Joe Calzaghe vs Tommy Hearns at 168

bailey, mcintyre was a late sub, it was meant to be echols in the opposite corner.

 

Great work Assasin. He was another who backed out of facing Calzaghe. I knew Echoles had backed out, but couldnt remember when.

 

Is Calzaghe seriously this underrated that you're picking weak chinned blown up welterweights to beat him? The dude won every one of his fights, I am shook

 

I take Hearns he not only was a puncher he was a very good boxer with terrific jab

 

I agree, but Hearns out-boxed Hill and knocked out Andries, he also had the reach of a cruiser or heavyweight, plus in his prime he was more skilled than Joe, however by the time he got to 168 he was nowhere near Joe`s level and would have been out-sped, Tommy was far quicker in lower weight classes, I wasn`t impressed with him above 160.

 

He didn`t box well v Kitchen, Calzaghe would have boxed Kitchen`s ears off, Hearns was far easier to hit at 168 than Joe.

 

Very difficult to see Calzaghe winning this context! Hearns on points or knockout.

 

@168 Calzaghe by KO. In his prime with hands that weren't in bits, he might be stung by a Hearns right, but he'd come straight back like he did against Byron Mitchell and blast Tommy out of there.

 

Ffs , Hearns is an ATG but he's way above his best weight here

He was lucky to get past no name SMW Kinchen who dropped him & had him holding on for dear life..

So don't act like ATG SMW Calzaghe couldn't whoop him..
sure you could nit pick Joes resume too but overall Na, id favour an in form Joe to give him a pasting

Ye hearns had some quality bigger weight performances but on balance you can't favour him over Calzaghe at SMW really