BoxRec

15 rounds for the Jr Middleweight title.

What happens?

I think Griffith would beat him. He was a very smart fighter. I think his generalship tips it in his favor.

As always, Hearns might be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat. I'd keep my money in my pocket, and for those who chose to bet, I'd say their money was a bit safer bet on E. G.

I think Hearns can win the boxing match hands down.

Hearns by somewhat wide decision, Griffith would have him in trouble a few times late.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Hearns by somewhat wide decision, Griffith would have him in trouble a few times late.

Agreed.

Hearns decision .

I'd say Hearns on points too.

Griffith would have given him a few scares too. I could even see Griffith winning if Hearns got too trigger happy.

Hearns could deliver the exact same lightning bolt that Carter posted. But I don’t see it.

I see a cautious Griffith getting slowly outpointed. Then at some point after 10 he starts to close the gap. He either stops Hearns sometime after 12 or he loses on points.

Griffith wins at welterweight by decision.
Hearns wins at jr. middleweight on up. Griffith was not that good as a middleweight fighter.

Hearns methodically outpoints Griffith over 15 (or 12, take your pick) non-eventful rounds. Griffith too mesmerized by Hitman's speed and reach, but Hearns fights at a rather respectful, cautious pace and outboxes Emile. Somewhat like Hearns-Benitez. Not a memorable fight. Hitman wins 9-5-1.

elmersalsa wrote:Griffith was not that good as a middleweight fighter.

You're something else.

[quote="elmersalsa"]Griffith wins at welterweight by decision.
Hearns wins at jr. middleweight on up. Griffith was not that good as a middleweight fighter.

Well, as an older fighter he came closer than most to beating a prime Monzon, especially in the tightly contested rematch. That alone should qualify him as "that good" as a middleweight.

I would bet on a late stoppage by Griffith. I understand the reasons for people citing a Hearns decision, but I think Emile was just too tenacious and tricky . .Hearns had issues sticking to a gameplan over the course of a whole fight and not let his Philadelphia gym mentality get the better of him.

dempseyfire wrote:I would bet on a late stoppage by Griffith. I understand the reasons for people citing a Hearns decision, but I think Emile was just too tenacious and tricky . .Hearns had issues sticking to a gameplan over the course of a whole fight and not let his Philadelphia gym mentality get the better of him.

Tommy had many disciplined efforts over the distance.

SenorPipino wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Griffith wins at welterweight by decision.
Hearns wins at jr. middleweight on up. Griffith was not that good as a middleweight fighter.

Well, as an older fighter he came closer than most to beating a prime Monzon, especially in the tightly contested rematch. That alone should qualify him as "that good" as a middleweight.

Compared of being a welterweight, Griffith at middle was not as good. As matter of fact, none of the two (Hearns and Griffith) were that good at 160lbs. But I consider Emile a top 10 middleweight and of course, a top 5 welter.

A top 10 Middleweight was not that good? You rate him higher than I do.

elmersalsa wrote:Compared of being a welterweight, Griffith at middle was not as good. As matter of fact, none of the two (Hearns and Griffith) were that good at 160lbs. But I consider Emile a top 10 middleweight and of course, a top 5 welter.

Like Robinson, Griffith was a better welterweight than middleweight, but that is where the comparison's stop. I believe RING magazine in 2001 rated him below the top ten. I think the order went as follows: Greb, Robinson, Monzon, Hagler, LaMotta, Flowers, Conn, Walker.... I think Cerdan, Zale, and Burley were also rated higher as middleweights than Griffith. Personally, I can't say I agree with the whole list, but Griffith was not in my estimation a top ten middleweight either. If you factor in others who were shut out from the title, like Moore and Charles and Langford, he goes further down the list. It's nothing really to be ashamed of really, as I've come to the conclusion anyone in the top twenty is capable of beating anyone else in the top twenty on any given night.

HomicideHenry wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Compared of being a welterweight, Griffith at middle was not as good. As matter of fact, none of the two (Hearns and Griffith) were that good at 160lbs. But I consider Emile a top 10 middleweight and of course, a top 5 welter.

Like Robinson, Griffith was a better welterweight than middleweight, but that is where the comparison's stop. I believe RING magazine in 2001 rated him below the top ten. I think the order went as follows: Greb, Robinson, Monzon, Hagler, LaMotta, Flowers, Conn, Walker.... I think Cerdan, Zale, and Burley were also rated higher as middleweights than Griffith. Personally, I can't say I agree with the whole list, but Griffith was not in my estimation a top ten middleweight either. If you factor in others who were shut out from the title, like Moore and Charles and Langford, he goes further down the list. It's nothing really to be ashamed of really, as I've come to the conclusion anyone in the top twenty is capable of beating anyone else in the top twenty on any given night.

You may be right. Griffith might not be a top 10 middleweight. Ring Magazine in 1989 rated him at number 6 or 7. The highest in the top 10 at middleweight I go for Emile is at #8. The Lowest at #15.

elmersalsa wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Compared of being a welterweight, Griffith at middle was not as good. As matter of fact, none of the two (Hearns and Griffith) were that good at 160lbs. But I consider Emile a top 10 middleweight and of course, a top 5 welter.

Like Robinson, Griffith was a better welterweight than middleweight, but that is where the comparison's stop. I believe RING magazine in 2001 rated him below the top ten. I think the order went as follows: Greb, Robinson, Monzon, Hagler, LaMotta, Flowers, Conn, Walker.... I think Cerdan, Zale, and Burley were also rated higher as middleweights than Griffith. Personally, I can't say I agree with the whole list, but Griffith was not in my estimation a top ten middleweight either. If you factor in others who were shut out from the title, like Moore and Charles and Langford, he goes further down the list. It's nothing really to be ashamed of really, as I've come to the conclusion anyone in the top twenty is capable of beating anyone else in the top twenty on any given night.

You may be right. Griffith might not be a top 10 middleweight. Ring Magazine in 1989 rated him at number 6 or 7. The highest in the top 10 at middleweight I go for Emile is at #8. The Lowest at #15.

How is a top 15 Middleweight "not that good"?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

How is a top 15 Middleweight "not that good"?[/quote]

Compared to when he was at welter?, not that good. That is what I meant.

At 160lbs, He got dropped in one round by Rubin "Hurricane" Carter. Lost 2 out of 3 with Benvenutti and some people say that his win against the great Dick Tiger was questionable.

At welter? Griffith an all-time top 5. At middleweight? Hum, the highest I give him is #8. And probably that is a gift.

It's common knowledge he was greater as a Welterweight. Not that good is what I would call benitez as a Middleweight. Griffith was just less great.

Griffith would stand the best chance imposing his strength on a frailer Hearns at 147, but even then I don't know if I'd favor him. I'd definitely take Hearns at the other weights, particularly Middleweight against the more cautious boxing version of Griffith. You're not outboxing Hearns with such a basic approach.

Nobody outboxes Hearns, not even Leonard. I would pick Hearns to beat Griffith. His speed and power would make all the difference.

Ok, I'm the odd man out. But the blade found a way, twice. I still think Emile just might surprise you folks.

But like I said, I wouldn't let my money out of my sight on this one.