Thomas Hearns vs Julian Jackson at 154

Hearns in however long it takes him to cross the ring:good

 

Kind of hard to take a guy's opinion respectfully when he hasn't even seen the fights in a guy's career. Happen's too much on these boards. :hat

 

I thought he took a shed load of punnishment from G-Man and I dont think his chin is as bad as your making out, from what I remember he wasnt close to going against Graham/Tate.

This fight is basically 'who lands first', and Hearns rangyness and skill should see him land first and KO Jackson, but it isnt a given, and if Jackson takes the punch and gets his own bomb in he could starch Hearns and Jackson is the bigger banger for

 

Jackson wasn't remotely in the same league as Hearns in terms of boxing skill. And his chin was just as weak. He was the bigger hitter but that is his only advantage.

Basically, Jackson has a puncher's chance in this fight.

 

There are people on these forums that have seen between 75 and 100 fights of these guys, and probably more. Both guys, especially Hearns, had a ton of televised fights and it was easy to watch their whole careers. And that Jackson suffered some real bad ko's later on in his career when he was the old guy fighting youthful guys.

 

I've seen Jackson take some punishment, but I would say his chin is just average. I think Hearns has the better chin, but his recuperative powers are worse. With this being said, Hearns has a vast array of offensive weaponry and is a far more effective offensive fighter. Jackson has to take a few risks before he can land his big punch, while Hearns can use his length and wait for you to make a mistake, or he can just blitz you. I think Tommy will get JJ out of there very early before JJ can take Tommy out.

 

those people did not react on my comments yet.

 

jackson never had the physical advantage of hearns.
i do agree that because of it hearns is the better boxer , but slightly ,
had he been such a great boxer , he could have won a decision against leonard and at least last much longer against hagler.
had jackson been such a lauzy boxer , he would not have been ahead on points prior to his TKO loss against the bigger younger steward trained mcclellan in their first fight.

 

Hearns is a class above Jackson, Jackson has a punchers chance but so does Hearns.

Hearns would be a big favourite in my eyes.

 

Dude, you can't seriously say that Hearns was a slightly better boxer than Hearns. Hearns was never outboxed. Never. He was beating Leonard and outboxing him, as he did with great boxers like Benitez and Hill. He could be outfought, but never outboxed.
Jackson was a limited boxer who had sometimes kayo people to win. As far as mentioning G-man, he wasn't a great boxer, either, so saying Jackson was winning in their first fight is not saying much when you are pitting two KO artists, because somebody was eventually going to lose by knockout anyway.

 

How would you recognise them if they had?!?!!?

 

i know who they are and the reactions i get expose their senders as such that are not.

 

:rofl

Lay off the booze or pick up an English book dude.

 

I think it may be too late - for both

 

Hearns was up on points and outboxing Leonard - one of the most skilled boxers of his generation - up until when he got tagged in the 13th. I can't imagine Julian Jackson outboxing Leonard for 1 round out of 12 let alone a majority of them. Vs Halger, again it wasn't Tommy's boxing skills that were the problem, it was his chin.

I just watched the McClellan fight again and the only reason Jackson was ahead on points was an accidental headbutt from McClellan in round 3. In terms of boxing, Gerald was clearly better in rounds 3 and 4 before the KO. Gerald also wasn't close to Hearns in pure boxing skill.

Jackson has decent boxing skills, but Hearns had elite-level boxing skills and was incredibly hard to beat on a decision - to defeat Tommy you basically had to knock him out.