Thomas Hearns vs Carl Froch, 168 lbs

Hearns 12-0, how do you guys have it?

 

Froch KO 9

 

Very good fight and not easy for either, unless you only think how either guy looked instead of actually comparing their strengths and achievement

 

Froch is definitely becoming overrated here, but I think he's too big, strong & physical for Hearns at what would be 175, in reality. Barry McGuigan used a good phrase on saturday - 'raw boned strength'. God only knows what it's meant to mean but it would be the difference here.

Froch has no respect for Hearns power at the weight & chases him out the ring, eventually.

 

Froch has no respect for Hearns power? Jesus Christ! WTF! Is Froch now Hagler all of a sudden?

Froch was dropped by Taylor, and hurt by Kessler. Yet he'd walk through Hearns? He's become insanely overrated since Sat.

Hearns by UD is the safe bet here. Froch is a live dog though.

 

To be fair, Froch has no respect for anyone's power. Whether or not that is justified in any given fight is debatable, including this one, but to say 'Froch has no respect for Hearns power' isn't a mad statement per se.

MTF

 

I was about to ask where this came from, then I read some of the posts in the Froch-RJJ thread...

MTF

 

At 175 I doubt Hearns even hits as hard as Bute. This isn't a p4p match up. Its 2 effective divisions north of Hagler.

 

Hearns UD

 

Hearns hits harder than Bute at any weight.

Bute's left hand does NOT carry the single shot power of Hearns' right cross.

 

I agree with, X. FROCH IS THE MAN, BUT HIS CHIN IS OVERRATED AS FUCK. Jt put him on queer street and he was pillow fisted. Hearns stops on by tko. TOMMY had power at cruiser. His punches were leveraged so he hit harder than his weight. Froch is the man though. He would give Tommy a fight and drop him maybe.

 

People seem to forget that Tommy basically killed Dennis Andries at 175 and beat Virgil Hill when he was essentially washed up

I think he decisions Froch comprehensively, I don't about 12-0, but I am basically in agreement with loadedgloves... he's just a way better fighter

 

Hearns has crazy power, he carried a meaty punch all the way upto 175.

There's no doubt in my mind he hits significantly harder than that scrub Boot at 168. His right cross was obscene.

But in this fight I wouldn't be shocked if Frock won. I'd pick Hearns as he's so much better, but Frock is a naturally bigger man, very tough and determined, physically strong.

Unless Hearns can KO him early, it's a difficult fight.

Frock is no Hagler or even close, but the key is he's much bigger than Hagler. He's a solidly built, 6'1 super middle, with good punch resistence and a lot of courage.

 

1) Andries damn near KOd himself with exhaustion, it's not like Hearns put him to sleep when he hit him. That's Hearns only KO near the weight worth talking about.
2) Andries looked decidedly small. A middleweight today, I suspect. A supermiddleweight then if there were any money in the division
3) Hill/Hearns was a paced, distance fight. Exact opposite of what Froch would force
4) I totally stand by my post :: Hearns might land and hurt Froch a couple of times but not nearly enough to make him cautious him let alone KO him. And Froch would learn quickly that Hearns was there to be physically bullied. He'd ultimately walk through him

Hearns aint a light heavyweight

 

I heard that aside from having power, this Hearns guy could box a bit.

 

At distance. Easy to maintain when you hit like Hearns at 147, 154, harder when you're fighting Carl Froch at 175. He doesn't respond to being bullrushed seamlessly like a Mayweather or a Pernel; if you did you had a brawl on your hands. Which I think Froch would win because he's just much physically stronger and studier. Just the way I see it. Ironically Tommy might have a better chance against just about any of the other super 6 guys including Ward. I just don't think hearns was all that great at the weight, tho

 

Hearns might spark him, obviously. It's not going the distance either way, as i see it.

 

I was about to say exactly the same thing.

Hearns was a near perfect distance boxer, not so much up close.

 

you shut your whoring mouth:flip:

 

Tell it to your Romanist priest, Bead rattler!

 

what is this POPERY and PRIESTCRAFT???!!!!

 

Cant believe I just called somebody a bead rattler. I'm away to chop my typing digits off.

 

ehh, it's good fun between two Fenians... it's between us

 

I don't know if Hearns would take Froch out, but I do think his shots at that weight still had enough pop on them that Froch wouldn't just walk through them like they were nothing.

 

p4p, Hearns would kill froch.

At 168, he was slower, sloppier, weaker, and his punches didn't have the same snap. He was getting all he could handle from the very ordinary Juan Roldan. Froch is bigger and better than Roldan, I expect him to beat him rather confortably.

 

christ, another guy that died against Hearns

 

Ugh. Exaggerations here,

Roldan was not "ordinary" he was a good, world class middle who gave Marvin Hagler a pretty good scrap in a title fight.

And Hearns "getting all he could handle" from Roldan is another exaggeration. Roldan was knocked down twice in the first, spent the 2nd & 3rd rushing in, trying to rough-house and mostly missing. He did manage to to hurt (that is hurt, not "nearly KOed" or anything like that) Hearns briefly in the 4th before getting knocked out in the same round. Roldan was game, but outclassed.

It's amazing to me (but then again on this site...maybe not) how overrated Froch has become due to a win over Bute.

 

I'll concede that calling him very ordinary might be harsh, as he was a pretty good fighter, but still, he never managed to beat anyone elite (who's the best fighter he beat ? Fletcher? Kinchen?).

As for the fight, I'd have to rewatch it, but I seem to recall that the fight was starting to go Roldan way big time before he got leveled.

BTW, I don't think anyone overated Froch, everyone knows he's fairly limited, but he makes up fot it with toughness and grit.
Still, Hearns at 168 is not the same animal than the one who fought at 147

 

He doesn't need to kill Froch, just beat him. For that, the Hearns of 168 is sufficient.

 

Who are the "elite" fighters that Froch has beaten? I wouldn't consider Kessler, Abraham, Taylor, Bute or Johnson to be "elite". Good fighters? Sure. But I think the word "elite" gets tossed around too much these days.

If you want to say Froch accomplished more than Roldan, then sure, I can agree with that. But on the flip side, Roldan's path to winning a title was much more difficult as his first two title shots came against Hagler and Hearns. He also lost to Michael Nunn, who at the time of the fight was a very good fighter entering his prime.