8. But I wouldn't bet anything on it.

 

you were the one who just bragging how Tommy came back to win a title after his defeats. Isn't that the important thing?

I don't even remember who Bernard won his title from but I know it sure as hell it wasn't from Roy Jones. And according to you, Hopkins is all that.

So why should it matter who Obel beat for his title?

 

I saw all his fights from Minter onwards and his chin was good no doubt, but not that good. I haven't said otherwise. It might have been easier to compare it to Hagler's to make my point better. If Tommy landed that right hand he hit Hagler with he'd hurt Sibbo and could possibly stop him with a few more like that. Sibbo isn't a guy you knock out with a single punch but Tommy's so quick that he'd land several more punches, which is what, in fact, happened with Hagler when Tommy had him hurt.

Tommy had 5 fights at middleweight. In 3 of them he totally outclassed his opponent even if he did lose to Barkley in one of those fights. Barkley knocked Tommy the **** out but up until the last 20 seconds it was as one sided a fight in Tommy's favour as you're ever likely to see. One fight he lost a war against arguably the greatest middleweight ever and in another he won a shootout against Roldan, a fighter that had given Hagler a good deal of trouble.

Barkley was 1 round at most away from being stopped and the cut eye Tommy suffered against DeWitt seemed to negatively affect him for the rest of the fight. Until the cut it looked like Hearns was going through the gears on DeWitt. Benn only KO'd DeWitt through accumulation of punches and pressure and if not for the cut eye I think Hearns would have TKO'd DeWitt too.

Tommy's record at 160lbs is 3-2 and it really should have been 4-1, with the only loss against one of the greatest middles of all time. Not really that bad is it?

 

That's because you never read the words "great speed" in what little you've read on him. You're an embarrassment to ESB. Why do I bother arguing with this moron?

By the way, I have straightened out your message which reads Hopkins= dull, blue collar fighter with average punch with great longevity in a weak division.

 

Let's take a closer look at Tommy's opposition from the leonard fight on.

Singletary who was bottom of the barrell. This is the kind of safe oppoenent looks for: durable yet safe.

had no problems lasting the distance. To be fair, Tommy wasn't accustomed to the weight and no one says you have to knock out every opponent.

But let's be honest, Geraldo was kind of weak for a middleweight and criticized by Farhood (rightfully so) and was a habitual loser.

Then Mckraken-unranked, unknown. Don't know where they found him.

Sutherland. By now, Tommy should have adjusted to the weight. First round victim to Davison, the same man who once went the distance with Spinks and went 10 with Tommy.

Sibbo overcame the power of Davison for 12 to take a decision.

Minchillo. Strong fighter but not as strong as Sibbo, without being the danger Tony was, and without the defense Tony had, goes 12 with Tommy.

Then after Hagler you have Tommy's rare knockouts of a middleweight. But did James have either a punch or a chin?

Dewit who never went anywhere, was no Sibson but you seem to give the impression Doug had more credibility!

Now Roldan would have knocked out Tommy had he gone about it smartly instead of dropping his hands by his sides and allowing Tommy to club him. That was bull****. It wasn't the same fighter who came in prepared for Hagler even tho he had to know his chances for winning were a lot better.

After that, what did he do? he got knocked out trying to defend his paper title.

So Singletary, Geraldo, mckraken, or Dewitt don't count as top contenders. Only the Shuler fight was meaningful.

Barkley? come on! And Roldan just plain fought stupidly and should not be confused, much less compared with a prime Sibbo.

 

You seem to have missed out Tommy's fights with Benitez, Duran, Hill, Leonard II, Andries etc. In other words, the fights where Tommy looked good.

There was no evidence before the fight that Shuler's chin was anything but solid. In fact, the Hearns vs Shuler fight was expected to be a long, technical affair.

I think you'll find out that Roldan's strategy went out the window as soon as he took the first right cross from Hearns. What happened afterwards degenerated into a slugfest where Tommy outbrawled the brawler.

The bottom line is that stylistically this is a good fight for Tommy against Sibbo, fighting a slower, short armed puncher who can't outbox him nor outspeed him. Tommy just has to not get careless and stay away from the left hook. I don't think Tommy's legs at middleweight will keep him away from Sibbo for 12 rounds, so there might be some shaky moments for Hearns. But Tommy will be hitting Sibson will his full arsenal and if Hagler can force a stoppage then so can Tommy, who hits harder and faster.

The intangibles are whether Sibbo can land the left hook with full effect and whether Tommy's legs can keep him away from it. Also, will Tommy get careless when he has Sibbo in trouble ala Barkley I. We can pick apart the records of both fighters as much as we like but the facts are that like Cuevas before him, the 5ft 8" Sibbo will have real difficulty in landing his heavy artillery whereas Tommy will have no difficulty in landing with his. In poker starting hands Tommy is KK to Sibbo's 10, J suited.

 

Well Hyp Hopkins defended his title 20 odd times and for a seeming lifetime of years, unifying about 4 in the process, now lets look at what Fully Obel did shall we?

Oh, nothing

 

Unifying isn't what it used to be :smoke

And Obel won a title. That legitimizes his career according to you.

 

There are some cool Hagler fights on youtube now fortunately.

 

You call that thing Obel won a title? Actually it doesn't surprise me hahaha.

 

Obel has every reason to be proud of what he accomplished for boxing, opening the doors for future greats like Hearns and Leonard so that they might have more opportunities to win more titles.

Obel was the latest of pioneers in the sport alongside names such as Sullivan, Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Johnson, Dempsey, Armstrong, and Ali :smoke