Whitaker vs. Hearns

Hearns had the style to hit Whitaker more often than Trinidad. Hearns would have stopped Whitaker the night Trinidad fought him.

But this thread probably means Whitaker at his best at welterweight, not the one who was 4-5 past his best days in that division. Your point is taken seriously, and a case can be made for Whitaker taking Hearns the distance.

However, I still lean towards Hearns via late TKO. He'd soften Whitaker up with the jab, a weapon Trinidad never had, and even others never had when Whitaker was at his best around 93-94.

 

If the shots land often and clean enough Whiatker will go. Not saying that he will but, Hearns has a puncher's chance at KOing anyone, which he almost did against the likes of Lenoard. Using Trinidad is a bad comparison. It's almost like saying Hagler couldn't KO Durans so, Hearns would never be able to KO Duran.

 

Hearns had better power than Hagler, even at middleweight. So its not the same comparison, as Hearns and Trinidad had equal power, or thereabouts. At 147lbs Whitaker v Hearns, and Trinidad's power is on par with Hearns at that weight, or very close.

Hearns hit harder than Hagler at middleweight, and the reason he KO'd Duran and Hagler never wasn't just about power, both fought different fights. Hagler was pretty cautious, while Hearns went right after Duran. But even late against Duran, Hagler put pressure on the last 3 rounds and still could not get the KO.

 

Everything Trinidad threw landed as Whitaker went against his own rulebook, which was foot movement combined with ability to slip punches, thus reflexes being shot.

In his prime days at welterweight, around 1993-1994. He would have boxed and moved, employed his normal strategy. But against Trinidad it was hit and be hit, not hit and not be hit.

Against Trinidad, Whitaker was a flat-footed puncher.

 

Why Hearns would win
I beleve that a boxer with reach who knows how to use his reach has an advantage over a boxer with less reach. I beleve the ability to use a reach advantage can allow a less skiled boxer to beat a more skilled boxer. The ability to corectly use reach is a skill, and it is one that Hearns had.
I think Hearns would keep Whitaker at a distance. Whitaker would have his moments in the fight. I don't see a shut out for Hearns but the ability to use a 3 1/2 inch reach advantage in the end would make a difrence.

Why Whitaker would win
Contary to popular belefe Whitaker is not a runner. He stays in the pocket useing boddy movement to silp punches and counter. He would make Hearns miss and make him pay.

Hearns is a very skilld boxer who could hit with power and he has the reach advantage that he know how to use.

It would be a good fight but I would favor Hearns to win.

 

Sweet Pea makes the comparison as he knows Trinidad at 147lbs has power very close to what Hearns possesed at the same weight. Hearns probably gets off better with his punches than Trinidad, especially the jab to set up power punches. But Pea's arguement is it balances itself out for Hearns to win a decision over Whitaker. Simply because Whitaker was much better in his prime days at welterweight, and thats the Whitaker he's using against Hearns head-to-head.

 

Yeah, I can sorta see what you are trying to say. However, I do think Hearns has a bit more power than Tito. He has a bit more leverage and a bit more speed. He is perhaps one of hardest hitters p4p up against whitaker who has one of the hardest head p4p. Hearns really was a real beast at 147. I can see Hearns landing to the body often as he can reach in without getting tagged. This will then allow him to set up punches to the head.

Everytime I think of Hearns I think of his fights against Duran, Shuler, Barkley, etc... Hearns busted up Barkley so bad it was painful to watch. My take is that Whitaker gets outboxed. However, I wouldn't be suprised if Whitaker gets KOd. Reach, height, power, speed and great boxing skills are a tough combination to beat but, heck I could be wrong.

 

One of the very few fighters in and around Pea's class that I give him ZERO chance of beating. But in a p4p sense, I still give it to Whitaker.