BoxRec

The 2 guys that fought last night would not last 12 against Tommy Hearns, at any point.

Well consider they were 38 and 36 last night. And clearly past prime.
I guess you could say that

tiny_acres wrote:Well consider they were 38 and 36 last night. And clearly past prime.
I guess you could say that

EXACTLY!!

tiny_acres wrote:Well consider they were 38 and 36 last night. And clearly past prime.
I guess you could say that

They would both be put to sleep, rather unceremoniously, at any point in their careers by The Hitman at welter, IMO.

The 2 guys that fought last night would not last 12 against Tommy Hearns, at any point.

Hmmm I don't know. Tommy's 58.


(Close to agreed when talking prime Hitman though)

Tanzio wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:Well consider they were 38 and 36 last night. And clearly past prime.
I guess you could say that

They would both be put to sleep, rather unceremoniously, at any point in their careers by The Hitman at welter, IMO.

I think a 25 - 30 yr old Floyd would have done fine against Hearns. Floyd has much better defense than SRL had, and had more offense in his prime as well. Could Hearns KO him? Certainly, if he could hit him solid. Mosley almost did it, but again Floyd was nearing his mid 30's when that happened. SRL was totally shot by that age.

Tanzio wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:Well consider they were 38 and 36 last night. And clearly past prime.
I guess you could say that

They would both be put to sleep, rather unceremoniously, at any point in their careers by The Hitman at welter, IMO.

At least you said in your opinion of course. I still think Floyd is that technically good and a true defensive wizard that not even the long rangey, hard hitting Hearns would have easily beat Floyd. I think Hearns is the type of fighter that would pose the most problems for Floyd, but that's not really a pun on Floyd what so ever based on Hearns being a ATG in his own right. Floyd is bad mother fornicator and great boxer in it's purest form. Either you respect him for that or you don't, doesn't really matter Floyd is much better than the next best guy out there. It's not Floyds fault he's that much better than the best the sport has to offer and lets face it only Floyd makes guys like Pacquiao look like that.

tiny_acres wrote:Well consider they were 38 and 36 last night. And clearly past prime.
I guess you could say that

Ok next topic: cruiser Evander vs today's Roy Jones?

I'm sure Evader beats him badly, this proves Jones wasn't that good!
Sorry, I'll stop now.

It's not defense that defeats Hearns. You have to hurt him.

His size and speed render silly running tactics useless.

JeanClaude Van Damme wrote:It's not defense that defeats Hearns. You have to hurt him.

His size and speed render silly running tactics useless.

^This.

The way to beat Hearns is to put him under pressure & I don't think Mayweather has the style necessary to have done that.

Funnily enough, Manny's style would have been better suited to beating Hearns, but he wouldn't have been big enough to survive against a monster like Hearns.

To beat Hearns, you need to be able & willing to take heavy punishment in order to prevail.

SFW wrote:The 2 guys that fought last night would not last 12 against Tommy Hearns, at any point.

i second that.

Badhusker wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:Well consider they were 38 and 36 last night. And clearly past prime.
I guess you could say that

They would both be put to sleep, rather unceremoniously, at any point in their careers by The Hitman at welter, IMO.

I think a 25 - 30 yr old Floyd would have done fine against Hearns. Floyd has much better defense than SRL had, and had more offense in his prime as well. Could Hearns KO him? Certainly, if he could hit him solid. Mosley almost did it, but again Floyd was nearing his mid 30's when that happened. SRL was totally shot by that age.

First of all, FMJ wasn't at welter until he was nearing 30. What you are suggesting is that the FMJ that struggled with a past it DLH would be able to survive The Hitman in his prime.

FMJ simply has NEVER had the offense to be able to keep a prime Hearns at bay, IMO. But, of course, we will never know.

One thing is certain though, The Hitman faced the best of his era in their prime. FMJ? Not so much.

Tommy Hearns gas admitted that Floyd would be a very difficult fight for himself. Yet the fans can not admit w h at Hearns himself has said

Floyd would cause problems against any welterweight in history

Let's be real, Mayweather had a perfect gameplan for Manny and made him look average. It wasn't so much that Manny didn't come to fight; it's just his offense was completely neutralized by a very game Mayweather. A focused May troubles Hearns moreso than SRL.

JeanClaude Van Damme wrote:It's not defense that defeats Hearns. You have to hurt him.

His size and speed render silly running tactics useless.

Wilfredo Benitez was a defensive wizard and made for a extremely close fight against Hearns and was no bigger a puncher than Floyd. It's a reasonable argument to say Floyd is better than Benitez. Subjective and opinion based my friend, you don't know and won't know this as a fact. This debate has the same ending every time, it's a dead end debate because you can't prove it, I can't prove it. Nice to see you have a "opinion" though, I got a asshole too.

tiny_acres wrote:Tommy Hearns gas admitted that Floyd would be a very difficult fight for himself. Yet the fans can not admit w h at Hearns himself has said

Floyd would cause problems against any welterweight in history

True. But considering Hearns size. Mayweather would like a midget against Hearns in the ring. Big Advantage for Hearns.

NateJR wrote:

JeanClaude Van Damme wrote:It's not defense that defeats Hearns. You have to hurt him.

His size and speed render silly running tactics useless.

Wilfredo Benitez was a defensive wizard and made for a extremely close fight against Hearns and was no bigger a puncher than Floyd. It's a reasonable argument to say Floyd is better than Benitez. Subjective and opinion based my friend, you don't know and won't know this as a fact. This debate has the same ending every time, it's a dead end debate because you can't prove it, I can't prove it. Nice to see you have a "opinion" though, I got a asshole too.

