Roy Jones Jr. vs Thomas Hearns

Agreed.

RJJr would certainly be busted up in victory or defeat against Hearns. I still think his best chances are at 168 vs Tommy. Jones was very fast at middleweight, but Tommy was no slouch either. I think Tommy gives away a couple of the early rounds trying to close the gap on Jones before his right hand starts to connect and take over the fight.

 

Funny that Jones is the one with a glass jaw for being KO'd by guys weighing probably about 185-190 lbs, and not Hearns for being KO'd by someone weighing 148. Hearns were KO'd or close to it by pretty average guys at 160 and 167 while Jones dominated everyone he me at these weights. Those picking Hearns basically says that Jones wouldn't do better than a depleted Leonard. And that's just downright silly.

Said it before, but it bears to be repeated: Hearns is the most overrated fighter on the forum at these weights.

 

An overrated fighter who fought Cuevas for his first title 10 title defenses, Benitez for his second (legend 3 titles), Hill 10 title defenses and undefeated. First to knock out Duran. Should have decisioned Ray. I mean Hearns is the one who looked for top competition and fought tough competition. I like Roy and always said he was skilled and one of the fastest ever, but so was Hearns and no one outboxed him and Jones with his style-he never fought a guy like Hearns with that jab and right, Jones did not look for the tough competition. Jones is the one who was a bit overrated in that he did not test his skills vs. tough competition the way you should to be ranked high on ATG. Leonard,Hagler and Barkley. All decent punchers. Like I still state, to beat Hearns you need to take punches in order to give them and have warrior in you. Jones did not and he did not fight the caliber of fighters Hearns did. No matter what.

 

168 Roy had a chance I agree. At 160. I think the thing is competition. I remember Virgil Hill looked great beating 10 title contenders and decent guys. Won the title over Stewart, and defended against Lasisi,Czyz,Tyrone Frazier. decent 175 pound guys and he won easily, but he stepped up in competition against an older guy but a guy in Thomas Hearns who was great and lost a UD. That is what I mean by Jones stepping up. Hearns would show him things he never saw.

 

tommy hearns is a natural welterweight. thats where he dominated and got worse at he went up in weight, granted he was still pretty damn good.

 

Hearns wins by KO.

Jones was no Leonard: he would not engage in a battle against Hearns. Jones was no Hagler. He would not go to war; if he even tries, he would be KTFO.

The 1st and 2nd rounds could be competitive. Then Hearns knocks him out in the 5th.

 

Two talented offensive fighters.

I could see a case for both guys here.

I would favor Roy Jones.

Jones is better defensively. The naturally bigger man. Roy is faster slightly with his hands and much faster with his feet. A better athlete. Better footwork. Better balance. In and out side to side.

I think Tommy Hearns could have success in pockets of the fight with his height and jab. Also the threat of the righthand. He just isnt going to handle Roy Jones power very well at all.

Once Tommy is hurt its over. He isnt comingback against Jones.

Roy Jones KO 9th.

 

Jones wins and wins early.

 

Shouldn't even be a serious question.

 

Hearns at 160 or 168 is not an ATG. It's his previous resume that makes him great. He was still superb. Olajide took the bombs people say are going to destroy Jones. Roldan had the ability to get to Hearns that Jones did not possess. Jones handled Toney and Hopkins they both had good boxing skills and power. Hagler beat Hearns doing the thing that would work best or him, Barkley the same. Just because they were busted up in the process does not mean Jones would get busted up. Jones at some point early would counter Tommy, his legs would go, jones hands would be a blur and it's over. Too big. Fast enough. Too strong. And pre Ruiz his chin was fine.

 

Jones at 160 or 168 isn't n ATG either . b4 u reply make sure 2 post d ages and original weights of his opponents at 160 & 168 , and remember that almost any1 else put instead of RJJ that night would have "beaten" Toney .

 

I said overrated at 160 and 168. If you look at his record at those weights he's a good contender/belt holder, not a champion.

He should have gotten the decision over Ray, but Leonard for me was not a great champion either at 160+, but rather also a contender/belt holder.

In that fight Hearns fought a an aging natutal WW who held his left suicidally low considering Hearns right, relying on his slowing reflexes. He couldn't take him out and was close to going out himself. And we are supposed to believe that a prime Jones - that was bigger, stronger and much faster and more powerful than that version of Leonard - couldn't do it better?

No one is slating the opposition Hearns fought or the toughness of the guy. The only mark on his record is shafting McCallum as I see it - which arguably is a bigger duck than anything Jones did, though. But at the end of the day, Hearns tested himself more, I'd say.

I just see Jones as the much better fighter at especially 167. Hearns poses some stylistical issues for him, yes, but that is also true the other way around. Jones will by far be the most explosive and powerful puncher Hearns ever faced as well as the fastest fighter. Hearns will perhaps be the most powerful that Jones ever met at these weights, but not by that margin.

 

I see what you are saying. Logical argument, I just think if Hearns fought his Virgil Hill fight and used his jab he could win a decision. Most great fighters like Duran or Hearns who fought on kept the legacy of their earlier years regardless if they are as effective at that weight, but Hearns did win titles at 175 which is why I think he was legit higher up, same as Duran did win titles at 154 and 160, which to me legitimized him at those weights. They were not the punchers they were at lower weights, but they were still good enough to win titles. And just like I thought Duran had a good style matchup with Barkley, I think Hearns had a good matchup with Jones. Not saying Jones and Barkley are the same level.

 

As well as this is true, your giving Jones no credit for doing the same thing and arguably better. He lost by DQ once from Middleweight to Heavyweight, but you've given no real credit for that, yet you keep going on about Hearns accomplishments like he's on another planet. RJJ's span from MW-HW was better (not by a lot though) than Hearns span from WW-LHW. Jones was good enough to dominate 160, 168 and 175. hearns never dominated a particular division, accept maybe 154.

 

Jones better from mw to hw? The best fighter he fought was Toney. Hearns from WW to LHW was a whos who of Hall of Fame Cuevas,Benitez, Leonard,Hagler,Duran ,Hill

I gave Jones credit, but beating Ruiz is not really a great accomplishment, but it is good. Toney did the same feat.