what is everybody's thoughts on this guy.? his infighting/counterpunching is so smooth and seamless with his upperbody movement, he reminds me of Toney but with a meaner streak. I think he'd beat the crap out of most middleweights since the 90s except RJJ/Toney/Hopkins. anyone agree?
I think he was good, not great by the standards of the era which shows you how far boxing has devolved since then.
I wouldn't go as far as great technician but he was a very nice counter-puncher, and great to watch. His upperbody movement and counter-punching was masterful and creative, but he tended to lack discipline at times and his punch output was inconsistent to say the least. His fight with Jimmy Persol shows how a more disciplined but less skilled (although Persol was a skillful fighter in his own right, but he lacked the intuitive spark of Hank) fighter could cause problems with a consistent workrate. It's been a while since I watched a Hank fight so can't list some really specific strength and weaknesses, but from memory thats what I got.
there is truth in that. going back and watching the middleweights of the past, looks like cagey technicians were dime a dozen back then. giardello, mims, benton, archer etc. I would kill for an American mw with his skill and tenacity right now. I agree. a point about his punch output, Hank seemed to be content feeding off what his opponents gave him, wasn't the type to dictate the pace or anything. just my impression.
Was the 'Golden Era' for sure. I agree here. I think it could be construed as a weakness though. As Persol showed a consistent workrate would trouble him. I'm downloading his bout with Harold Johnson, another consistent technician so hopefully it gives me more insight into Hank.
