Thomas Hearns vs Bernard Hopkins at 160

matters if Tommy comes and fights a smart fight. By 160 pounds he thought he still had the power of 147 and 154 and he would sometimes take chances and have worse results like Roldan being hurt and Barkley stopped. After that he fought more to win decisions. If he fought a fight like he did against Virgil Hill then he wins a UD.

 

This is like a man fighting a boy. B-Hop by execution!

 

Hopkins got this via Decision

 

2 of my favourite fighters and a real hard call to fight. Hopkins could use his strength to physically maul Hearns and grind him down and stop him in the later stages. But Hearns, speed and jab would mean he is one of the very few fighters who could outbox Hopkins and would have enough power to even get a durable Hopkins respect. I really can't pick a winner you could get a different result every time they fought.

 

Uhm.. Taylor had a simple style didnt he? :huh

 

No one outboxed prime Hearns in his prime, and many of the best tried. He lost only by stoppage, and he was ahead most of the time (Barkley, SRL). I fail to see why it should be different with Hopkins.

OK, Hopkins has great chin and good punch, while Hearns' chin is quite bad for an ATG, so I can see it going like Hagler-Hearns. Still, if Hearns is not KO'd/TKO'd and the fight goes to scorecards I think it can end only one way, by Hearns UD.

 

true! tommy is a great fighter but people on here overrate him big time. :yep

 

when he was on top form, i wouldn't really call his style simple. he had a wide range of shots, and could box beautifully when he put his mind to it. he also has underrated ring intelligence. his stamina was poor though.

hearns was someone who had a simple style. left jab, right hand, the occasional left hook. he looked for the knock out too much and this would make him predictable. he could box well when he wanted to, i agree, but not as well as a lot of people on here claim.

 

No I'm not. Hopkins is better than Hagler, and this board is all over the nuts of Pryor, Hearns and Duran. Hopkins doesn't lose to welterweights moving up, especially after three year layoffs. He's had a MUCH better career than Hagler. The deciding factor on ESB is Hagler's tough guy mustache and bald head, for some reason that's just an unbeatable combo here :nut

 

Hopkins is a good fighter who handpicks his opponents, but he is a garbage fighter compared to a great like Hearns who fought legends!!! Hopkins has managed to handpick well yet he couldnt beat Jermaine Taylor or Calzaghe, so how is he going to beat Thomas Hearns? Give me a break. Hopkisn is a joke. Pascal is nothing. Are you trying to compare Pascal to Thomas Hearns?

 

If Hops can make it a ugly fight like he typicly does...i can see him edging this one. I just think that would be hard to do with Hearns being so rangy and posessing an excellent jab.

 

Hopkins is way too smart for Hearns. Hopkins drags Hearns into an ugly fight inside. Wide decision or late stoppage for B-Hop.

 

Hearns outboxed Benitez and Hill and knocked out Cuevas and Duran. Hearns is the guy who would outsmart hopkins who had terrible opponents at middleweight and then couldn't beat young Jermaine Taylor and Calzaghe. Give me a break. The only time Hopkins wins is when he handpicks. Ever notice that?? Hearns was a greater fighter who fought them all and legends, not guys like Tarver and Pavlik. You guys really think a prime Thomas Hearns at 160 couldn't beat Hopkins if Taylor did?

 

It's bcuz of dummies like u that hearns will win this poll. Hops was 800 hrs old AND got robbed v. Taylor.