I have to take issue with you here redcobra,how can you see griffith beating hearns if hearns chooses to box? What did emille have that ray leonard,benitez,hagler and virgil hill didnt have? Do you see emille stopping hearns,and if so what does he do with the hearns jab and incoming fire to achieve this?
I think Griffith dose a better job in passing the eye test than Hearns, and because of that a Griffith pick is reasonable. However if we look at Hearns career. I think there is a stronger case for him to win. Hearns dispite going 0-1-1 against Leonard looked very good both times. He had a lead deep into their first fight before getting stopped, and there is a strong opinion out there that he won the second fight. He also got a split decision over Bentiez one of the most skilled, crafty boxers ever. His demloition of Duran and even when he was soposed to be past it he beat a very good Hill. Yes the ko losses stick out, but I think they were the expition not the rule. Don't get me wrong Griffith was a great boxer. I just think Hearns would win this fight.
If they fought twice, Hearns would take the first bout by decision, and Griffith would ko him in the rematch. Remember, despite all the physical disadvantages, Griffith was much stronger than Tommy... and would have figured out a way to beat him in the rematch.
Griffith would try to box early and have problems with the jab. He would brawl after that, then get TKO'ed by the 8th. This is a bad matchup for Emile.
Griffith featured his power a bit more as a welter, I'll tell you, he'd rough up Hearns and get very physical with him before finding that chin of Tommy's. Griffith was a mixture of skill and outright aggression, when need be. He was one versatile fighter.as is always said, a true mechanic.
Hearns height and range along with that jab would pose problems for Griffith. I believe though that Emile would find a way over the distance to get inside. If he can push the pace. Griffith was a good all around fighter. Bad Matchup for Hearns.