BoxRec

DLH would be very, very cautious. He’d have to go into the fight with a game plan where he expects to be behind on points after 6 rounds. In fact he might not win any of those 6 rounds. But he can come on late to try and force a stoppage.

I don’t think he gets it. I imagine Hearns wins on points unless he catches DLH coming in on a do or die mission.

Hearns too big and simply too good. The ref saves DLH by about round 8

Ezzard wrote:DLH would be very, very cautious. He’d have to go into the fight with a game plan where he expects to be behind on points after 6 rounds. In fact he might not win any of those 6 rounds. But he can come on late to try and force a stoppage.

I don’t think he gets it. I imagine Hearns wins on points unless he catches DLH coming in on a do or die mission.

Not with DLH's fading in fights.

BoxBuzz wrote:At this weight this is not a mismatch, so for both the zealot camps I'm warnin' ya. It's gonna be a long night.

I saw Oscar answer this question himself. "Not Me".

Dart340 wrote:Maybe Hearns toasts him.
But Hearns usually won fights on sheer athletic superiority. Name one fight where he used strategy or mental resources to win a fight.
As much as I didn't (and don't) like De La Hoya, he won most of his fights this way. Not so sure he doesn't out-think Hearns and find a way to win.

Oscar had one of the lowest ring IQ's I've ever seen for a top fighter.

I can't stand Oscar and I think that is one of the most bizzarro world statements anyone has ever made about him.

I never thought of Hearns as smart, but I sure did think he had some great instincts. When he gambled, I felt like he really recognized the odds, and made a decision to roll the dice...usually at the right time.

I don't think I ever saw the man intimidated....whether winning or losing, no one, and I mean no one ever got to him in a psyche way. So he had a great EQ if not an IQ.

Oscar seemed to me to be a bit of a plodder for as cerebral as I did imagine him to be in the ring.

He certainly blew the Trinidad and Mosely fights in a way that seemed totally at odds with his seemingly quick thinking communication style.

Dart340 wrote:I can't stand Oscar and I think that is one of the most bizzarro world statements anyone has ever made about him.

It's spot on, he had tremendous talent and a lot of balls, but he could never think in there. To be honest, the prospect of him out-thinking Hearns is as bizarre as anything I've ever read.

Oscar and Tyson are the two biggest examples of guys with tremendous talent that can't think or adapt in the Ring of my lifetime. Donaire is another one, though not on their level.

BoxBuzz wrote:I never thought of Hearns as smart, but I sure did think he had some great instincts. When he gambled, I felt like he really recognized the odds, and made a decision to roll the dice...usually at the right time.

I don't think I ever saw the man intimidated....whether winning or losing, no one, and I mean no one ever got to him in a psyche way. So he had a great EQ if not an IQ.

Oscar seemed to me to be a bit of a plodder for as cerebral as I did imagine him to be in the ring.

He certainly blew the Trinidad and Mosely fights in a way that seemed totally at odds with his seemingly quick thinking communication style.

Dart340 wrote:I can't stand Oscar and I think that is one of the most bizzarro world statements anyone has ever made about him.

I detest Oscar also.

I must admit I am scratching my head to see how Oscar De La Hoya who was himself a big welterweight can beat an monster in the shape of the Hitman Tommy Hearns. Hearns is the taller fight with the greater reach and quicker hands etc, but De La Hoya had one hell of a chin on him when you take into account who he fought with at Welterweight and Light-Middle, but I just see him struggling to deal with Hearns quicker feet and a ramrod of a jab I just can't. I don't see Hearns stopping De La Hoya but I do see him beating him quite comfortably on points.

Buzz, there's a reason you are in the minority here. I'm not a DLH basher by any means and he was one of the top fighters lb for lb of his era, but I simply fail to see a way by which he beats Hearns.

I only contend it would be quite competitive.

As would Hearns and Duran on a typical night.

Of course the night they actually fought, a different sort of story played out.

dempseyfire wrote:Buzz, there's a reason you are in the minority here. I'm not a DLH basher by any means and he was one of the top fighters lb for lb of his era, but I simply fail to see a way by which he beats Hearns.

Agreed, outside of a shot in the dark like Barkley.

Rover wrote:

Dart340 wrote:I can't stand Oscar and I think that is one of the most bizzarro world statements anyone has ever made about him.

I detest Oscar also.

Can I ask why you detest him Rover?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Rover wrote:

Dart340 wrote:I can't stand Oscar and I think that is one of the most bizzarro world statements anyone has ever made about him.

I detest Oscar also.

Can I ask why you detest him Rover?

oscar stole his fishnet stockings and stilleto heels

the whole outfit was rovers
he still holds a grudge that he did not get the media attention

Rover wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Buzz, there's a reason you are in the minority here. I'm not a DLH basher by any means and he was one of the top fighters lb for lb of his era, but I simply fail to see a way by which he beats Hearns.

Agreed, outside of a shot in the dark like Barkley.

Rover rover, this is an interesting statement.

I think "two apparently accurate shots in the dark" would be a bit more appropriate.

And the percentages of Hearns wins vs Iran? 0%.

The "facts" can be presented many ways I suppose.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Rover wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Buzz, there's a reason you are in the minority here. I'm not a DLH basher by any means and he was one of the top fighters lb for lb of his era, but I simply fail to see a way by which he beats Hearns.

Agreed, outside of a shot in the dark like Barkley.

Rover rover, this is an interesting statement.

I think "two apparently accurate shots in the dark" would be a bit more appropriate.

And the percentages of Hearns wins vs Iran? 0%.

The "facts" can be presented many ways I suppose.

The facts are that Iran Barkley was never a Welterweight and no Welterweight or Jr Middleweight ever stopped Hearns with a lucky punch. In fact, Leonard battered him for a couple rounds and then Tommy regained complete control before succumbing in rounds that Oscar has never seen.

Why do you detest Oscar, rover?