Thomas Hearns vs Bernard Hopkins at 160

Hop at 160 and prime would've taken Hearns apart. The size difference was apparent in the Hagler fight and would've been the difference in this fight. Hop took too good a shot at mw and was rugged and tough at MW. Hop by tko in 7.

 

If Hopkins can press him he wins, if Hearns stays outside it's a clear decision. Tommy never could rumble very long at 160.

 

Hopkins, and it wouldn't go the distance.

 

Hearns having a simple style?

Hearns did not have a simple style. He could be an aggressive stalker, looking to land that monster right hand, often leading up to it with his left hook to the body. He also could box at distance very effectively, as Benitez and Leonard found out.

That said, I lean towards Hopkins here. He could give you different looks and beat you in different styles. He didn't have to be as selective with his punches when he was younger, as he had better stamina. He was more well-rounded than Hearns and better up close. I can see him playing spoiler and winning an ugly fight up close.

Hearns's shaky chin was also more pronounced at 160 and up.

 

I see hopkins by late tko!

 

I see Bernard flying through the ropes as he did against Joe.

 

There's some hilarious posts here:

-The notion that Tommy Hearns had lousy stamina. Was this poor stamina on display when he outboxed Wilfred Benitez over 15 rounds? Or when after getting the crap beaten out of him by Sugar Ray Leonard in round 7 (and taking hard shots in rounds 6 and 8 too), he had enough energy and legs to win rounds 9 through 12 before Ray pulled out a great comeback?

-Hopkins having "no power"? He was no Julian Jackson but he wasn't exactly Slapsie Rosenbloom either. He had respectable power.

-Saying Hopkins is a man and Hearns is a boy... Hearns is an ATG too who won titles from 147-175. And a 1982 version of Wilfred Benitez at 154 is better than anyone Hopkins beat.

-Hearns being a "simple" boxer, but Jermaine Freaking Taylor having a "beautiful" boxing style?

 

Hopkins was a very good middleweight, did not like him at light heavyweight................but at 160 Hopkins would have beaten Hearns.....................

 

Bhop
To smart and well rounded
Could beat hearns inside or out.

 

Hopkins by stoppage

Hearns is a great fighter, but Hopkins is not getting KO'd and I think he wears down Hearns with his tactics and eventually finds Hearns' chin.

 

This matters on if Hearns fights smart. He did vs. Hill and Leonard in the rematch, and Benitez.. I think Tommy would know he would have to fight a jabbing fight and pick his shots when Bernard punches, and I think he wins a UD. He would not knock out Bernard, but I think if he fights smart he wins a UD. When Tommy lost it was when he was cocky, which he could do because of his power. He relied too much on power.

 

Hearns is a fighter who beat Hearns more than the opponents. I think that was always his problem. He had the skills to outbox anyone and he decided to brawl and make exciting fights.

 

Hearns was drawn into a slugfest with Marvin Hagler! He's not the smartest fighter and didn't adjust all that well, especially on the fly. Hopkins on the other hand is a master boxer, always trying to figure out his opponents, hiding his weaknesses and maximizing his opponent's flaws.

Hopkins picks Hearns apart, drawing him into trap after trap. When Hearns does get a rhythm going, Hopkins will steal it with roughhouse tactics. Hopkins by late stoppage.