BoxRec

Who wins this?

Two big punchers with Benn having the better chin?

Not sure I would agree that Benn had a better chin. He was stopped in 4 of his 5 losses and I think he was also dropped on a few other ocassions.

I'd go with the Hitman on a late rd stoppage.

The Great John L wrote:Not sure I would agree that Benn had a better chin. He was stopped in 4 of his 5 losses and I think he was also dropped on a few other ocassions.

I'd go with the Hitman on a late rd stoppage.

I agree, with both fighters part of what made them exciting was that you knew they could be hurt. I loved watching Benn, but got to go with Hearns all the way. He was in a class above Benn IMO.

Errrm Hearns was stopped in 4 of his 5 losses to that doesn't mean much.If you brawled with Benn though he'd come back if he was dropped.

Hearns would go out on his feet!

Benn Ko'ed Barkley in 1 too who Hearns lost to twice. Although Barkley sounds overated a bit.

Max Molyneux wrote:Errrm Hearns was stopped in 4 of his 5 losses to that doesn't mean much.If you brawled with Benn though he'd come back if he was dropped.

Hearns would go out on his feet!

Benn Ko'ed Barkley in 1 too who Hearns lost to twice. Although Barkley sounds overated a bit.

True, but Hearns was stopped in his prime by Hagler and Sugar Ray Leonard where as Benn was stopped in his prime by Watson and Eubank.

Hearns would have to be considered prime or very close to his prime vs Iran Barkley. Additionally, I think an arguement can be made that Eubank is as formidable as Hagler or even moreso. Eubank was a great fighter.

J-C wrote:

Max Molyneux wrote:Errrm Hearns was stopped in 4 of his 5 losses to that doesn't mean much.If you brawled with Benn though he'd come back if he was dropped.

Hearns would go out on his feet!

Benn Ko'ed Barkley in 1 too who Hearns lost to twice. Although Barkley sounds overated a bit.

True, but Hearns was stopped in his prime by Hagler and Sugar Ray Leonard where as Benn was stopped in his prime by Watson and Eubank.

Due to inexperiance with Watson and he was out on his feet Vs Eubank and got jobbed in the rematch unlike Hearns who got whooped by Barkley twice.

Hearns was only around 30 years of age vs Barkley.

Benn has an under-rated chin - collapsed through exhaustion against Watson, stopped on his feet against the ropes and against his will against Eubank (with only a couple of seconds left in the round), pulled out of the first Collins fight with a broken ankle and retired on his stool in the second Collins fight.

The Benn that fought Watson would of beaten Hearns for sure, at that time, Hearns had slowed down a lot by then and would of been too open. Watson, ofcourse (for those of us who have actually ever seen Benn fight), rope-a-doped Benn. Benn was winning every round against Watson before he got thumbed in the eye. Benn won six of the completed eight rounds against Eubank (Eubank only won round one and round five) and that was considered Eubank's best ever performance! Benn was robbed against Eubank in the rematch.

Manny Steward described Gerald McClellan as "best all-rounder I've ever had" and "most talented fighter I've ever worked with".

Imagine if Benn hadn't lost to Eubank (which was almost as much of a shocking upset as the Watson loss - totally unexpected), Benn said before the Eubank fight that he planned to have just two more fights after he 'beat' Eubank (it was pretty much a full-gone conclusion in Benn's mind because he genuinely thought Eubank was a fraud) and those two fights Benn wanted before hanging up his gloves were a super-fight with Michael Nunn and a re-match with Michael Watson. So if Benn had beaten Eubank (Richard Steele says that he came very close on a number of occasions at stopping the fight in Benn's favour), he'd of then gone on and KO'd both Nunn and Watson and retired alongside Hagler as a top all-time middleweight. You have to remember that Nunn at the time was undefeated and a top three lb4lber, KO'd Sumbu Kalambay in 88 seconds in Las Vegas, and it's very realistic that Benn would of KO'd him because Nunn was looking vulnerable post-Kalambay due to drugs (Barkley, Starling).

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Hearns would have to be considered prime or very close to his prime vs Iran Barkley. Additionally, I think an arguement can be made that Eubank is as formidable as Hagler or even moreso. Eubank was a great fighter.

Don't go there, how can you compare Chris Eubank with Marvin Hagler? Granted Chris was tough but not in Marvin's league or anywhere near.
I would give Benn a punchers chance against Hearns. Benns first two losses against Watson and Eubank were because he fought the wrong tactics, especially against Watson, and he basically ran out of steam. His other 2 stoppage losses were against Steve Collins at the end of his career when he was way past his best. Id have to favour Tommy Hearns because of his sheer class, either on points or KO, but wouldnt rule out a Nigel Benn KO either

dr_devious wrote:

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Hearns would have to be considered prime or very close to his prime vs Iran Barkley. Additionally, I think an arguement can be made that Eubank is as formidable as Hagler or even moreso. Eubank was a great fighter.

