Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bernard Hopkins thinks he would have stopped Hearns.
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
Pages: 1, 2
Fitz
http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/168435-...cked-out-hearns

QUOTE
Bernard Hopkins once told legendary trainer Manny Steward that he would have dominated even his best middleweights.

"I've never faced a fighter with Emanuel Steward in his corner," said the 46-year-old Hopkins. "But I told Emanuel years ago that if I was around in that era, I would have knocked out every middleweight that he had, including Tommy Hearns."

Hopkins (52-5-2, 32 knockouts) and Steward will oppose each other as fighter and trainer for the first time in their careers when Hopkins defends his RING and WBC light heavyweight belts against 29-year-old Chad Dawson (30-1, 17 KOs) at the Staples Center in Los Angeles on Oct. 15.

"You beat Emanuel Steward, then you beat Chad Dawson," said Hopkins. "Chad Dawson is a dangerous fighter because he has a dangerous teacher. Notice that I didn't say trainer, I said teacher."

The feeling, said Steward, is mutual.

"I'm a big Bernard Hopkins fan, so this is a challenge for me because I have so much respect for Bernard. And for him to say that about me is unbelievable," said Steward, who is only his second fight with Dawson.

"I've followed Bernard's career from a distance throughout all of his fights. So this fight is important, and I know that the reality is that I'm going to be greatly responsible and accountable for the outcome."

Known for his gamesmanship as well as his "Executioner" nickname, Hopkins' act used to include providing his "victims" with a ceremonial "last meal" at the final press conference.

Hopkins promised to begin working on Dawson as early as Monday's press conference at the Staples Center, when he will come face to face with Dawson and Steward.

"Chad Dawson is going to have a hard time listening to Manny and focusing on Manny at the first press conference, because that's when the head games are going to start. I've watched Emanuel Steward for many years. I respect the teacher, I respect what he teaches and I've even I've even taken pages from his book," said Hopkins.

"So anything that Emanuel tells Chad Dawson to do, I've seen it before and I've probably done it. I know that I can adjust to any style, so whatever Chad brings to the table, I've already picked up. That's the luxury that I have compared to this younger guy."

Hopkins made a middleweight record 20 title defenses from January of 1996 through September of 2005 before being dethroned by Jermain Taylor in July of 2005.

Meanwhile, Hearns earned six career titles over as many different weight divisions from 1980 through 1999 comprised of the welterweight, junior middleweight, middleweight, super middleweight, light heavyweight and cruiser weight belts.

"I told him that I would have knocked out Hearns, and I know that he doesn't agree with me. But I would have loved to have been in that era," said Hopkins. "I'm not bragging or boasting, but I just believe that I would have held my own in wins and losses within any era of boxing."

Hopkins is coming off of May's unanimous decision over Canada's Jean Pascal, which made him the oldest fighter in the history of the sport to win a significant title belt.

Hopkins-Pascal was a rematch of December's disputed, majority draw during which Hopkins rose from knockdowns in the first and third rounds for what many believed was a victory in his favor.

Dawson lost his title bid to Pascal (26-1-1, 16 KOs) by 11th-round technical decision a year ago in August, but rebounded with May's one-sided unanimous decision over Adrian Diaconu on the under card of Hopkins-Pascal II.

"Age is always a factor. So I'm always negotiating with father time, and we're sort of have a standoff right now," said Hopkins. "I'm like the old deer hunter trying to get another young buck."

Steward is trying to prepare Dawson mentally, physically and tactically for Hopkins.

"We're fighting one of the smartest and most intelligent fighters in history. Bernard knows how to fight on the inside, to counter punch and to box. Plust he makes adjustments. Against Pascal, for example, you'll see him throw the probing jab alternately with a hard jab. Plus Bernard's got a good, old-school trainer with Naazim Richardson in his corner," said Steward.

"My challenge is going to be to have Chad in good shape, unbelievably focused, and ready to fight a good, 12 hard rounds. Because if he has a mental lapse anywhere in the fight, then Bernard is going to take advantage of it and he's going to exploit it."

Steward's presence simply bolsters Hopkins' resolve.

"Chad beat Antonio Tarver and Glen Johnson, but he struggled with them and I beat them easily. But having Emanuel there is a game-changer because he's a legend and he's seen everything, which makes Chad Dawson a serious fighter," said Hopkins.

"But I'm motivated by the fact that I can beat an Emanuel Steward-trained fighter. It's like going up against Angelo Dundee or a Freddie Roach. To get a victory against somebody with a mindset like them, that's another big notch on my belt."
Mean Mister Mustard
I had never stopped to think that the Dawson fight will be the first time Hopkins faces a guy that is trained by Steward. I laughed when Hopkins said Steward is a good teacher but not trainer.

