Thomas Hearns vs Bernard Hopkins primes 156lbs catchweight

Hearns defense was very poor, above 154 he got caught a lot in fights.

 

He got hit too much above 154.

 

Hearns was more fragile late in his career and B-hop stopped most of the guys he fought early in his career before he change his style.

 

Hagler would have had a harder time hitting B-hop, Hearns went toe to toe with Hagler, a number of fightes lasted more than 3 rounds v Hagler like Duran and Leonard, B-hop was very hard to hit often and clean, B-hop was far better than Benitez above 154.

 

You can't add early career attributes to late 90s Bernard. Early career B-Hop has the pop but not the guile. Late 90s crafty B-Hop has less attack to trouble Tommy. We've done this before with Foreman - old and young. You can't fuse the two versions to filter out the faults.

 

B-hop`s a different case to Foreman, I think underestimating how hard he was to hit compared to Hearns above 154, B-hop would have toyed with Barkley and Roldan.

 

Maybe but he didn't toy with Segundo Mercado and he feigned injury to get out of the fight when Robert Allen turned up the heat. In my opinion, Tommy has as easy a time with both of them as you think Hopkins has with Barkley and Roldan.

Middleweight Tommy gives the young version of Hopkins fits, just like Allen and Mercado did, only worse as he is levels better. The older version of Hopkins, with that added nous, can deal better with Tommy but lacks the aggression and intensity to take Tommy out of his stride and win. Maybe.

Give late 90s Bernard the intensity of his youth and he is a bigger, stronger man and wins nine times out of ten. But late 90s Hopkins was cagey and played the long game. That worked for him with the guys he faced but it would give Tommy a chance. The quicker, better boxer piles up the points and gets the nod. Bernard has to go balls to the wall - right @Dynamicpuncher ? - to win. The only version of B-Hop that did that went life and death with Segundo Mercado. Tommy has a great chance here.

 

You cant have it both ways. You cant say you cant give Hopkins attributes from his early career and then use the Mercado fight against him, especially when Hopkins didnt acclimate to the altitude in Ecuador and gassed and most people thought that was a bad decision anyway which is why there was a rematch. You act like Hopkins clearly got beaten. Had Hearns gone to Quito on short notice and not acclimated I dont see him doing any better against Mercado seeing as how he had plenty of shaky moments himself. So Hopkins was faking against Allen??? Ffs, he got shoved out of the ring by the ref and landed on his shoulder. He came back and beat Allen easily twice after that.

 

Very true.

I live about 2 hours from Quito in the andes mountains between 2 volcanos. The altitude and lack of oxygen is as real as it gets. A huge factor and not a small one.

The other big thing is Hearns was a lot of things but one thing he wasn't----a road warrior.

 

All fair comments. I stand corrected. I was trying to make a point and didn't accurately reflect what happened - I went by memory and didn't check - and that's what you get.

Fair play, Rocky. You got me. FWIW, I think Bernard would probably beat Tommy, as would Monzon, but their styles make Hearns a very live underdog.

That's me done. Gotta know when to fold. All the best.

 

Hearns at 154-156 was a monster, fast, explosive and deadly when he could control the distance. If you give Tommy the room to work his jab and set up that right hand, you're going to have major problems. And early on, I think Hopkins would have to deal with some real danger. Hearns' length, timing and snap would definitely cause issues for the first few rounds.

But the deeper this fight goes, the more it shifts toward Hopkins. Prime Bernard was a master at dragging guys into his kind of fight, slowing the pace, dirtying it up inside, making you work for every inch of space. He wouldn’t stand at the end of Hearns' jab and get picked apart. He’d pressure just enough, work the body, clinch smart and start wearing Tommy down physically and mentally.

The other factor is durability. Hopkins had one of the best chins in middleweight history, never reckless, always composed. Hearns' biggest problem historically wasn’t his skills, it was that when you got to him and made him fight at a hard pace, his durability wasn’t elite. Once you cracked his rhythm and made him trade in close, you could hurt him. Leonard, Hagler, they both exposed that side.

I see Hearns maybe winning the first few rounds, using his speed and reach well, but once Hopkins adjusts and starts closing the gap, it turns. Hopkins would rough him up inside, land short punches, frustrate him, lean on him and slowly take control.

By the championship rounds, Hearns would be tired, getting bullied on the inside and Hopkins would grind out a wide points win. Not a domination, Hearns would have his moments, but over 12 or 15 rounds, I just trust Hopkins' engine, toughness and adaptability more.

 

@Hi-Tech @Eddie Ezzard

I know you guys quoted me in this thread but I don't really want to get too involved in this discussion again as me and @surfinghb1 had a pretty good debate on this a few weeks ago where we come to a fair conclusion.

But what I will say is that Hopkins did lose to Taylor twice who had pretty much had an identical height and reach to Hearns. Not to mention Taylor had some attributes that troubled Hopkins like his underrated right hand power, speed, and a good jab.

The only problem is Hearns pretty much does all those things better than Taylor and also carries much more of a threat with his right hand power.

Now in fairness to Hopkins he was getting on in age by that time but he was also a late bloomer and had alot of success at Light Heavyweight after. So it's not like Hopkins was a shot fighter or anywhere close to it when he lost to Taylor.

There's two different versions of Hopkins the younger more raw version of Hopkins who was more aggressive who used to have more stoppages.

And then there's the older version of Hopkins who is considered the better version being alot more crafty and tactical with a high boxing IQ.

The issue is the pre prime Hopkins who was more aggressive would probably be more suited to beating Hearns as that's how you beat Hearns by being very aggressive and taking chances.

But an older Hopkins wasn't built that way he's not going to go into the lions den like Hagler for example and engage Hearns in a all out war he's going to box Hearns in a tactical fight.

And well....Hearns was never outboxed in his career so I believe Hearns could outpoint Hopkins similar to how Taylor did.

But that's just my two cents I'm not saying I'm right but that's just how I feel about the stylistic match up.

 

I'd make Hearns the favorite at 156, since he was a Beast at 154 and he was in Prime .. Actually, I never recalled Bhop ever weighing 156 , 157 a few times I guess so it really isnt a fair matchup here imo where I would agree Hopkins developed a bit later where he was eventually looking to go up not down to 156 ,, these threads are whacky sometimes in all honestly where this is smack dab in Hearns' prime but not Bhops,, so at 156 I'd make Hearns the favorite earlier in his career ,, and Bernard the favorite at 160 later in his MW career when Hearns started to struggle against the stronger, more Durable fighters there at mw