Thomas Hearns .Vs. Roy Jones Jr. @ 160.

True, Hopkins became a world class operator billed as a power puncher, with limited skill.

I always remember the fight predictor article on World Boxing or Boxing 92/93 (I forget which one) picking Jones to beat Hopkins by getting off the floor to win in a three round war.

 

1. Which is all completely irrelevant to 160lbs where he fought a total of 7 times, losing twice against the best 2 he faced at the weight

2. His offensive force was vastly diminished above 154, he couldnt put away Barkley who Benn sparked in 1 and Toney broke down and battered

3. Hearns speed wasnt near as fast as Jones though and if you think Hearns would be comfortable with that you don't know what you're talking about :yep

4. He didn't fight too impressively in 2 of his 7 outings at 160. Take his career from 160lb onwards and Hearns wouldn't be seen as a great fighter

5. Louis is naturally bigger and stronger than Jones just like Jones is naturally bigger than Hearns. However Louis was getting outboxed by Conn who isn't as good as Jones and was actually 167lbs that night

 

That prediction sounds a bit absurd now but isn't too unlikely in retrospect as both were destroying their opposition emphatically and fast. Very different approaches to which both took in old age

 

Youve just come into a roy jones vs hearns thread and got all upset because people are picking roy jones

hes the natural favoruite, career best wins at varying weights arent the only thing that matters

 

Those body shots of Hearns:scaredas:

 

1. Hearns lost few and far between and that is far more impressive than an undefeated record where real challenges are few and far between. Hearns' built a career out of fighting all-comers. Jones? The opposite.

2. Barkley peaked in 1989 against Duran and then deteriorated remarkably fast. Watch the film and see for yourself.

3. It is ridiculous to claim that Hearns' speed wasn't near Jones. That really is.

4. Good God. Hearns began as a WW, and peaked at JMW. He destroyed Cuevas, outboxed Benitez. Demolished Duran. And all that before he was 25. Are you kidding?

5. So you are now implying that Jones could beat Joe Louis.

.....

 

A 24 year old Roy Jones with 24 fights (and one notable) is NOT the natural favorite against a well-seasoned, proven quantity in a 26 year old Hearns with 41 fights against superior competition.

The only argument I see that can be compelling is the "styles make fights" angle. But what is happening here is that Hearns is being minimized to build up Jones -and that is pure ignorance.

Understand this: I'm annoyed that ESB Classic has a contingent of posters whose knowledge of the sport is too limited to make informed opinions. I won't name names, but several of these newer posters watch modern fight films, get enamored, go to boxrec about hypothetical opponents and then post. They know it and I know it. They have only rudimentary understanding of who the great fighters were and why they were -and even less knowledge about the technical aspects of the sport.

Arguing with them is fruitless because they do not understand the rules of engagement or how to formulate argument, and in lieu of knowledge they get smart.

I'm not trying to come off like some know-it-all... there are plenty of posters out here who truly know what they are talking about (and some would and have picked Jones over MW greats) but some who just post and practically make it up as they go along. There are contenders... and then there are pretenders. I'm asking the latter to smarten up and keep an open mind, expand their knowledge, and not speak of that which they don't know. Some opinions simply don't deserve respect.

 

1. Really I must have missed Hearns fights with McCallum, Kalambay, Bomber Graham, Nunn. He wasnt taking on all comers from 154-175. Jones comp from 160-175 is light years ahead of Hearns and performance at the 160lb division is what this fight is about. Its not a P4P argument about who is the best

2. The convenient 'he was past his prime so it doesn't count' excuse. Barkley was never a great fighter before or after Hearns/Duran faced him

3. Jones is faster and by a margin. Regardless Jones footspeed, balance and footwork were far better

4. Again we're talking about a 160lb match up, what Hearns did at WW an LMW is irrelevant to the discussion

5. Louis had controversal decisions against Walcott, Goddoy and Farr, a devastating loss to LHW Schmelling, past prime loses to Charles/Marciano, nearly lost to SMW Conn and had problems with movers with speed. If Louis isn't at his best he could potentially lose a decision against Jones who is better than Conn but at his best he'd spark Jones after losing the early rounds