Regarding Hopkins beating Hearns: It's not out of the question. Hearns at middleweight had poor stamina, his power wasn't what it used to be and a prime Hopkins would have targeted that body all night. At 46 years old, and still beating top guys, I think Hopkins has proved that he can hang with any fighter in any era.
Hops
I think the older Hopkins fights somewhat different from the younger version. So which version would you like to fight Hearns?
caneman
I think @ 160 or above, BHop could have very well stopped Hearns but it wouldn't be easy. Still the fact is, Hearns's legs would turn to rubber if you hit him flush on the chin and BHop's right hand would find him, plus I believe BHop could take every thing that was coming back @ him!

As far as Dawson does, if he fight uninterested like he does so often, he will get beat bad, if he fights like it's his job, with passion and grit...this could end up being a very good fight that could go either way! It's just a fact that BHop will be going on 47 and honestly even if BHop did lose, there's no shame in losing to a young and skilled fighter! I am looking forward to watching this one!
Method
Hopkins would have knocked Hearns' dick in the dirt.

At 160, it aint a fucking debate.
JLUVBABY
i have to agree with b-hop on this one... its fun to think some of the older school fighters would beat the new kids on the block but hopkins has proved time and time again and def as he's gotten older that he learns from every fight... tho he is not the barn burner he was when he was younger i actually think in a lot of ways he has gotten better as he has aged... he is for sure proven to be an all time great fighter and probably one of the 10-20 best to ever lace em up in my opinion...
JONdaCON817
QUOTE (Hops @ Aug 7 2011, 08:27 AM) *
I think the older Hopkins fights somewhat different from the younger version. So which version would you like to fight Hearns?


The Version that dismantled Tito.. or the one that made De La Fishnets shyt himself with a hook to the body...
bosco
Hearns would have beat Hopkins...Think about it...Who has ever out boxed Tommy Hearns? Hearns out boxed everyone including Leonard. Add that with the fact that Hopkins is not a big puncher and it would have been a long night for B-Hop. When Tommy Hearns crack you with that right hand it's trouble and he knew how to set it up perfectly. It would have been a tough fight. People see the highlights of Hearns getting knocked out and think he doesnt have a chin because he looks silly as hell when he gets knocked out but he was only truly stopped 3 times in 67 fights. His last loss was a fight he was winning and he sprang his knee and couldn't put weight on it so he couldn't continue. I think Hearns would've beat Roy Jones in his prime too.
Mean Mister Mustard
QUOTE (bosco @ Aug 7 2011, 12:34 PM) *
Hearns would have beat Hopkins...Think about it...Who has ever out boxed Tommy Hearns? Hearns out boxed everyone including Leonard. Add that with the fact that Hopkins is not a big puncher and it would have been a long night for B-Hop. When Tommy Hearns crack you with that right hand it's trouble and he knew how to set it up perfectly. It would have been a tough fight. People see the highlights of Hearns getting knocked out and think he doesnt have a chin because he looks silly as hell when he gets knocked out but he was only truly stopped 3 times in 67 fights. His last loss was a fight he was winning and he sprang his knee and couldn't put weight on it so he couldn't continue. I think Hearns would've beat Roy Jones in his prime too.


Hopkins might not have been a huge puncher but he did hit harder than the average middleweight. Moreover, he possessed a debilitating body attack that would have sapped Hearn's energy. Take into account also that Hopkins had a good defense and that Hearns at 160 was not the same fighter and you have Hopkins as the favorite.
caneman
QUOTE (Mean Mister Mustard @ Aug 7 2011, 11:44 AM) *
Hopkins might not have been a huge puncher but he did hit harder than the average middleweight. Moreover, he possessed a debilitating body attack that would have sapped Hearn's energy. Take into account also that Hopkins had a good defense and that Hearns at 160 was not the same fighter and you have Hopkins as the favorite.



I agree with this!
E.C.LEGEND
QUOTE (bosco @ Aug 7 2011, 11:34 AM) *
Hearns would have beat Hopkins...Think about it...Who has ever out boxed Tommy Hearns? Hearns out boxed everyone including Leonard. Add that with the fact that Hopkins is not a big puncher and it would have been a long night for B-Hop. When Tommy Hearns crack you with that right hand it's trouble and he knew how to set it up perfectly. It would have been a tough fight. People see the highlights of Hearns getting knocked out and think he doesnt have a chin because he looks silly as hell when he gets knocked out but he was only truly stopped 3 times in 67 fights. His last loss was a fight he was winning and he sprang his knee and couldn't put weight on it so he couldn't continue. I think Hearns would've beat Roy Jones in his prime too.

I think Hearns vs Hopkins would be an awesome trilogy that could go either way. Jones on the other hand, is not losing to Hearns....maybe to Ray Robinson but not to Hearns.
bosco
QUOTE (Mean Mister Mustard @ Aug 7 2011, 12:44 PM) *
Hopkins might not have been a huge puncher but he did hit harder than the average middleweight. Moreover, he possessed a debilitating body attack that would have sapped Hearn's energy. Take into account also that Hopkins had a good defense and that Hearns at 160 was not the same fighter and you have Hopkins as the favorite.

