Fantasy middleweight match

[redrooster]

Prime hitman Hearns vs. Xecutioner Hopkins @ 160

Who wins and why?

I see this X being a made to order fight for Tommy. Feather fisted Jermaine Tylor hurt X early. i saw his knees dip. Hopkins can't hurt Tommy and Tommy is so much quicker than Hopkins there's no way he could lose.

Tommy's only problem is when X tries coming on late but as he showed in the Taylor fight, way too little, too late and without that knockout punch, Tommy holds on late for a unanimous points win.

[redrooster]

Man, you suck. Young Hopkins can definitely hurt Tommy and real bad, too. He also has the chin to take Hearns right hand. Taylor didn't hurt Hopkins, he was off balance.

Hopkins KO9

he wasn't off balance, he was hurt. Don't you know what a hurt fighter looks like? That's why Bernard didn't move in until several rounds later when the hurt wore off.

Hopkins is the 90's version of james Kinchen, only he doesn't have quite the talent and power James had, tho more fire than the heat (no pun intended). james was also a sharper hitter.

make no mistake, Hopkins would not get the respect of Tommy Hearns and he couldn't hope to match his speed. Bernard doesn't have much to his game and has no real weapons. Larry Merchant discussed his lack of power which is what I said all along. He's too low on power and Tommy is much faster and sharper. he might even knock out X with that big right hand

[FlatNose]

If you put the Hearns of the Duran fight against the Hopkins of the Trinidad fight, thats an awesome match up.But at 160, Hops is a little sturdier that Tommy, and Benards precision body punching would have an effect.Hopkins might have the edge in this one.

[redrooster]

What has the Hopkins out of the Taylor fight to do with prime Hopkins - he never had a real prime but he came closes in the Johnson fight imo.
That Hopkins would come to Hearns, pressure him while beeing too elusive to be hit clean. Hopkins TKO btween 7 and 9.

Hopkins doesn't have the power to hurt Tommy. Bernard never had the power to hurt any middleweight of class while Tommy has power to spare.

Taylor hurt him. Tommy would hurt him even worse.

See how esay Jermaine reached his head with the jab. X couldn't do nothing until they got in the clinches and had no game plan. Couldn't handle an opponent with a good jab.

Tommy could win just on the jab alone and if Bernard slipped past it the way Duran did, then blam!! Tommy would paste him with the right hand and X would find himself on the floor.

Even if X moves his head enough to avoid damage the way you say, Tommy would work his body and move out the way a petrified Jermaine Taylor did. Even though Jermaine was shaky in the late rounds, X still couldn't take him out because he never had the power to bale him out of this kind of situation-so says Larry Merchant.

[redrooster]

The Hopkins of the Taylor fight was at best 60% the Hopkins of the Johnson fight. If you wanna talk prime Tommy vs. old Hopkins (Taylor) than i think Tommy would take it if you wanna talk prime Hopkins (Johnson) than Hopkins take it.

But how? he has little power and not quick enough to compete with Tommy. Tommy has all the advantages and beats any version.

[Executioner]

he wasn't off balance, he was hurt. Don't you know what a hurt fighter looks like? That's why Bernard didn't move in until several rounds later when the hurt wore off.

Hopkins is the 90's version of james Kinchen, only he doesn't have quite the talent and power James had, tho more fire than the heat (no pun intended). james was also a sharper hitter.

make no mistake, Hopkins would not get the respect of Tommy Hearns and he couldn't hope to match his speed. Bernard doesn't have much to his game and has no real weapons. Larry Merchant discussed his lack of power which is what I said all along. He's too low on power and Tommy is much faster and sharper. he might even knock out X with that big right hand

Take a look at the reply, jagoff. Look at his legs, they were off balance. The punch didn't even land cleanly.

[redrooster]

Take a look at the reply, jagoff. Look at his legs, they were off balance. The punch didn't even land cleanly.

he was hurt! That's why he didn't want to take chances until the late rounds when he got desparate and realized he was in jeopardy of losing his title and then had the nerve to act surpised over the decision.

Sheesh!

[redrooster]

That guy is a Hagler nuthugger. He tries to discredit Leonard where he can because Leonard beat Hagler. And now he does the same with Hopkins since more and more people write B-Hop could be ranked above Hagler.
He has an agenda in all this.

Aren't you one of those people? Anyone writing these things has to be a Bernard Hopkins nuthugger. You should feel priviledged knowing the truth that Tommy would outslick the X man. Hopkins isn't even known for anything other than lose to Jones jr. which makes those 20 title defenses meaningless.

By the way, my pick was Hopkins over Trinidad so I already knew what he could do before any of you.

[redrooster]

Strange that nobody beside you saw that.

Then why did the crowd jump start cheering? Hopkins was holding on for dear life the ref yelling at him to stop holding. Then he did nothing the rest of the round but circle and hold. What happened to the great strategist?

Imagine him trying that with the hitman. He'd get himself killed.

[Street Lethal]

Hopkins was off balance if you're talking about the right hand I think you are. But if that had been Hearns, Hopkins would have been in real trouble.