 

Except Hearns only had 5 wins and 2 losses at 160lbs. Jones had 23 wins and no losses and was looking devastating at Middleweight the fight before he faced Toney, which is widely considered his prime

Hearns was not facing superior competition at 160, Hagler aside

 

You have been downing Hearns in an attempt to inflate Jones' comparison in terms of greatness. And here you are trying to paint Tommy as a duck. A fighter cannot fight everyone, but when you objectively look at their respective records, you see that Hearns has far more formidables fought than Roy. Yes or no?

Who said Barkley was ever a great fighter? Not me. Again, read carefully, Barkley peaked in the Duran fight and then deteriorated rapidly.

Believe what you would like!

The hell it is. Jones' fans constantly bring up the two wins against Hopkins and Toney as an argument about his effectiveness at LHW. And well they should because these are relevant examples of how he handles serious guys in the ring.

You are a voice crying in the wilderness on this one.

Did you know that Hearns also fought and beat Colbert, Singletary, Geraldo, McCracken, Sutherland at ~MW? He faced Hagler, Roldan, Barkley, DeWitt, and Shuler. Jones faced Vaca, T. Tate, Hopkins, and Castro-the last two of whom went the distance so sure, he was looking devestating against lesser guys. I would actually give the nod to Hearns in terms of who fought tougher at MW.

However ...I am suspicious. I'm not sure that you know who Roldan or Shuler, et al. are...

 

I give Hearns a chance here of landing the bomb on Jones. All depends how the fight goes but I think there is a scenario here where Jones is up against a fighter who matches him for speed and who can punch. I think Jones problems later in his career were down to him slowing down and people being able to land on him. Jones at middleweight is relatively untested against a seasoned Hearns. Tommy might even outbox him. I would say though that the longer the fight goes, the more chance Jones has depending on how he reacts to this new experience.

 

1. Jones is an easier target to play the duck game, in truth more fighters ducked him than vice versa. Hearns didnt face the top MWs outside of Hagler, thats a fact.

2. Well Toney still dominated the same Barkley that won the rematch against Hearns, he can't have deteriated that much if he could still beat a Hearns who had a better game plan and wasnt weight drained

3. Just watch both fighters footwork and balance and tell me Jones isnt far better

4. Jones effectiveness at LHW is proven, Hearns effectiveness at 160 isn't proven against the top MWs, being able to smash small LWs/WWs isn't changing that

WHY DID YOU SAY AT 168 ITS A DIFFERENT STORY??? Its down to Jones being more effective at that weight, but in truth he was pretty much as good at 160 and was fighting at 160 near his prime in '94

5. And the only top MWs amongst them were Hagler and Barkley and he came up short. And yes Roldan was a decent but unspectacular contender and Shuler an unproven prospect. Outside of Hagler these were not the best MWs around

 

What's got me thinking is the mentality of each fighter in this fight...

We know Tommy is going to do what he does; I don't think, unless Jones can land with ease on him, that he's going to go in there with any other intention other than knocking Jones out. That's the way he fought. If the opponent proved to be really durable, then he'd adjust and likely box.

Jones I'd imagine would be quite happy to go the distance. He was a big puncher at 160 but he didn't really have a killer's mentality.
Let's say he rocks Hearns early on...does he go in for the kill or does he play it safe and stick to boxing? Would he be willing to put himself in harm's way to try and score a KO?
I'm guessing not.

It could be a big mistake, particularly as Tommy would not grant Jones that same opportunity to recover.

 

It's all right talking about how one fighter performed against another who performed against another. If it was that easy we could predict every result. This fight is about styles. I think Hearns has a style that can give Jones problems. There is no size or strength issue here. Both fighters at middleweight.

 

Jones, speed will be the difference.