Don't go there, how can you compare Chris Eubank with Marvin Hagler? Granted Chris was tough but not in Marvin's league or anywhere near.
I would give Benn a punchers chance against Hearns. Benns first two losses against Watson and Eubank were because he fought the wrong tactics, especially against Watson, and he basically ran out of steam. His other 2 stoppage losses were against Steve Collins at the end of his career when he was way past his best. Id have to favour Tommy Hearns because of his sheer class, either on points or KO, but wouldnt rule out a Nigel Benn KO either

Eubank had a very good chin, and was a very very strong man. He was always big at MW. He didn't have Marvin's skills, stamina, work rate or movement. Eubank would not be an easy opponent for anyone but he is not on a par with Hagler, no way, no way...

There was a time during the overlap in their careers when Benn would have beaten Hearns imo. Benn rarely seems to get the plaudits he deserves but when Tommy was fading at MW the naturally bigger Benn could have taken him. At their peaks I'd favour Hearns who was an excellent MW but was really at his peak at WW and Jr MW. Benn had a chance though.

Greg Nicholas wrote:Benn has an under-rated chin - collapsed through exhaustion against Watson, stopped on his feet against the ropes and against his will against Eubank (with only a couple of seconds left in the round), pulled out of the first Collins fight with a broken ankle and retired on his stool in the second Collins fight.

The Benn that fought Watson would of beaten Hearns for sure, at that time, Hearns had slowed down a lot by then and would of been too open. Watson, ofcourse (for those of us who have actually ever seen Benn fight), rope-a-doped Benn. Benn was winning every round against Watson before he got thumbed in the eye. Benn won six of the completed eight rounds against Eubank (Eubank only won round one and round five) and that was considered Eubank's best ever performance! Benn was robbed against Eubank in the rematch.

Manny Steward described Gerald McClellan as "best all-rounder I've ever had" and "most talented fighter I've ever worked with".

Imagine if Benn hadn't lost to Eubank (which was almost as much of a shocking upset as the Watson loss - totally unexpected), Benn said before the Eubank fight that he planned to have just two more fights after he 'beat' Eubank (it was pretty much a full-gone conclusion in Benn's mind because he genuinely thought Eubank was a fraud) and those two fights Benn wanted before hanging up his gloves were a super-fight with Michael Nunn and a re-match with Michael Watson. So if Benn had beaten Eubank (Richard Steele says that he came very close on a number of occasions at stopping the fight in Benn's favour), he'd of then gone on and KO'd both Nunn and Watson and retired alongside Hagler as a top all-time middleweight. You have to remember that Nunn at the time was undefeated and a top three lb4lber, KO'd Sumbu Kalambay in 88 seconds in Las Vegas, and it's very realistic that Benn would of KO'd him because Nunn was looking vulnerable post-Kalambay due to drugs (Barkley, Starling).

Did YOU watch Watson-Benn? Benn got schooled, thumbed or not, he was getting his ass kicked.
You want us to believe that if Benn had not 'underestimated' Eubank first time he would have gone on to beat Micheal Nunn? Spose he would have beaten James Toney too?
Benn has acheived mythical status in Britain after the McClellan fight, and I don't understand it. Benns limitations were exposed first by Watson, Eubank was too tough in an out and out brawl and Sugarboy Malinga exposed him again. Benn would not beat Collins if they fought a hundred times.
Whats the big deal? Benn was a one dimensional bully and any kudos earned from the McClellan fight should be weighed up against his quitting on his stool against Collins.
Herol Graham and Micheal Watson were far better than Benn. I'd give him a punchers chance against Hearns at supermiddle, thats all.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Hearns would have to be considered prime or very close to his prime vs Iran Barkley. Additionally, I think an arguement can be made that Eubank is as formidable as Hagler or even moreso. Eubank was a great fighter.

Thats not even funny.

Max Molyneux wrote:Errrm Hearns was stopped in 4 of his 5 losses to that doesn't mean much.If you brawled with Benn though he'd come back if he was dropped.

Hearns would go out on his feet!

Benn Ko'ed Barkley in 1 too who Hearns lost to twice. Although Barkley sounds overated a bit.

In a matchup such as this where the two fighters never met in the ring to look at the fighters common oponents makes sense becuase it gives you something to go by. But if you look at past fights and common oponents it does'nt always play out the way you would think. You take a situation where Quarry knocks out Shavers, Norton knocks out Quarry the logical conclusion is Norton knocks out Shavers, except someone forgot to explain that to Shavers. The fight game seems to take a lot of strange turns like that.

