P4P better

Idk. He wasn’t the smartest fighter. He chose to trade with Hagler.

 

Hearns was better than early 90`s b-hop, he became cuter as the years went on and that fight was boring.

 

Hagler wasn`t a puncher like Hearns who had a longer reach than Hagler and was taller, styles make fights, Hagler would wear fighters down which is difficult to do to a savvy in-fighter like Duran who never even got with-in range before being caught on the ropes, Hearns punches had far more effect on Duran than Hagler`s didf, nobody can doubt Tommy`s devastating power.

 

Griffin wasn`t that good, Roy was just tentative, as soon as Roy went for it in the rematch he destroyed him, Hearns could have kept Griffin on the end of that long jab all-night, he gave Leonard hell with that jab in the first fight v Ray and Leonard had a 74 inch reach while Griffin only had a 70 inch reach, Jones not being able to out-jab Griffin was poor.

 

I was talking about Tommy`s reach and jab, his 1-2 was awesome and he had far quicker hands than Barkley who wasn`t known for his outside fighting skills.

 

RJJ for me, though there's not much in it.

They both beat 2 x ATG's who were close to their respective primes (I consider McCallum an ATG too, but not close to his prime. Hopkins was pre peak and Duran past peak, but not to the same extent as McCallum), but unlike Hearns with Duran and to a lesser degree with Benitez, RJJ didn't have a significant size advantage over Hopkins or Toney.

That, plus whilst I think Hearns win over Hill is underrated for a former WW champion, he wasn't up against anything like the same size disadvantage as RJJ was vs Ruiz.

All that said, as mentioned, there's not much in it, imo.

 

Hearns had the better consistency and longetivity,but Roy edges a bit on quality.
Either way these two guys are massive,hits massive,has massive speed and very evasive.

 

Hearns wasn`t evasive at the higher wights because fighters at 160 and above had the reach to catch him, Roy was bigger than most of the fighters he beat too.

 

Tough one to call, today i voted RJJ if you asked me next week could well be Hearns

 

Nonsense.

 

Even in his prime Hearns was beaten several times. Granted, his opp was better, but RJJ was just untouchable up to his mid 30's. He didn't lose to someone like Barkley in prime age. I have to give it to Jones here. His prime was just ridicolous.

 

Errr.... No.

 

He did get hit more at 160 and above though right? He also got knocked out and knocked down more at 160 and above, Tommy was never hurt at any weight under 160 aside from when Ray stopped him, Ray had a 74 inch reach.

 

Don't know what you're talking about... Hearns was hurt many more times than Jones in his prime. RJJ went all the way up to HW without hardly being touched. Then Tarver happened when Jones was in his mid 30's, but apart from Leonard and Hagler, Hearns had been iced by Barkley and hurt by Andries, Roldan and Kinchen long before hitting that age.

EDIT: You seem to be comparing strictly the weights that Hearns was most dominant at (147/154) to Jones entire career? But of course you know that's not an honest comparison. Jones was 36 and at his fourth weight when he lost to Tarver. Hearns was 28 and at his second weight when he had his last fight at 154.

 

Hearns had been iced by Barkley and hurt by Andries, Roldan and Kinchen at 160 or above.

This content is protected