Hopkins couldn't stop Jermaine Taylor...No way B-hop outboxes Hearns. It was hell getting pass that jab and right hand. Remember Tommy was long as hell. I just can't see b-hop with his cautious style beating a master boxer like Hearns.
mrchitown
I would've loved to see Hopkins and Hearns face off. His remarks on stopping Hearns is something I can't agree with but I could see those two going to war. It probably would've been an epic trilogy between them
D-MARV
Hops beats Hearns at 160... Sugar Ray Leonard beats Hops at 160!
STEVENSKI
QUOTE (Method @ Aug 8 2011, 12:18 AM) *
Hopkins would have knocked Hearns' dick in the dirt.

At 160, it aint a fucking debate.



I am Stevenskis complete lack of surprise at Methods response.

I would take Hopkins in this but he ain't outboxing Hearns in my eyes. He would need to do a Hagler on him & be in his face throwing heavy leather. If he tries to box with Hearns I would take Hearns due to his long jab & ability to drop the straight right down the middle. Combine that with his fluid movement & Hearns can outbox X.

A fascinating matchup but which version of Hopkins woul it be? The young aggressive exocutioner or the older more patient master? I think Hopkins from 99-01 was the best version to face Hearns in a fantasy matchup.
caneman
QUOTE (STEVENSKI @ Aug 7 2011, 06:30 PM) *
I am Stevenskis complete lack of surprise at Methods response.

I would take Hopkins in this but he ain't outboxing Hearns in my eyes. He would need to do a Hagler on him & be in his face throwing heavy leather. If he tries to box with Hearns I would take Hearns due to his long jab & ability to drop the straight right down the middle. Combine that with his fluid movement & Hearns can outbox X.

A fascinating matchup but which version of Hopkins woul it be? The young aggressive exocutioner or the older more patient master? I think Hopkins from 99-01 was the best version to face Hearns in a fantasy matchup.



No doubt, a hungrier 97-01 X would do better cause he had the better mix of aggression and technical skills to get the job done!
Eighty88Eight
Hopkins would have kicked Hearns ass. Hearns would get abused on the inside vs 35 yr old Hopkins.
EAlbian
I really see this fight as Hearns' fight to lose. Hearns would have all of the physical advantages over Hopkins like he did over most of his opponents. I see this more as Hearns could never stick to a game plan or adapt properly to beat the upper echelon fighters unless he caught them early and finished them. Hopkins is the master at sticking to a game plan and maintaining his focus, i think Hopkins weathers anything Hearns throws at him and eventually breaks him down after round 7, If Barkley could get to Hearns i see no reason not to believe Hopkins couldn't either. Hearns is one of my all time favorites but mentally he just didn't have what it took to be great, he was damn good but just not "great."
Method
QUOTE (bosco @ Aug 7 2011, 01:49 PM) *
Hopkins couldn't stop Jermaine Taylor...No way B-hop outboxes Hearns. It was hell getting pass that jab and right hand. Remember Tommy was long as hell. I just can't see b-hop with his cautious style beating a master boxer like Hearns.


Tommy was long for a welterweight.

Also, you obviously dont know much abut Hopkins complete reign at middleweight if you simply dismiss him as "cautious".

Hopkins whups Hearns ass at 160. If they fought 10 times, he'd whup it 10 times.
Method
QUOTE (STEVENSKI @ Aug 7 2011, 07:30 PM) *
A fascinating matchup but which version of Hopkins woul it be? The young aggressive exocutioner or the older more patient master? I think Hopkins from 99-01 was the best version to face Hearns in a fantasy matchup.


Which version of Hearns would it be? The welterweight who had height/reach on EVERYONE? Or the middleweight, who would have NONE of that on Hopkins, and was nothing special.
EAlbian
QUOTE (Method @ Aug 8 2011, 11:41 AM) *
Which version of Hearns would it be? The welterweight who had height/reach on EVERYONE? Or the middleweight, who would have NONE of that on Hopkins, and was nothing special.


Respectively speaking, Hearns would still have the reach advantage on Hopkins. I also wouldn't say he was nothing special(Haglers biggest win), he kayoed Duran in 2 rounds @154 who was coming off a very close loss to Hagler(2pts i believe) and eventually won titles all the way up to cruiserweight. Was Duran nothing special above 147?
bosco
QUOTE (Method @ Aug 8 2011, 11:39 AM) *
Tommy was long for a welterweight.

Also, you obviously dont know much abut Hopkins complete reign at middleweight if you simply dismiss him as "cautious".

Hopkins whups Hearns ass at 160. If they fought 10 times, he'd whup it 10 times.

I know plenty about B-Hops reign and he held 160 down for a long time but he fought a bunch of nobodys...Who he beat...Trinidad? Hearns would have creamed Trinidad. The only thing B-Hop has over Hearns is longevity. I first took notice to Hopkins in 1998 and I really started paying attention to him when he beat Antwon Echols the first time. Hopkins has about a 50% ko percentage. Prime for Prime Hearns whoops Hopkins.
caneman
QUOTE (bosco @ Aug 8 2011, 03:23 PM) *
I know plenty about B-Hops reign and he held 160 down for a long time but he fought a bunch of nobodys...Who he beat...Trinidad? Hearns would have creamed Trinidad. The only thing B-Hop has over Hearns is longevity. I first took notice to Hopkins in 1998 and I really started paying attention to him when he beat Antwon Echols the first time. Hopkins has about a 50% ko percentage. Prime for Prime Hearns whoops Hopkins.