I would never rule out Floyd winning a decision. One that would be as contested as the Castillo fights, but a decision win nonetheless.

man wrote:

SFW wrote:The 2 guys that fought last night would not last 12 against Tommy Hearns, at any point.

i second that.

Thirded.



If that was Hearns landing either of these shots, the fight is over.

JeanClaude Van Damme wrote:

man wrote:

SFW wrote:The 2 guys that fought last night would not last 12 against Tommy Hearns, at any point.

i second that.

Thirded.



If that was Hearns landing either of these shots, the fight is over.

Yeah somehow those are the same shots he landed on SRL but wasn't able to put him to sleep, sure it's about what we expected from you.

Too bad your boy Manny wasn't even able to come close to KOing Floyd.

JeanClaude Van Damme wrote:

man wrote:

SFW wrote:The 2 guys that fought last night would not last 12 against Tommy Hearns, at any point.

i second that.

Thirded.



If that was Hearns landing either of these shots, the fight is over.

Hmm.. I remember people bringing up the same thing when Mosley landed a big shot on Floyd. They claimed if Pacquiao landed a similar shot, which he did in this GIF you just posted, that Floyd would be either knocked out or Pacquiao would have the remedy to be able to finish the fight. Just saying.

KBB wrote:
Yeah somehow those are the same shots he landed on SRL but wasn't able to put him to sleep, sure it's about what we expected from you.

Too bad your boy Manny wasn't even able to come close to KOing Floyd.

What other username do you use to bash Mayweather with?

NateJR wrote:
Hmm.. I remember people bringing up the same thing when Mosley landed a big shot on Floyd. They claimed if Pacquiao landed a similar shot, which he did in this GIF you just posted, that Floyd would be either knocked out or Pacquiao would have the remedy to be able to finish the fight. Just saying.

Those people are retarded. Tommy Hearns would have floored a heavyweight.

JeanClaude Van Damme wrote:

NateJR wrote:
Hmm.. I remember people bringing up the same thing when Mosley landed a big shot on Floyd. They claimed if Pacquiao landed a similar shot, which he did in this GIF you just posted, that Floyd would be either knocked out or Pacquiao would have the remedy to be able to finish the fight. Just saying.

Those people are retarded. Tommy Hearns would have floored a heavyweight.

Mosley hit Floyd with a shot that could have knocked out a Heavyweight as well. I think you're underestimating Floyds chin to degree.. Of course if Hearns hit Floyd flush, there's a chance he could have knocked him out, but again I've seen Floyd take some huge shots from some of the best punchers in the sport and has yet to touch down (unless you count the Judah fight where he caught Floyd off balance, but in no way did that punch "hurt" Floyd). Just be real dude, you're thinking of the best case scenario for Hearns and completely ignoring some of the facts. I saw a lot of guys take Hearns best shot and not get KTFO.

Hearns knocking Floyd out is not a forgone conclusion, too many other variables to add in there. It's not as simple as saying Hearns could punch like a mule so if he landed a shot on Floyd, Floyd would have been KTFO.

I'd never pass up a chance to give props to Tommy the Hitman, one of my favorite fighters of my lifetime. But to be honest, Sugar Ray had the wherewithal to proceed through round after round of losing to Hearns and then break through and hurt him, so we can't say for sure that a prime Floyd couldn't have done that too.
Thinking back, Hearns lost to Leonard because he proved to be chinny, but also because he had no idea how to hold. And Floyd... there's a guy who could give lessons in holding. Makes me yearn for that Hearns-Leonard era. Not only did those guys do the sporting world a favor and have great fights against each other at their prime, but it seems to me that holding was understood back then as a last ditch thing you do to avoid collapsing after your opponent has hurt you, not a first line of defense against getting hit in the first place. What even constitutes excessive grabbing and holding these days? Going bell to bell without letting go?

NateJR wrote:

JeanClaude Van Damme wrote:

NateJR wrote:
Hmm.. I remember people bringing up the same thing when Mosley landed a big shot on Floyd. They claimed if Pacquiao landed a similar shot, which he did in this GIF you just posted, that Floyd would be either knocked out or Pacquiao would have the remedy to be able to finish the fight. Just saying.

Those people are retarded. Tommy Hearns would have floored a heavyweight.

Mosley hit Floyd with a shot that could have knocked out a Heavyweight as well. I think you're underestimating Floyds chin to degree.. Of course if Hearns hit Floyd flush, there's a chance he could have knocked him out, but again I've seen Floyd take some huge shots from some of the best punchers in the sport and has yet to touch down (unless you count the Judah fight where he caught Floyd off balance, but in no way did that punch "hurt" Floyd). Just be real dude, you're thinking of the best case scenario for Hearns and completely ignoring some of the facts. I saw a lot of guys take Hearns best shot and not get KTFO.

Hearns knocking Floyd out is not a forgone conclusion, too many other variables to add in there. It's not as simple as saying Hearns could punch like a mule so if he landed a shot on Floyd, Floyd would have been KTFO.

The Hitman was also a better boxer than Manny and SSM. He had the reach of a light heavy, and boxed successfully there. He out boxed SRL over 12 rounds in the first fight.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on the subject but the preponderance of evidence suggests that The Hitman would have had his way with FMJ, problems or not.