There's a permanent question mark hovering over discussions about Gerald. How good was his durability? Was his near fatal injury against Benn due to a predisposition, like Johnny Owens? Was he at risk through his whole career? Or was he softened up by Julian Jackson? Or was the tragedy linked with weight loss or was it a freak accident? Before the Benn fight there was really nothing to suggest McClellan's durability was anything other than excellent. If that's true things would look bleak for Hearns here. Hearns had the jab and movement to keep Gerald guessing for a while, and the right hand to force his respect. Hearns hangs around for a while being then getting stretched out.
It was rumored that McCllellan was a teenager and was walking thru Hearns bombs sparring and I think he would have done the same as a pro. He was a very underrated boxer and had great timing. As much as I like Hearns,GMAN at 160 was a better version of Hearns.GMAN KO's the Hitman in 5
Gerald by KO, I can see hearns having his moments early but Gerald is just too aggressive, too quick, and hit too hard to not ko hearns. Gerald also had great reach and a good chin, basically Gerald is all wrong for hearns who could be potentially be flattened by any middleweight with a big punch
Hearns was KO'd by Barkley, and badly rocked by Roldan and Kinchen (yes, at SMW, but Kinchen was more of a natural MW). All these guys were inferior to McClellan I'd say, and McClellan with his reach, strength, chin and power was also stylistically all wrong for Tommy. You can never say for absolutely sure when punchers like these are involved, but McClellan is a firm favourite imo.
you think McClellan was better than Barkley? I mean Barkley was far more accomplished in his career. Heck, he won the middleweight title, the light heavyweight title, and even fought at heavyweight a bit. Beat a lot of good fighters when he wasn't a champion. Only guys McClellan ever beat worth mentioning were Jackson and Mugabi. Sanderline Williams was not such a bad name back then.
McClellans career was cut short, so it's a bit hard to compare accomplishments. But from what we got to see from McCellan, I'd say he was superior to Barkley in every aspect except, of course, longevity.
I would agree that his career was cut short, and he probably would have accomplished much more in the next 5 years or so, and I agree he was overall a better fighter. In terms of power and toughness though, he Barkley are probably on the same plane.
Funny thing I think Hearns is the superior fighter and has a better skill set but I feel McClellan stops him.
The problem Hearns has in this one is that he was collapsible when chinned at Middleweight. Tommy has all the skills but gets sparked in 5.
Hearns is obviously the greater, more skilled fighter. But against a juggernaut like GMan who was able to take shots from Julian Jackson without flinching, had great speed, timing, ferocity, and punching power, Hearns would not be able to sustain GMan’s onslaught without getting stopped himself. As others said he has been rocked and stopped by much lesser fighters, and his defense wasn’t the greatest. GMan has the size, reach, and power to take out Hearns within 6 rounds IMO. GMan is one of the few MWs who had the talents to be near unbeatable had he been more polished.
