Bernard Hopkins vs. Thomas Hearns at 160 and P4P...

Who WINS???

 

I think a prime Hopkins would be willing o walk through fire, and would grind Tommy down slowly. The tentative Hopkins of the last 5 years gets his ass kicked by Hearns. Hopkins would never be able to outbox Hearns from the outside. Not only could Hearns' hurt Hopkins, but Tommy's edge in handspeed woulda been hell for Bernard.

 

Bad matchup for Tommy Boy. Hopkins by late round TKO.

 

P4P, I like Hopkins by decision.

Straight up at 160:
Prime Hopkins dominates and scores a late knock out/stoppage.

Post-Tito version of Hopkins wins a decision but in less convincing - or watchable - fashion.

 

So you'd pick that Hopkins that fought Taylor twice to beat Tommy? I sure as hell wouldnt!

 

I can't see Tommy landing any clean shots so he gets beaten up and KO'd albeit late.

 

At 160..Bernard Hopkins all day every day.

P4P..hearns may escape with a close decision.

 

WTF? Hopkins' defense was very good, but there isnt a fighter in history who's defense was good enough to not get hit by Hearns. Benitez, a better defensive fighter than Hopkins, got hit by Hearns. Saying Tommy would lose is one thing, but saying he'd never land clean is retarded! If Echols could land clean on B-Hop, you bet your ass Hearns could!

I swear sometimes Hopkins gets overrated.

 

I will go with Hopkins. I think he has the chin and ring intelligence to take a dec.

 

Clean shots to whether he would KTFO Hopkins with one punch is what I meant.

 

I know this is mythical matchups and it is the worst forum in the world, but I cannot see any scenario in which Hopkins could win. He never fought anyone as good Leonard or Hearns outside of Roy and he lost closely but clearly.

Hopkins had a very, very poor level of opposition and his best wins were over blown up junior welters or welters unless you think his win over the ATG Tarver is mind boggling.

I am in the minority. I love watching Hopkins pre-Tito fights. I think his style maximizes what he could get out of his talent. To me, this is a talent issue. Hearns was just on another level, imo. Keep in mind, with the exception of the Tarver fight, Hopkins lost to all the truly talented fighters he fought.

 

I was thinking more of the version that beat Joppy and took part in the business merger disguised as a middleweight title fight against Oscar. By the Eastman fight, Hopkins was clearly on his last legs (tends to happens to boxers once they reach 40). Rarely do I reference the worst available version of a fighter when discussing mythical matchups.

 

Its very arguable that Hopkins best performance was the Tarver fight, in every way.

Jermaine Taylor showed what a person with skills/length and activity can do against Hopkins.

Hearns by Decision

 

Or knock out. Jake likes numbers. I like level of opposition and Hopkins level of opposition was putrid. While he was 40 when he fought Jermain Taylor, JT was easily the best fighter at middle besides Roy Bhop ever fought. He lost twice and he basically lost both fights out of fear of getting hit. That says a ton about Bhops level of Opposition. I always like JT but he was never an alll time great.
Hearns would make Hopkins fight like Sweet Pea whitaker. He'd run, foul and hold his way to a respectable loss or he'd get clipped and stay down. Hopkins is like a cockroach. He was born to survive. Luckily for him, he got to feast on the Joppys, Eastmans, Allens and Echolses of this world.

 

Don't get me wrong, I loved that domination.... but Hopkins was still only throwing two or three punches each round. Tarver looked awful.

Taylor? C'mon. Lets at least try to get these guys somewhat close to their peak when we compare them.

Hopkins absolutely tunes Hearns at 160.

 

One out of those four you named, Joppy, Eastman, Echols and Allen, would have knocked Hearns out ala Barkley (who lost to every single good middle he fought, except Hearns)

 

at a certain point, i would expect hopkins land accurate punches and knock hearns the fuck out.

suggesting that hopkins would lose because he lost to roy EARLY in his career and taylor (in two fights that could've gone either way) LATE LATE in his career is moronic.

 

There's no shame in losing to Roy either, who was a way better fighter than Hearns.

 

Joppy, Eastman, Echols, and Allen beat Tommy Hearns?