The Hearns who zapped Duran and Shuler would beat Hopkins. Hagler and Hearns are a class above Hopkins. If Hopkins was a great as people say, the Taylor fights shouldn't have been close.

[mightyd40]

hopkins size and difficult size would be to much for tommy and he wouldnt be able to hurt him i dont think (or be able to catch him with the punch that would hurt him)

i see hopkins taking a decision or late stoppage

[mightyd40]

i meant difficult style in my last post

[redrooster]

hopkins size and difficult size would be to much for tommy and he wouldnt be able to hurt him i dont think (or be able to catch him with the punch that would hurt him)

i see hopkins taking a decision or late stoppage

What do you mean size? And how the hell can Bernard take out Hearns? He can't hit! Only guys who can whack would be a concern for Tommy.

People like Singletary, Minchillo, Geraldo, Schuler, Dewitt, Hill will never cause Tommy problems. It's raw punchers like Barkley, Hagler and Roldan who get him in trouble.

You can throw Hopkins in with the first group. He's never been known as a puncher.

[Street Lethal]

If Jones was as great as people say, he shouldn´t have been kayod by Tarver and Johnson.You see my point?
Hopkins was 40!! That wasn´t a near prime version of Hopkins. Taking the Taylor fights as the basis to why Tommy would beat Hopkins is like taking the Hearns out of the Uriah Grant fight to explain why Hopkins would win.

I will take the fight where Jones made Hopkins look bad. How's that?

Jones and Hopkins are different cases. Jones depended on reflex. As soon as he aged he was in trouble. Hopkins has always depended on a particular style, and he gets better with that style with experience. Hearns has the perfect style to mess Hopkins up. Hopkins lays back. Hearns will jab, jab, and pop the right hand in. Hopkins has a good chin, but he never faced a puncher like Hearns. But even if Hopkins survived, he would be outpointed by the best boxer he ever faced - and that includes Roy Jones and Winky Wright. Hearns is no sucker for lead rights, and he wouldn't be reckless against Hopkins the way he was against the limited Barkley.

Taylor is the perfect example, because Taylor is a big middleweight like Hearns in the classic one-two style, except of course Hearns was two or three leagues above Taylor in terms of talent and skill. Most of Hopkins biggest names were natural welterweights (Brown, de la Hoya, Trinidad), so these don't serve as useful examples. In fact, these wins cause people to overrated Hopkins. Hearns was a big middleweight. Hopkins would be in serious trouble against the Hit Man.

Incidentally, Tarver would never have caught Jones in Roy's prime. Tarver is a second rater.

[redrooster]

I will take the fight where Jones made Hopkins look bad. How's that?

Jones and Hopkins are different cases. Jones depended on reflex. As soon as he aged he was in trouble. Hopkins has always depended on a particular style, and he gets better with that style with experience. Hearns has the perfect style to mess Hopkins up. Hopkins lays back. Hearns will jab, jab, and pop the right hand in. Hopkins has a good chin, but he never faced a puncher like Hearns. But even if Hopkins survived, he would be outpointed by the best boxer he ever faced - and that includes Roy Jones and Winky Wright. Hearns is no sucker for lead rights, and he wouldn't be reckless against Hopkins the way he was against the limited Barkley.

Taylor is the perfect example, because Taylor is a big middleweight like Hearns in the classic one-two style, except of course Hearns was two or three leagues above Taylor in terms of talent and skill. Most of Hopkins biggest names were natural welterweights (Brown, de la Hoya, Trinidad), so these don't serve as useful examples. In fact, these wins cause people to overrated Hopkins. Hearns was a big middleweight. Hopkins would be in serious trouble against the Hit Man.

Incidentally, Tarver would never have caught Jones in Roy's prime. Tarver is a second rater.

Excellent post Lethal. In fact, that was perfect :good

[redrooster]

That´s what i mean, boy. The Taylor fights would never ever have been close if that would have been the Hopkins of the Johnson fight. Same situation.
Jones didn´t make Hopkins look bad. He beat him and Hopkins gave him the hardest fight up to that point.
Hopkins never fought all his live the same style, watch his fights. He switched from a hard-punching - no rr not on the Jackson level but still hard - fighter who pressed the action to a counter-puncher. So, your arguments fall to pieces. The difference between Hopkins and Jones is that Hopkins was able to adapt his style to his more and more limited physical abilities, Jones was not.
And, again - i think it´s the third time now, you really need your time till you get something - Taylor is no way a good example because Hopkins was 40 years in that fight and past his prime and got some problems with his weight - assumed by the difference of his performances between the Taylor fights and the Tarver fight.

I don't buy into this argument over Bernard and his hypothetical adaptability when his prime was over. Even in his youth he couldn't do more than win 2 or 3 rounds from Roy.

With Taylor all he had to do was close in on him and take advantage of his fragile chin and inexperience but failed not once but twice. The problem is he had no punch.

And what great middleweight did he ever beat?

None.

[Bummy Davis]

I like Hearns by UD

[redrooster]

Again re-writing history? He won 4 on all three cards. You don´t buy in it? Well, you don´t have to. I´m just stating facts.


