Thomas Hearns vs Henry Maske

Maske KO1

 

at this point? Tommy had great skills early, but he would know he would have to sit back and box.. It would be a close fight, and at that weight I pick Maske in a very close decision.

 

You're perplexed that an Olympic gold medalist/Amateur world champion/ 3 time European Amateur world champion that lost one pro fight to a hall of famer would be picked to win over a natural Welterweight that is in his mid 30's? Just because Maske isn't a household name like Hearns doesn't mean that he beyond hope.

Fyi, I made a killing when I picked Bivol to dominate Canelo Alvarez. It didn't mean that Bivol was a better pound for pound fighter, just that Bivol was a better fighter at 175.

 

Watch Barkley vs Maske. That might change your mind.

 

Hill won a split decision and yes he did have success with the right hand but by your rational, Barkley vs Maske should be an indication on how this fight would go every bit as much as Hearns vs Barkley or Hearns vs Hill. Maske literally almost beat Barkley to death in their fight.

Hill vs Maske or Barkley vs Hearns has no bearing whatsoever on this fight. Way different styles involved.

 

I have and it didn’t

 

Maske hurt Barkley for worse than Hearns ever did in their two fights. Again, Hearns is better pound for pound, I would never dispute that. We are talking about an older Hearns fighting several divisions over his natural weight. No one ever slept Maske.

 

Since we’re comparing performances against common opponents. Hearns beat a prime Virgil Hill while Maske lost to a faded one. And Barkley was done by the time he fought Maske

 

Maske lost a disputed split decision to Hill. Hill went on to Knockout Tizzo three years later at cruiserweight so stop with the faded ****. Barkley vs Hearns II was two years before Maske beat Barkley.

 

Barkley was washed up and had power to hurt Hearns with that Maske didn’t have. Using Barkley to try and bolster an argument for why Maske would beat Hearns Is foolish . The Hill comparison is the real gauge for how this match should be judged because:

1. Hearns beat Hill when he was prime and undefeated.
2. Maske LOST to Hill FIVE YEARS after Hearns beat him. And even if you definitely think Maske won that fight it was hardly as decisive to how Hearns beat hill and nor was Hill anywhere near prime

3. Both Hill and Maske were boxers without much power and in fact Hill ( when prime ) was arguably better than Maske in that department anyway.

 

We are just going in circles. I think the world of Hearns but I still favor Maske in a fight at 175. I do not care that Hill won a disputed decision over Maske and I think it's ridiculous to say that fight matters more than the fights with Barkley. Barkley was two years removed from beating Hearns for a second time when Maske stopped him in the 9th round in a horrific beating. Again, Maske was a highly seasoned amateur and pro that was never really hurt in a fight. He was outstanding defensively and very awkward to fight. This would be a very rare matchup for Hearns were he would be the smaller man by two inches and again, he is facing a full fledged Light heavy.

 

Fair enough