BoxRec

two bangers, both susceptible to knockdowns but bith with huge hearts who always gave their best.

who would have won in 1990

Another good year to compare these two great fighters.

Benn being one of my faves I`d have to have confidence (and hope)he`d land one on Tommy`s suspect chin.
And overlook the fact Tommy could outbox and knockout Benn if he chose a careful approach to the fight.

Tommy would have a two rd. max window to ko Benn, then it would be move and box for the duration, late power generally being minimal on his part. That first round or two would be a scary time because Benn came out fast too, and that melee favors Benn. Tommy ko'd many guys but won few fights. Also at any pt in the fight a punch could do Tommy wrong, like against Olijide when that 9th round hook stole Tommy's legs. Benn wins unless he gets caught posing very early

Hearns. Benn was too easy to hit and wouldn't have taken the power.

Hearns would have won in 6 one sided rounds.

Benn was a little ragged still in 1990 and Hearns was oonly just past his best - fought a tremendous fight vs Leonard in 1989 and also vs Hill in 1991.

He got tagged vs Barkley, but I couldn't see Benn repeating an Anthony Logan esque performance vs Hearns.

Again, another post where an all-time great is mentioned with in a "what if" against a guy that was nowhere near his level. Benn was exciting, and very good, but he was not in the same class as Hearns. I see the Hitman KOing Benn quick.

zslayton wrote:Again, another post where an all-time great is mentioned with in a "what if" against a guy that was nowhere near his level. Benn was exciting, and very good, but he was not in the same class as Hearns. I see the Hitman KOing Benn quick.

I agree.

If Hearns could not beat Iran Barkley why would he be favored over Benn?

At first glance the fact that Hearns lost to Barkley twice while Benn beat Barkley does seem to present a strong case for Benn. However, if you look at the rest of their careers I think you have to come to the conclusion that Hearns was the better fighter.
Benn would certainly have a punchers chance and probably could beat Hearns 1 out of 5 times. However, the most likely outcome would be Hearns by knockout.

Good question for the politics guy if he is reading this thread. Why didn't this fight happen?

Perhaps I give Benn too much of an edge because he was at his best at higher weights than Hearns. I would have thought Benn or Eubank would have defeated Hearns. How do people think Hearns would do vs Chris Eubank?

The "Motor City Cobra" KO's Benn early. Benn was another terrible over rated British fighter. Not even in Tommy's league.

Hearns KO's Benn (IMO) -

Without a doubt Hearns was the better overall fighter (in history terms) though Tommy (Hearns) was at his best at 154 and below -

So meeting Benn at 168 (most likely) would have been a benefit to Benn - Though I still think Tommy wins by KO early or a UNI Dec -

ringsider wrote:The "Motor City Cobra" KO's Benn early. Benn was another terrible over rated British fighter. Not even in Tommy's league.

Granted that Benn was no Roy Jones Jr. or James Toney, but let us not forget he beat a fighter who was regarded as a possible future great, and he did beat Iran Barkley when Barkley was still capable...not so long after he was still highly regarded...so no excuses :x

Tommy was a great fighter but all his greatness was at a much lighter weight...so this would have more than made a middleweight fight with Benn very much even.

And the remark about over-rated British fighters is quite legit
But Benn would be given a punchers chance at least with any of the American middleweights about at that time.