We are clear on what you think bosco...does that mean we HAVE TO THINK LIKE YOU? NO ONE WHOOPS BHOP! Beat, maybe, just saying!
Method
Tommy had the legs of a newborn horse when he got tagged.

Tommy's best was NOT at 160. Prime Hopkins was a fucking beast at 160. Same height. Hearns a 3" reach advantage. Who cares. Hopkins inside game (and he woulda been up in Hearns motherfucking kitchen) would have been a lot. And then when he started measuring Tommy w that straight right hand. C'mon. Hopkins chin is tight. Tommy's wasn't. He didnt have the legs man. Hopkins would fuck Hearns up. Too complete, and, in his prime, a beast to deal with.

I can see Hopkins/Hearns play out as some sort of combination of Hopkins/Holmes, Hopkins/Echols, Hopkinsw/Eastman.

Hearns AIN't a middle weight man.

Tommy was a murdering motherfucker at welterweight...that's all I'll give him.
EAlbian
QUOTE (Method @ Aug 8 2011, 05:04 PM) *
Tommy had the legs of a newborn horse when he got tagged.

Tommy's best was NOT at 160. Prime Hopkins was a fucking best at 160. Same height. Hearns a 3" reach advantage. Who cares. Hopkins inside game (and he woulda been up in Hearns motherfucking kitchen) would have been a lot. And then when he started measuring Tommy w that straight right hand. C'mon. Hopkins chin is tight. Tommy's wasn't. He didnt have the legs man. Hopkins would fuck Hearns up. Too complete, and, in his prime, a beast to deal with.

I can see Hopkins/Hearns play out as some sort of combination of Hopkins/Holmes, Hopkins/Echols, Hopkinsw/Eastman.

Hearns AIN't a middle weight man.

Tommy was a murdering motherfucker at welterweight...that's all I'll give him.



No credit for the win over Duran @154? No credit for win over Hill @175? c'mon, i agree that Hopkins would probably win but Hopkins losses arent on the same level as Hearns'. Echols, Eastman, and Holmes all blew fat dick. Trinidad was Hopkins' best win in his Prime(well close to). The fact is in his Prime Hopkins didnt fight McCellan or Jackson who were the legit forces at the time at the weight. What about the Mercado fight? Hopkins proved his greatness after 2001, not before that because his record is basically a bunch of nobodies. Who is his best MW win? Trinidad? you could say the same thing about him not being a true MW. Hearns was very good and was able to move up the scale with success and thats a fact. I'm not saying you're wrong about the outcome of the fight i'm just saying you are rating Hopkins a little too high(reasonable given how much you like the guy) and not respecting Hearns enough
blackbelt2003
QUOTE (Method @ Aug 8 2011, 10:04 PM) *
Tommy had the legs of a newborn horse when he got tagged.

Tommy's best was NOT at 160. Prime Hopkins was a fucking best at 160. Same height. Hearns a 3" reach advantage. Who cares. Hopkins inside game (and he woulda been up in Hearns motherfucking kitchen) would have been a lot. And then when he started measuring Tommy w that straight right hand. C'mon. Hopkins chin is tight. Tommy's wasn't. He didnt have the legs man. Hopkins would fuck Hearns up. Too complete, and, in his prime, a beast to deal with.

I can see Hopkins/Hearns play out as some sort of combination of Hopkins/Holmes, Hopkins/Echols, Hopkinsw/Eastman.

Hearns AIN't a middle weight man.

Tommy was a murdering motherfucker at welterweight...that's all I'll give him.



I love Tommy Hearns, but dude was not a great middleweight. He snatched a middle title and then lost it quickly to Iran Barkley. He was brutalised in three by Hagler (no shame there, though), and that's it.


Look, Tommy is an ATG but above 154 he was inconsistent, vulnerable and unreliable.


Strip Hopkins down to 154 and you've got a fight.


160 or above and Hopkins takes him into deep water and drowns him. To beat prime Hops at 160 you've got to be Robinson or Monzon. That's it. Seriously, even Hagler would be no more than 50/50 with B-Hop.




Black
Method
QUOTE (EAlbian @ Aug 8 2011, 05:19 PM) *
No credit for the win over Duran @154? No credit for win over Hill @175? c'mon, i agree that Hopkins would probably win but Hopkins losses arent on the same level as Hearns'. Echols, Eastman, and Holmes all blew fat dick. Trinidad was Hopkins' best win in his Prime(well close to). The fact is in his Prime Hopkins didnt fight McCellan or Jackson who were the legit forces at the time at the weight. What about the Mercado fight? Hopkins proved his greatness after 2001, not before that because his record is basically a bunch of nobodies. Who is his best MW win? Trinidad? you could say the same thing about him not being a true MW. Hearns was very good and was able to move up the scale with success and thats a fact. I'm not saying you're wrong about the outcome of the fight i'm just saying you are rating Hopkins a little too high(reasonable given how much you like the guy) and not respecting Hearns enough

Trinidad was NOT Hopkins best win at MW. It was his coming out party, no doubt. I think his wins over Echols, Glenn Johnson, maybe a few others (DLH, Wright, Tarver) were better.