I dont know whether to laugh at that statement, or just shake my head.

 

:: Sorry, my point wasn't clear (although my post doesn't even say that Hearns loses to all of them). I'm just saying Hearns was always a stiff breeze away from being stopped above 154. I wouldn't pick any of the above to beat Hearns in a mythical, but if Hearns had the exact same sched that Bernard did from 1993-2005 he would have been clipped along the way.

Hopkins was the better middleweight.

 

Exactly. The sales pitch in suggesting Bernard still has it also includes "a win over future Hall-of-Famer Winky Wright, and a close, controversial lose to P4P entrant Joe Calzaghe" (or according to some, P4P BEST FIGHTER IN THE WORLD Joe Calzagye).

Hopkins dominated Tarver, sure. But let's not pretend it was reminiscent of, say his wipeouts of Glen Johnson and that guy posing as Felix Trinidad.

 

Are you Joking? Tommy would not have lost to any of those guys including Glen Johnson.

 

Oh shut it you whiney cunt. You have turned into a real bitch. All I was suggesting is Bhops level of opp was poor. That was my entire point. I was only pointing out he did lose to the best fighters he did fight and I said the taylor loses came late. I am suggesting that Hearns was just another level of fighter. Hopkins had a ton of defenses against guys that couldnt hold Tommy's jock.

 

Haakar TKO2 Hearns after toying with him in the first.

 

Tommy also wouldn't lose to Iran Barkley, if they had never fought.

 

Again, it is stupid to get into an argument over a mythical matchup. I deal in facts. The fact is the best defense Bhop had was against Glen Johnson who while he was often robbed did lose to many scrubs. I am not bagging on Glen Johnson. I am a huge fan, but he is like a real life Rocky.

I have seen every Bhop fight. I was a fan of his before most even knew who he was. I honestly don't think anyone Bhop fought at 160 outside of Glen Johnson is even on Iran Barkley's level. Imo, Barkley beat Michael Nunn.He was a decent fighter. Again, Barkley is just a guy I root for but I see your point. My point is Bhops level of opposition was fucking terrible. That is why mythically I have problems picking him over any great fighter. I know cunts like Joony have a ready made excuse, but the fact is BHop did lose to ever good fighter he fought that was his size, except Tarver. Unless I am forgetting something, that is a fact.

 

He beat Winky, how much smaller is Winky? They both looked like shit that night though.

I just think Hopkins is better at that weight. I haven't been arguing about pound for pound or any of that shit.

 

Winky is smaller and I thought that fight was a draw. I wouldn't say either were in their primes and Hopkins just tried to stink the fight out. I would never argue P4P it is bullshit. Hopkins could win the fight. The way I see it going down is Tommy buzzes him and Hopkins looks to survive. Hopkins is and always was a bully. I just look at how well Oscar did against him and I think Tommy would have killed him. I know he was old against oscar. Bhop still raves about how hard Echols hit. Lol, Tommy hit 50 times harder and faster. I guess the bottom line is I just don't think Bhop was a great alltime great he was great light and I think tOMMY WAS EVEN AT MIDDLE.

Keep in mind, I have always been a fan of Hopkins's style pre-Tito. I am not a Hopkins hater. Well, I am now, but I used to be one of his only fans until his disgraceful performances post Trinidad. His performances set boxing back a decade outside of the Tarever fight post Tito. I remember one round against Echols(first fight) where Bhop landed something like 97% of the punches he threw. I just never saw him as being an all time great. His resume is not good.

I doubt Hopkins even beats Toney or Nunn. Toney was a very inconsitent middleweight.

 

At 160 Hopkins wears Tommy down and wins a decsion. Possibly hurting Tommy late.

P4P Tommy boxes Hopkins. Hopkins' style makes the fight ugly and more physical than Tommy would want. Hopkins would get inside safely a few times and lean on Tommy. He'd get some good body shots (and a few forearm shots) in. But in the end Tommy wins a UD. I think Tommy would land his right once or twice and that would discourage Hopkins just enough to not be as aggressive as he'd need to be to win a P4P match.

 

:doh::doh::doh: