THOMAS HEARNS 1985 vs BERNARD HOPKINS 2001 @ middleweight

I think Hearns is a bad match-up for Hopkins. Close fight, though.

 

Hearns.
Thomas Hearns does what B-Hop did to Pavlik.
(If Hopkins don't get K.O.ed first)

Why the infatuation with B-Hop against the 80's?
Hopkins ain't 1980's Middleweight material, IMO (he would be an opponent.)

 

Intresting fight this one, i actually think the earlier version of hopkins may be better equiped to get to hearns, he was far more aggresive which would mean he would attack hearns weakness his chin, if hopkins attacks like that he stops hearns.

If hopkins fought as he did later in his career where he was more controlled, boxing smartly and a bit more defense minded this would be a close fight as hearns could even at 160 more than hold his own boxing wih the best of thm.

My guess would be that hopkins knowing hearns weakness would box sensibly for the first 4 rounds or so before upping the pace and attacking more, taking him around 8

 

Hopkins is a defensive master. I wouldn't put it past him to get to Tommy, he's naturally bigger than Tommy and has a great chin.

I could certainly see a points victory to either man.

 

Maybe i am the only one looking at this rationally without my fan club glasses on.


Two questions:

i) Who did Hearns defeat at 160 pounds that is comparable to Hopkins?


ii) Who beat Hearns at 160 pounds?



I am a big, big fan of the hitman, but realistically, answering those questions should tell you everything you need to know

 

I don't think it is likely that Hopkins would stop Hearns. Although he had excellent timing i don't think he was aggressive enough even at that point in his career to put Hearns away. Hopkins has never thrown enough and applied enough pressure to tire Hearns to the point of utter sloppiness like Hagler did. I also don't think Hopkins would have the freakish determination of Hagler, and although he can take a shot as good as any man he still wouldn't like getting hit by Hearns.

If they fought multiple times i would expect both of them to notch up a decision each. Hearns raw speed and power combined with a varied but potent offensive arsenal would allow him to tag Hopkins frequently enough to take rounds. I would expect him to land the uppercut on Hopkins quite effectively. Hearns superior reach and work rate would help him out in what would be a very technical fight. Trinidad was nothing special at MW, Hearns would stop him earlier than Hopkins did.

If they fought 3 times, i would expect Hopkins to take 2 wins. His excellent footwork and movement at that point in his career would have been enough of a puzzle to negate Hearns superior handspeed and workrate on most occasions. Some serious fence sitting i know, but thats how i feel.

The leadup to this fight would have been great.

 

I think his speed and angles would give Hopkins a lot of problems. In a similar way to how Jones, Calzaghe, and, I guess, Taylor did. The best fightes Hopkins beat, were not fluid fighters. Think about Tito and how predictable he was offensively. You can obviously say the same for Pavlik. I'm a big Winky fan, but he sticks to what he is good at too much. He's got a great jab, but apart from that, he doesn't have much going for him. Oscar was such a limited fighter at 160lbs, he isn't worth bringing up. Tarver was a great win, but over a "good" fighter who didn't prsent offensive problems for the defensive great, Hopkins.

But Hearns would. He may be the smaller man, but he is a lot faster, has great body movement. He's in and out of there like a viper striking. I think his rapid offence is an absolute nightmare for a fighter like Winky, but even Hopkins who relies less on a static defence, would struggle. I just don't see how Hopkins would be able to defend against the Hearns onslaught effectively.

On the other hand, I would imagine Hopkins would start to build up later in the fight and probably win 3 of the 4 last rounds. I don't think he has a good enough workrate to avoid losing the majority of the other 8 rounds, however. His chance to win the fight is here: When Hearns is tiring, he would need to pounce and finish the fight.

I think the more aggressive version of Hopkins has a better chance.

Hearns UD.

 

You have to know the immediate counter-point to this argument, surely?

Hagler and Barkley, neither of whom fight like Hopkins, and one of whom Hearns was dominating prior to getting careless and being caught by the big puncher (something Hopkins was not). Hopkins may well adopt a more aggressive style similar to the one Hagler did, in which case I'd favor him, but if he opts to box, I think Hearns stands a very good chance.

 

Bernard could fight in any era. I consider him the best MW ever. Bernard beats Hagler by close UD.

 

I see what you are saying sweat pea, but consider this:


i) One of hearns greatest advantages was his size and reach, both of which would be largely, if not totally nulified by Hopkins, who is the bigger man

ii) Hearns was a master boxer, no doubt. But Hopkins is an expert at smothering other fighters.

iii) Hopkins has a great chin, it is very, very unlikely Hearns is knocking him out

iv) Hearns did not have a great chin, and if Hopkins decides to be aggressive, it is very possible he stops hearns. X is not a massive puncher by any means, but certainly possesses enough pop IMO to knock hearns out.

v) Tommy has beaten nobody at 160 pounds who is on Hopkins level. People seem to forget that his best weight was 147 pounds, not 160 pounds. To me, it seems unlikely hearns beats one of boxings greatest middleweights when holds no victories over opposition on his resume at that weight for comparision


It is not inconcievable Hearns fights the perfect fight and outbox's Hopkins to take a decision, but IMO, it is far more likely he gets stopped in the later rounds




Just my opinion



Sage

 

The less mobile Middleweight version of Hearns would be an easier fighter for Hopkins to get inside on than the Hearns of lower weights. Hopkins phyiscal strength, footwork (in this case at closing the distance), and rough tactics eventually grind Tommy down for the late stoppage. He wasn't a big puncher, but he had solid power and in his prime a busy workrate. While it wouldn't be something that should be advised for Hopkins in this match-up, I think he would do fairly well on the outside.

 

Regarding the weight issue Sage, I look at it this way..Roberto Duran and Shane Mosley basically did not campaign at 140 but just because that didnt does that still mean they dont beat most at 140 alltime? ..Duran beating almost all comers, Mosley somewhat behind him but still beats a lot of great fighters at the weight.

I mean if they were that good at lightweight and that good at welter then in all likely hood they will be damn good at jnrwelter.

Hearns was amazing at 154..some say his best weight, most say he is H2H probably the best ever there. Where he beat Benitez and destroyed Duran. He also beat Andries and Virgil Hill when he was past his prime @ lightheavyweight.
So if he was that good at jnrmiddle and that good at lightheavyweight I cant see the weight being such a big issue.
He lost to Hagler, big whoop everyone did. He lost the Barkley, when he was on his way out and probably not physically at his best because of years of weight hopping..not the mention he was dominating that fight.

He beat a capable fighter in Juan Roldan and future titlist DeWitt at the weight...Guys certainly not on Hopkins level but quality fighters who to me proved that 160 is a comfortable weight for Tommy.

I would go with Hopkins to eventually catch up with Hearns in this one..rally late and probably eek home the decision with a push later in the fight. But depending on Bernard's tactics, Tommy could most definitely give him all types of trouble and outbox him for at the very least a period of time. By 2001 Im not so sure Hopkins was in his physical prime anymore so he had adapted his style to suit this more..he wasnt the aggressive fighter he was in the past that would have probably been more suited to beating Hearns.