I give Tommy Hearns all praise at welter. He was nasty, would brawl, and could ice people. He was NOT that guy at middleweight.

...if it makes you feel better, neither was Trinidad.


EAlbian
QUOTE (Method @ Aug 8 2011, 05:34 PM) *
Trinidad was NOT Hopkins best win at MW. It was his coming out party, no doubt. I think his wins over Echols, Glenn Johnson, maybe a few others (DLH, Wright, Tarver) were better.

I give Tommy Hearns all praise at welter. He was nasty, would brawl, and could ice people. He was NOT that guy at middleweight.

...if it makes you feel better, neither was Trinidad.




Trinidad was by far his best win @160. Far better than DLH. Echols sucked, who was his best win?? Glen Johnson was a nobody at the time. Wright and Tarver were @175

Hearns was pretty nasty @154, smoked Duran who was coming off a very close fight with Hagler and many had him as a favorite to beat Hearns. Virgil Hill was a better win than Wright @175 imo and almost equal to the Tarver win given the circumstances.

Hopkins only achieved greatness after Trinidad. McCellan would be a lot for Hopkins to handle in 95' as would Jackson(Hopkins' prime)

Hopkins' best wins: Trinidad, DLH, Tarver, Wright, Pavlik, Pascal(5 over the age of 40)

Hearns' best wins >147: Duran, Benietez, and Virgil Hill

You're right above 160 Hopkins has the better resume and would pick him to win but the older Hopkins that fought Eastman would have trouble against Hearns @160. At 175 i think Hopkins is stronger and could get inside but hearns is still fast and was pretty solid at that weight.

It's too bad Hopkins didn't get to prove his greatness in his prime, he's still a hell of a fighter and with his longevity he's an ATG.
Method
Trinidad was not Hopkins best win. Trinidad had ONE fight at middleweight before facing Hopkins. He beat Cherifi after, then retired....then unretired and Winky Wright whupped the dogshit outta Tito some more.

I mean, as far as stamping his legacy and getting all the band-wagoners on board, no doubt that fight means a lot.

Hopkins win over guys like Glenn Johnson was more impressive than what he did to Tito, IMO.

Look, when it comes to boxing of the 70-80, those four horseman are icons - Ray, Roberto, Marvin and Thomas. I respect the shit out of them. but three of those aforementioned four fought their best UNDER middleweight. Of those four, Halger is the only one that holds his own w Ex. That's my opinion.

Oh yeah, I only mentioned Eastman and Echols cuz they were guys that were tall/long and could punch at times. Not sayingthey were be all/end all.
bosco
overall B-Hop has had a great career. But he's really gonna be recognized for everything post Trinidad and what he's doing at his age. But look at what he's doing it with. He's doing it with all the sweet science from the 80's. Most fighters today don't learn the sweet science...they just try to use speed and power and just throw punches and half the time are too scared to take chances to go for the ko. Hopkins couldn't do what he's doing in the 80's because those guys were cut from a different cloth. He still would have had success because he's cut from the same cloth but he can't out box Hearns and out of almost 70 fights only 3 guys were able to stop Hearns so it would've been tough for Hopkins.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE (Method @ Aug 9 2011, 01:41 AM) *
Which version of Hearns would it be? The welterweight who had height/reach on EVERYONE? Or the middleweight, who would have NONE of that on Hopkins, and was nothing special.


I think the 154lb Hearns would have a good go with X. Still fleet of foot & concussive power would prove a good foil to X's doggedness.

QUOTE (blackbelt2003 @ Aug 9 2011, 07:24 AM) *
160 or above and Hopkins takes him into deep water and drowns him. To beat prime Hops at 160 you've got to be Robinson or Monzon. That's it. Seriously, even Hagler would be no more than 50/50 with B-Hop.


I would give a guy like LaMotta a very good chance against Hopkins & a bunch of other middleweights throughout history. Hopkins is considered old school inhis attitude & guile in the ring. A lot of the older fighters had that same level of experience & were just as cunning as X. Hopkins is a a great great fighter but just because you are great does not mean you will beat everyone.

QUOTE (Fitz @ Aug 9 2011, 08:56 AM) *
It's obvious that late in his career at 160, he was pacing himself more, and his output increased when moving up in weight. Eastman isn't a good example to use when trying to take a 160 Hopkins. Plus, after his recent Pascal fight, Hopkins also said in so many words that he paced himself during a period, to preserve himself at his age, this is why now he is racing to the finish line and getting more exciting Hopkins fights. This was all part of the plan for him.


