BoxRec

Goodnight, Irene wrote:McClellan's chin wins out, & he KO's Hearns.

mugabi wrote:Tommy takes Gerald in my mind.

Sure Tommy had a vulnerable chin, but Tommy at 160 created so many openings had so much speed and could bang to the body just as well as to the head. There is a clear disparity in skill, tehcnique and speed and I see Hearns dissecting Mclellan within 5-6 rounds.

Mclellan was a warrior and could had incredible will to win but there is nothing in his history to suggest that after weathering the early Hearns storm he could bring it on in the later rounds.

eveything to me points to Hearns winning.

It isnt really of any great relavence but the 1989 sparring match on youtube of these two provides a fair few clues of how Tommy would handle Mclellan.

Diamond Weapon wrote:Anyone that could take bombs from Jackson could take them from Hearns..

Goodnight, Irene wrote:McClellan was an absolutely massive Middleweight. He was the king of the drain during his era.

Datsue wrote:

Diamond Weapon wrote:Anyone that could take bombs from Jackson could take them from Hearns..

Sorry, don't agree. Your reasoning is flawed, & here's why:

Hatton shook off Tszyu's right hands, but not Pac's straight left. Why not? Wear & tear on Ricky's noggin? Certainly played a part. But I will give you odds to evens that Pacquaio's left --though less of devastating shot in a sheer force kinda way-- came at a weirder angle, was quicker & exploded in a place that Ricky didn't see coming.

What's this got to do with the topic at hand? Well, Hearns was about eleventy trillion times quicker & more technically capable than Jackson. He may have lacked Jackson's awesome "hit guys with an arm punch to the cheekbone & knock them clean off their feet" bludgeoning power, but again, I'd take his shots to be not only faster but much more cleanly delivered & far more accurate.

There were guys Jackson didn't knockout (Thomas Tate, fer instance). Does that mean Roy Jones hit harder, because he flattened Tate? Nah. Brute power is not the be all & end all of it, certainly not when dealing with a fighter like Thomas Hearns. Timing, placement, speed, the angle the shot is delivered -- plays a huge part in whether or not a dude "goes" or shakes off the punch.

Just 'cos Jackson didn't knock out Mclellan, it does not immediately follow that Hearns couldn't.

I have no immediate thoughts on the topic at hand, BTW, but thought I'd just step in to offer up this snippet.

Rocky Balboa wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:McClellan was an absolutely massive Middleweight. He was the king of the drain during his era.

I heard he was still Draining big time even at 168lbs?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Rocky Balboa wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:McClellan was an absolutely massive Middleweight. He was the king of the drain during his era.

I heard he was still Draining big time even at 168lbs?

That's correct. People see Hearn's impressive dimensions & perhaps assume these guys were quite similar in size, but from a weight perspective, while Hearns evened out between 154-160lbs, McClellan drained like few ever have. He was walking around the ring with Middleweights carrying the punch of a Cruiser. He'd have knocked out Hearns eventually, IMO.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

mugabi wrote:Tommy takes Gerald in my mind.

Sure Tommy had a vulnerable chin, but Tommy at 160 created so many openings had so much speed and could bang to the body just as well as to the head. There is a clear disparity in skill, tehcnique and speed and I see Hearns dissecting Mclellan within 5-6 rounds.

Mclellan was a warrior and could had incredible will to win but there is nothing in his history to suggest that after weathering the early Hearns storm he could bring it on in the later rounds.

eveything to me points to Hearns winning.

It isnt really of any great relavence but the 1989 sparring match on youtube of these two provides a fair few clues of how Tommy would handle Mclellan.

McClellan wasn't as dangerous as he'd become.

The supposed "disparity" in skill and speed may have helped Hearns whack out some guys quicker and more decisively than Gerald would but wouldn't help him against the man himself. McClellan would've been in his face from the opening bell and he definitely hit harder than Hagler did. Gerald would've stopped Hearns in 4 or 5 rounds. Anyone that could take bombs from Jackson could take them from Hearns.

Roco wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

mugabi wrote:Tommy takes Gerald in my mind.

Sure Tommy had a vulnerable chin, but Tommy at 160 created so many openings had so much speed and could bang to the body just as well as to the head. There is a clear disparity in skill, tehcnique and speed and I see Hearns dissecting Mclellan within 5-6 rounds.

Mclellan was a warrior and could had incredible will to win but there is nothing in his history to suggest that after weathering the early Hearns storm he could bring it on in the later rounds.

eveything to me points to Hearns winning.

It isnt really of any great relavence but the 1989 sparring match on youtube of these two provides a fair few clues of how Tommy would handle Mclellan.

McClellan wasn't as dangerous as he'd become.

The supposed "disparity" in skill and speed may have helped Hearns whack out some guys quicker and more decisively than Gerald would but wouldn't help him against the man himself. McClellan would've been in his face from the opening bell and he definitely hit harder than Hagler did. Gerald would've stopped Hearns in 4 or 5 rounds. Anyone that could take bombs from Jackson could take them from Hearns.

Gerald may have hit harder than Hagler, however I don't thing he has the strength of Hagler. In the Hagler/Hearns fight it was Haglers strength that did the damage IMO.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Nonetheless, it was a single Hagler punch which put Hearns out, not Hagler's strength.