Hearns vs. Benn???

Hearns Ko within 5 it doesn't matter if Benn's chin was better Hearns all around skill would nullify whatever Benn had to offer.

Whoever compared Eubank to Hagler is an idiot.

Grimm wrote:
Whoever compared Eubank to Hagler is an idiot.

witherspoon wrote: Whats the big deal? Benn was a one dimensional bully and any kudos earned from the McClellan fight should be weighed up against his quitting on his stool against Collins.
Herol Graham and Micheal Watson were far better than Benn. I'd give him a punchers chance against Hearns at supermiddle, thats all.

Rubbish, Nigel Benn wasnt a one-dimensional bully, look at the punches he took against Gerald McClellan (one of the best punchers in MW history), and the way he knocked Iran Barkley (who was very intimidating) in his own backyard. Are these the deeds of a bully?
Benn fought the wrong tactics against Watson and Eubank and paid the price. Against Collins he was well past his best, the McClellan fight must have taken its toll.
Herol Graham or Michael Watson, fine fighters that they were, didnt accomplish as much as Nigel Benn. Benn was probably the best British MW of the 20th Century

dr_devious wrote:

witherspoon wrote: Whats the big deal? Benn was a one dimensional bully and any kudos earned from the McClellan fight should be weighed up against his quitting on his stool against Collins.
Herol Graham and Micheal Watson were far better than Benn. I'd give him a punchers chance against Hearns at supermiddle, thats all.

Rubbish, Nigel Benn wasnt a one-dimensional bully, look at the punches he took against Gerald McClellan (one of the best punchers in MW history), and the way he knocked Iran Barkley (who was very intimidating) in his own backyard. Are these the deeds of a bully?
Benn fought the wrong tactics against Watson and Eubank and paid the price. Against Collins he was well past his best, the McClellan fight must have taken its toll.
Herol Graham or Michael Watson, fine fighters that they were, didnt accomplish as much as Nigel Benn. Benn was probably the best British MW of the 20th Century

Benn was past his best v Collins, but I stil don't see Benn overcoming him at any point in his career. Simply because he could not be stopped whereas Benn could. With these two it would just come down to that.
Benn may have fought more quality opponents than Graham, but the bombers effort against the body snatcher alone does it for me. McCallum is a far better fighter than Benn ever fought. Graham was unlucky not to have come along ten years later. he would have toyed with Benn in his prime.

Hagler's competition seems less impressive than that faced by Eubank. Hagler might have been better but IMO he did not prove this against superior opponnents.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Hagler's competition seems less impressive than that faced by Eubank. Hagler might have been better but IMO he did not prove this against superior opponnents.

Are you serious?

Hearns would have to be considered prime or very close to his prime vs Iran Barkley.

hearns prime was junior middle and welter, he was defintley not in his prime vs barkley

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Hagler's competition seems less impressive than that faced by Eubank. Hagler might have been better but IMO he did not prove this against superior opponnents.

ur joking right?

Benn was one of the most naturally talented fighters in the history of the sport, Marvin Hagler said in 1988 that Benn was the next great middleweight.

Collins would have stood no chance against Benn if he fought him pre-McClellan. Benn would of easily out-boxed him with his far superior skills. Under Jimmy Tibbs, Benn was awesome - he paced himself well and was very difficult to catch clean due to his constant head movement, and placed shots to the vital points (liver, chin, temple, solar plexus, under the floating rib). Whoever said that Benn was one-dimensional either has a very short memory, is blind, dumb, or just hasn't seen much of Benn.. because under Tibbs he certainly wasn't one-dimensional!

Benn's world title win against Doug DeWitt (Hagler's sparring partner) in America is probably one of the most horrific one-sided beatdowns I've seen, and Benn knocked out Robbie Sims (Hagler's half-brother) for the first time in his career. He was a great middleweight. But he reached his peak at 168. The Benn under Tibbs was a really good all-rounder, and the Benn that fought McClellan was out of this world. It's just a shame that the McClellan fight took everything out of Benn, because he looked worse than ever in his next two fights.

As far as Hagler vs Eubank, if we're talking about the Hagler of 84-87 then Eubank surely out-points him.

But the counter-puncher, power-hitter version of Hagler of 1977-78 was the best 160lber ever and definately beats Eubank.

Greg Nicholas wrote:As far as Hagler vs Eubank, if we're talking about the Hagler of 84-87 then Eubank surely out-points him.

But the counter-puncher, power-hitter version of Hagler of 1977-78 was the best 160lber ever and definately beats Eubank.

ya 1977-82 hagler


however i think the 84-87 version still outpoints eubank