I think Hearns was the better puncher p4p but at middleweight and up I'd say Benn. Bonus question would be do you think if Benn moved up to light heavyweight he'd still be a huge puncher like Hearns was?
Benn was the bigger hitter, for sure, but Tommy set up the right cross a million times better of course (not literally but you get the point) and timed and placed it better as a one-shot artistic knockout. Hearns had the frame to move through weights. Benn didn't, it took him years to grow into super-middle, he could still comfortably make middle but moved up to chase Eubank, Nunn and Barkley. He actually did fight light heavies like Lenzie Morgan, Piper and Gent (cruiser even) and others like Galvano, Malinga and Giminez won Italian, South African and Argentine titles at 175 I believe. He struggled to dent them because he was an aggressive leverage power puncher, rather than a KO artist like a Julian Jackson or Tommy (pinpoint accuracy, quickness, timed, set up or countered/planned), being much naturally heavier guys Benn's pure leverage power was less effective against them. Benn mentioned wanting Jeff Harding and Van Horn in 91 to become a three-weight world champion (Harding first, then Van Horn). He'd of probably stopped Harding on cuts (and blown the smaller Darrin out) - Hearns would've one-punch KO'd Harding with a long right hand.
DeWitt said in the post-fight conference of Benn fight that he'd never been hit so hard and announced his retirement. Strangely, he's since decided to say Hearns hit harder.
Both hit very hard .Different types of power Hearns was a long range type Benn normally took people out up close and personal with hooks and uppercuts.Dangerous blokes
One punch Hearns with right but with all punches and is stronger?Benn for sure! Like comparing Shavers(Hearns) and Foreman(Benn)! One shot is for Hearns but overall with all punches and strenght Benn for sure!
