Rodrigo Valdez vs. Thomas Hearns - 154lbs

Valdez has a very good chance, simply because he was a quality fighter and as already mentioned, durable. He would have the capability to stop his opponent, but i'm favouring Hearns, mainly because i feel he was more rounded and composed at 154 than at 147. I reckon he could come through a truly deserved winner.

But you better believe i'd be throwing a few coins on Valdez by stoppage in round 14.

 

At 154, Valdez-Hearns is a challenging proposition. Over 15 rounds, I think Rodrigo would probably pull out a late stoppage win when he needed to. Although he was a superb boxer who schooled a young and undefeated Vinnie Curto, nobody decisions a peak Tommy Gun at this weight (or any other weight for that matter). If he's standing at the final bell, Hearns wins. I expect that Valdez would know that as well, and he'd aim to wear Tommy down for an eventual coup de grace.

Given a 12 round limit, it's pick-'em as to whether Valdez stops Hearns late, or Tommy hangs on for the win. Over ten rounds, Hearns takes the decision.

 

I still pick Hearns at 154 over anybody ever there if Hearns is matched while he was peaked from late 1982 to 1984.............. The Hearns who last fought at 154 in the summer of '86 against Mark Medal had a hurt right paw and said 154 had become a strain to make by then...........

The Hearns of '84 would box and KO anybody who ever held the Jr. Middle title........... The Hearns who KO'd "Duran and Freddie Hutchings" was in his prime...........

Hearns pounds the **** outta Roddy Valdez at 154 pounds in a time machine............
:hey:good
MR.BILL

 

Very interesting fight. It's a funny thing but alot might depend on what type of mindset Hearns brought to the ring...When Hearns outboxed Benitez (perhaps due to broken right hand) he looked to box from the outside, against Duran and Hutchings,, he was the "hitman".
Being the "hitman' gets Hearns into trouble against this opponent...but he is more than capable of throughly outboxing Valdez from a distance.
If forced to make a pick.
Valdez by 6th round KO in a war.

 

I'd say Tommy, being a fast starter and lethal puncher at 154, gets Rocky out relatively early, or...Valdez wears him out late.

Hearns also might win a decision if he boxed, but I don't think that's foolproof against Valdez, who's surely not the best MW, but a solid one.

 

Hm, I don´t think this will be a boxing match. Valdez would make Hearns fight his fight and Hearns would just be too willing to get into it I think. Of course Hearns has the chance to get Valdez out there early but I don´t think he will. Valdez will get to him in the late rounds but would have to take some punishment to do so.

If Hearns boxes him he gets the decision.

 

I think Hearns of 1984 wins a hard fought decision.

 

Not sure if we are meant to , judge these guys chances on what they accomplished at that specified weight ,or, at their best ,and having boiled down.
For a big puncher Valdez didn't stop many names at the weight, in fact he didnt stop many names period .His claim to fame as a banger is koing Briscoe once in three fights.Obviously a fine acheivement,in fact a unique one.
Guys like Ralph Palladin,Pete Toro and Cassius Greene went the route with Valdez .
Greene was 8-10-11, at the time, and Palladin [16 fights ], and Toro beat him ,Toro's ko % just over 20%, he
had him down.

Valdez floored an aging Monzon,stopped Bobby Cassidy on a cut eye scored a late tko over Tonna and tkod Cohen,that's about it .

Film proves Valdez could bang ,so why did he not get more kos over the better guys?
It's not as if he was a crude slugger .

Hearns has better wins at the weight imo.
The Hit Man would take a points dec, though he might visit the canvas at some point.

 

Valdez was notoriously tough and a hard banger. From what I've sen of him, he took rounds off at times (though obviously had the ability to turn things on when he wanted, putting punches together or throwing crisp yet bludgeoning single shots) but I feel Hearns would grit it out.

At 154, I feel there's every possibility that Tommy blows Valdez away early. I go for Valdez's toughness to pull him through, I think he would damage Hearns at certain points but that Hearns (if he's in multi-faceted mood rather than hagler-esque tear-up mode) would win on points.

 

I dont' like the difference in physical strength. Valdez had a nice guard like say Luigi Minchillo and the power and cobinations to go with it. Of course he is naturally bigger as well.

I don't like Hearn's chances!

 

Valdez can be outboxed and had slow plodding footwork, I see Hearns fully exploiting this. Hearns would also possibly be the biggest puncher Valdez faced. Down the stretch and in a war Valdez is a threat, but if Hearns boxes smart and is ready for the full 15 it really shouldnt be a massive problem for him

Also lets not forget Valdez was very much pre-prime when he fought at or below 154lbs. Or are we assuming a 156-157lb Valdez can make 154? If not he is way way out of his depth

 

I know, I beleive I have been a fan of Ike's a trifle longer than you M.
Film evidence proves that Valdez was a hitter,but how come he lost to Palladin and Toro? Anyone of that standard beat Hearns?
Toro was 26-11-3 , really a big welter. and Valdez was in his 33rd fight ,at the age of 24 he was not a kid.
Greene went the distance with Valdez and he was only a welterweight.Palladin beat Valdez clearly ,so what's with all these lapses?
Did Valdez find his groove ? Maybe he was a latterday Walcott, who after gaining direction and focus , began to show what he was capable of?
I dont know the answer,but I lean towards Tommy who could out box him imo.
Fact is, Valdez never beat a great fighter ,and he lost twice to Corro ,one of the weakest Champs imo,and he was still only 32 when he did so.
His rep stands on 2 close fights with a 34 and 35 year old Monzon,both of which he lost ,and 3 wins over Briscoe,the 2nd one by ko ,but let's not forget that Briscoe also lost his next fight after this defeat, to a nearly 36 year old Emille Griffith, he was sliding a bit.
Its entirely possible we give Valdez too much props for game efforts in fights that he lost, and multiple wins over a man who ended up with 24 losses on his record.
Just playing around with this really.

 

Palladin was actually quite a good obscure fighter, just one of those guys who didn't seem to have the support or breaks sometimes needed to get anywhere.He had a very awkwarad style and could box or brawl equally well.

he was no match for the counterpunching finesse of a young prime Kalule though.Watts had his number too.