So losing twice to Taylor was part of the plan? Just curious as his pacing himself cost him two wins, his undisputed title & reign at 160. Strange plan but I guess it worked.
The Original MrFactor
The question isnt Hearns... The real question is could Hopkins beat Hagler. I think he beats Hearns pretty easily and quite possibly by stoppage. I think he has the tools to frustrate and beat Hagler. Hagler was a tough guy and one of the best fighters I've ever seen. However, he could be out hustled and outboxed.
caneman
QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Aug 8 2011, 07:21 PM) *
The question isnt Hearns... The real question is could Hopkins beat Hagler. I think he beats Hearns pretty easily and quite possibly by stoppage. I think he has the tools to frustrate and beat Hagler. Hagler was a tough guy and one of the best fighters I've ever seen. However, he could be out hustled and outboxed.



Fair question;

#1 middle of all time! Harry Greb with both eyes beats any middle in history 7 or 8 times out 10

#2 SRR just better @ 147 but still great and the best ever!

#3 X, many think not and all good he even beats Greb and SRR 2 times outta 10!

#4 Monzon, he could hang with anyone and could beat the above 2 times outta 10!

#5 Hagler was tough enough to beat any of these guys if they fought his fight!

#6 Tiger Flowers, beat Greb 2 times, bad eyes or not & another guy who died from eye surgery(greb the other)even called the lefthanded human wind mill!

ummmm jager kicking in, finish later if y'all want!!!!
STEVENSKI
Nice to see some Greb love on here Cane.
caneman
QUOTE (STEVENSKI @ Aug 8 2011, 08:05 PM) *
Nice to see some Greb love on here Cane.



Dude, Greb is SRR with an extra 100 wins!
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (STEVENSKI @ Aug 8 2011, 06:05 PM) *
Nice to see some Greb love on here Cane.



QUOTE (caneman @ Aug 8 2011, 06:18 PM) *
Dude, Greb is SRR with an extra 100 wins!

SRR would never have gone near Greb, unless it was when he was nearly blind.
SmartyBeardo
QUOTE (Fitz @ Aug 8 2011, 06:39 PM) *
Not suggesting Greb was never great, so nobody put words in my mouth, but I always found it kinda funny when people pick Greb over other great fighters so confidently when there is barely any footage of him, and basically basing an opinion on boxrec and second hand information.
Not doubting his greatness, I just don't know how people can pick a guy confidently without seeing much at all.

There are many people that don't trust second hand information passed on from the bible. I don't know, I just don't think I could make a confident pick based on what others say.

Point taken. History can certainly be rewritten.

The history here is pretty clear that SRR would not have risked a fight with Greb unless the reward heavily out weighed the possibility of loss. The Hawk comes to mind.
caneman
QUOTE (Fitz @ Aug 8 2011, 08:39 PM) *
Not suggesting Greb was never great, so nobody put words in my mouth, but I always found it kinda funny when people pick Greb over other great fighters so confidently when there is barely any footage of him, and basically basing an opinion on boxrec and second hand information.
Not doubting his greatness, I just don't know how people can pick a guy confidently without seeing much at all.

There are many people that don't trust second hand information passed on from the bible. I don't know, I just don't think I could make a confident pick based on what others say.



I know whatcha mean but I trust the writer who said he throw 200 punches and did it for 3 rounds str8, he was from Va, not Pittsburgh and he did call out Dempsy and fought Tunney twice! He fought 36 times I think it was in 1922 and was 60% blind in 1 one by the end of the year and did it training on whores and cheap whiskey! I stand by my statement, I studied the MW division for over 6 years and still read about the division! You ever seen the website on him fitz?
STEVENSKI
QUOTE (Fitz @ Aug 9 2011, 11:39 AM) *
Not suggesting Greb was never great, so nobody put words in my mouth, but I always found it kinda funny when people pick Greb over other great fighters so confidently when there is barely any footage of him, and basically basing an opinion on boxrec and second hand information.
Not doubting his greatness, I just don't know how people can pick a guy confidently without seeing much at all.

There are many people that don't trust second hand information passed on from the bible. I don't know, I just don't think I could make a confident pick based on what others say.



You make a good point but I would counter that by looking at how his peers rated him & in the 20's boxing was 1000 fold deeper in talent than it is today. Greb was always rated right up the top by his peers & I would say the opinions of the great fighters from that decade universally praising his abilities & skills carries serious weight in my eyes.

I think any quality boxer who has the ability to throw 150+ punches per round consistantly with a seldom seen swarming style will pose trouble for any fighter. It is kinda hard to get off your own shots when a guy is averaging a punch every second or so & throwing them in combinations mixing it up from body to head.

Not many people here rate a guy like Stan Ketchel but I look at who he fought & the method of his victories 95% by KO & if it is good enough for Nat Fleischer to rank him #1 all time for a middleweight considering how many great fighters he had seen then I think it is fair to have him highly rated. This is the guy who invented the triple shift technique & had no problems taking on & out bigger men.
Method
At 160, a prime Hopkins whups the dogshit out of Tommy Hearns.
EAlbian
QUOTE (Method @ Aug 9 2011, 09:07 AM) *
At 160, a prime Hopkins whups the dogshit out of Tommy Hearns.


Does a prime Hopkins "whoop the dog shit" out of Julian Jackson or Gerald McClellan? Those were the premiere guys that were around when he was in his so called prime.

I respect that Hopkins took all of his mandatory defenses and reigned for the period that he did but he took minimal risks against marginal opposition(would any fighter today get any credit for pulling 5 or 6 years of straight manditories?)(does chris John get credit for this?). Although Trinidad was a blown up Jr MW, he was by far the most accomplished fighter Hopkins had fought, besides Jones which he lost fairly easily to. Trinidad blew away Joppy, who Hopkins later faced and failed to stop. So against similar opposition, Trinidad was seen as a legit threat to Hopkins(Trinidad was the betting favorite). You make it seem as though Hopkins was this terror in the MW division where in reality he was fighting limited opposition. Glen Johnson is tough but it was early in his career and not at his optimal weight(fared better at 168 and 175). Echols sucked, Holmes was not special, and Allen was mediocre.

Hopkins gained notoriety through Trinidad and DLH but to this date his most impressive win is still Trinidad, at any weight. DLH had no business at 160, at least Tito won a fight there. Wright was no light heavy. Pavlik i thought was a good win but because he fell off after this its really hard to rate it. Pascal was a good win but is Pascal really that good? Tarver was a very good win but was the weight really the problem? In the Trinidad fight he looked the most complete and dismantled and undefeated 3 division world champion.
Method
QUOTE (EAlbian @ Aug 9 2011, 02:07 PM) *
Does a prime Hopkins "whoop the dog shit" out of Julian Jackson or Gerald McClellan? Those were the premiere guys that were around when he was in his so called prime.

I respect that Hopkins took all of his mandatory defenses and reigned for the period that he did but he took minimal risks against marginal opposition(would any fighter today get any credit for pulling 5 or 6 years of straight manditories?)(does chris John get credit for this?). Although Trinidad was a blown up Jr MW, he was by far the most accomplished fighter Hopkins had fought, besides Jones which he lost fairly easily to. Trinidad blew away Joppy, who Hopkins later faced and failed to stop. So against similar opposition, Trinidad was seen as a legit threat to Hopkins(Trinidad was the betting favorite). You make it seem as though Hopkins was this terror in the MW division where in reality he was fighting limited opposition. Glen Johnson is tough but it was early in his career and not at his optimal weight(fared better at 168 and 175). Echols sucked, Holmes was not special, and Allen was mediocre.

Hopkins gained notoriety through Trinidad and DLH but to this date his most impressive win is still Trinidad, at any weight. DLH had no business at 160, at least Tito won a fight there. Wright was no light heavy. Pavlik i thought was a good win but because he fell off after this its really hard to rate it. Pascal was a good win but is Pascal really that good? Tarver was a very good win but was the weight really the problem? In the Trinidad fight he looked the most complete and dismantled and undefeated 3 division world champion.


Gerald McClellan and Julian Jackson are different stories, but ALL THREE whup the dogshit out of Tommy Hearns at Middleweight...well, I could see Hearns and Jackson being a shoot out (given the suspect chins), but I'd likely favor Jackson.

Trinidad is NOT Hopkins best win. Shit, man, Hopkins win over Winky Wright was more impressive than his win over Trinidad. His win over Tarver was more impressive than Trinidad. His win over Pavlik was more impressive than Trinidad. And yes, IMO, his win over DLH (himself a victim of poor judging vs Trinidad) is more impressive than his win over Trinidad.

Anyone that followed the middleweight division during Hopkins reign knows that Don King had the other three belts locked down and wouldnt let Ex near any one of those guys without getting options on Ex.

Glen Johnson ripped off 35 wins at middleweight. He had far less success at 168-175. Lost more than he won. Im not discounting his wins over Jones and Tarver, cuz I think the world of Glenn, but he rolled out of the division because he had no shot.

I love McClellan and Jackson. Tommy Hearns, at 160 was NOT McClellan, and might not even have been Jackson.
EAlbian
QUOTE (Method @ Aug 9 2011, 02:31 PM) *
Gerald McClellan and Julian Jackson are different stories, but ALL THREE whup the dogshit out of Tommy Hearns at Middleweight...well, I could see Hearns and Jackson being a shoot out (given the suspect chins), but I'd likely favor Jackson.

Trinidad is NOT Hopkins best win. Shit, man, Hopkins win over Winky Wright was more impressive than his win over Trinidad. His win over Tarver was more impressive than Trinidad. His win over Pavlik was more impressive than Trinidad. And yes, IMO, his win over DLH (himself a victim of poor judging vs Trinidad) is more impressive than his win over Trinidad.

Anyone that followed the middleweight division during Hopkins reign knows that Don King had the other three belts locked down and wouldnt let Ex near any one of those guys without getting options on Ex.

Glen Johnson ripped off 35 wins at middleweight. He had far less success at 168-175. Lost more than he won. Im not discounting his wins over Jones and Tarver, cuz I think the world of Glenn, but he rolled out of the division because he had no shot.

I love McClellan and Jackson. Tommy Hearns, at 160 was NOT McClellan, and might not even have been Jackson.



Haha, i guess we gotta agree to disagree. I respect your opinion and do agree with you that Hopkins would beat Tommy @160, don't get me wrong on that, i just don't think its the beating you're saying. Eventually King did have options on Bernard. I can't agree on DLH, he never won a fight @160. Wright was a decent win but the best he did was draw with taylor above 154. Pavlik and Tarver were good wins. Johnson never won a title @160, he was the undisputed LHW champion, obviously a better weight for him. He's doing pretty well @168 right now
Eighty88Eight
Hopkins vs Trinidad is the single best athletic performance I've seen live.
Method
QUOTE (EAlbian @ Aug 9 2011, 03:14 PM) *
Haha, i guess we gotta agree to disagree. I respect your opinion and do agree with you that Hopkins would beat Tommy @160, don't get me wrong on that, i just don't think its the beating you're saying. Eventually King did have options on Bernard. I can't agree on DLH, he never won a fight @160. Wright was a decent win but the best he did was draw with taylor above 154. Pavlik and Tarver were good wins. Johnson never won a title @160, he was the undisputed LHW champion, obviously a better weight for him. He's doing pretty well @168 right now

Its not like we're that far apart in our views, bro. All good.
Eighty88Eight
QUOTE (Method @ Aug 9 2011, 03:52 PM) *
Its not like we're that far apart in our views, bro. All good.


http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_34...67318POufNO.jpg
Method
Forum rules. Please refrain from personal photos.

Note: Nobody wants to see your parents honeymoon pics, bro.
Spyder
200 punches-per-round?



"I refused to take the test before it was cool."

bosco
B Hop wasn't a beast at 160...He just fought limited opposition and beat the fighters he was supposed to beat. Hearns would have knocked Jackson out because he was a better boxer and knew how to set his punches up better. Most of B Hops middle weight run he was trying to be like Roy Jones but didn't have the tools to do it like Roy...He was like a poor mans RJJ and was in Roys shadow for a long time. B Hop knew what was in the middle weight division and knew he could dominate the guys that were there. B Hop was scared to move up in weight for a long time. I've seen B Hop get dropped twice in 1 fight at middle weight before and rocked on other occasions. During his middle weight run he could be dropped so he began to fight cautious and didn't throw a lot of punches. Now he's moved up and throwing more punches he getting dropped and rocked again. My point is you can't beat Hearns fighting cautious and if B Hop opened up Hearns would make him pay.
Mean Mister Mustard
QUOTE (bosco @ Aug 9 2011, 06:57 PM) *
B Hop wasn't a beast at 160...He just fought limited opposition and beat the fighters he was supposed to beat. Hearns would have knocked Jackson out because he was a better boxer and knew how to set his punches up better. Most of B Hops middle weight run he was trying to be like Roy Jones but didn't have the tools to do it like Roy...He was like a poor mans RJJ and was in Roys shadow for a long time. B Hop knew what was in the middle weight division and knew he could dominate the guys that were there. B Hop was scared to move up in weight for a long time. I've seen B Hop get dropped twice in 1 fight at middle weight before and rocked on other occasions. During his middle weight run he could be dropped so he began to fight cautious and didn't throw a lot of punches. Now he's moved up and throwing more punches he getting dropped and rocked again. My point is you can't beat Hearns fighting cautious and if B Hop opened up Hearns would make him pay.


What does that mean? Do you mean he was trying to imitate his style? Because I sure as hell didn't see that.

QUOTE
and was in Roys shadow for a long time.


Of course he was, RJ didn't want to fight him again.

QUOTE
I've seen B Hop get dropped twice in 1 fight at middle weight before and rocked on other occasions. During his middle weight run he could be dropped so he began to fight cautious and didn't throw a lot of punches.


What does him being dropped twice in one fight have to do with his greatness? Sure Echols, Allen, Vanderpool and the rest weren't great fighters, but they were tough contenders who trained their asses off in order to win the IBF belt and Hopkins always ended up outclassing them, and in the process showing that he was a full level above them. You said he got dropped in 1 fight, and I assume you are referring to the Mercado fight where he had to adjust to the altitude in Ecuador. You forgot to mention how Hopkins dominated the first few rounds, gassed out in the middle rounds but then found his second wind and ended up earning a draw in a guy's hometown, which by the way was in total chaos and disarray. Don't forget Hopkins should have been credited with 1 or 2 knockdowns of his own but the ref missed them.

QUOTE
During his middle weight run he could be dropped so he began to fight cautious and didn't throw a lot of punches.


Apart from the Mercado fight, it would be 15 years before he got dropped again. And he fought pretty aggressively during the mid and late 90's. In fact, his first 5 defenses ended by stoppage and in his rematches with Echols and Allen, who gave him tough fights the first time around, he ended up stopping them as well.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.