Taylor doesn´t have a fragile chin, you will see when he beats Pavlik. And your Hopkins has no punch bs doesn´t become more true by repeating it.


Right, none. And what great mw did Hagler beat? Right, none.

Why didn't Hopkins step up the pressure earlier? he could have made it closer and with him being the champion would probably have held his title. But he dug too deep a hole for himself and even the judges couldn't bail him out.

Merchant asked Roy "what is he waiting for" and Roy told him he was waiting to get him out with one punch but then Larry replied Hopkins has never ben enough of a hitter to win like that.

Again I ask where is that adaptability people say he has? I didn't see the rematch but I have to think Jermaine whipped him worse the second time.

And you still can't say Bernard beat another great middleweight while Hagler beat them on a regular basis. Harold Lederman's scorecard was more accurate than the official judges as always. I too gave him three rounds against the gifted, albeit one handed and weight drained, Jones jr.

Big deal

X is a notable middleweight though not nearly a great one. He's just one of those guys who's good for a long time.

[MagnificentMatt]

That guy is a Hagler nuthugger. He tries to discredit Leonard where he can because Leonard beat Hagler. And now he does the same with Hopkins since more and more people write B-Hop could be ranked above Hagler.
He has an agenda in all this.

Well....I wouldnt put BHop above Hagler, but i think BHop would beat Hagler in head to head just because bad styles.

[MagnificentMatt]

Why didn't Hopkins step up the pressure earlier? he could have made it closer and with him being the champion would probably have held his title. But he dug too deep a hole for himself and even the judges couldn't bail him out.

Merchant asked Roy "what is he waiting for" and Roy told him he was waiting to get him out with one punch but then Larry replied Hopkins has never ben enough of a hitter to win like that.

Again I ask where is that adaptability people say he has? I didn't see the rematch but I have to think Jermaine whipped him worse the second time.

And you still can't say Bernard beat another great middleweight while Hagler beat them on a regular basis. Harold Lederman's scorecard was more accurate than the official judges as always. I too gave him three rounds against the gifted, albeit one handed and weight drained, Jones jr.

Big deal

X is a notable middleweight though not nearly a great one. He's just one of those guys who's good for a long time.

That sentence right there tells us your just a hater...:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

[redrooster]

Well....I wouldnt put BHop above Hagler, but i think BHop would beat Hagler in head to head just because bad styles.

What do you mean by bad styles? Clarify please

[Raggamuffin]

he wasn't off balance, he was hurt. Don't you know what a hurt fighter looks like? That's why Bernard didn't move in until several rounds later when the hurt wore off.

Hopkins is the 90's version of james Kinchen, only he doesn't have quite the talent and power James had, tho more fire than the heat (no pun intended). james was also a sharper hitter.

make no mistake, Hopkins would not get the respect of Tommy Hearns and he couldn't hope to match his speed. Bernard doesn't have much to his game and has no real weapons. Larry Merchant discussed his lack of power which is what I said all along. He's too low on power and Tommy is much faster and sharper. he might even knock out X with that big right hand

But remember that Kichen did hurt Tommy in that fight and had him clinching like a octopus in heat. But still i would pick Hearns to win based on his better boxing ability from the outside

[JohnThomas1]

Hopkins is the 90's version of james Kinchen, only he doesn't have quite the talent and power James had, tho more fire than the heat (no pun intended). james was also a sharper hitter.


:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

[JohnThomas1]

Right, none. And what great mw did Hagler beat? Right, none.

Don't forget Rooster considers Mugabi, Sibson and Roldan all great tho

:rofl

[JohnThomas1]

Yeah and Hopkins and Leonard aren´t :D

Pretenders, both of them

:lol:

[redrooster]

Yeah and Hopkins and Leonard aren´t :D

They aren't. Because Hopkins punch is average and Leonard would never survive at middleweight.

Did you see the Geraldo fight?

[redrooster]

Don't forget Rooster considers Mugabi, Sibson and Roldan all great tho

:rofl

I never said Mugabi was great. he was a great puncher tho and it would be asking too much for anyone except Hagler to get in the ring with him and expect to beat him.

Hard Rock Green almost beat him tho. Hard rock would get in with anyone and even upset Scypion. Green's hand speed, expecially on the inside was about a 9+ and had deceptive power with one whose arms were so short.

Green could have beaten John but was worn from his battle with Animal Fletcher. The Mugabi fight proved if you're going to take on the beast, you're going to get hit. And when he hits you he's going to hurt you. How would leonard take it?

[JohnThomas1]

I never said Mugabi was great. he was a great puncher tho and it would be asking too much for anyone except Hagler to get in the ring with him and expect to beat him.


Ok, we'll stick to Fletcher, Sibson and Roldan :nut

So nobody could beat Mugabi except for Hagler lolol. Oh, and Duane Thomas :lol:

Hard Rock Green almost beat him tho. Hard rock would get in with anyone and even upset Scypion. Green's hand speed, expecially on the inside was about a 9+ and had deceptive power with one whose arms were so short.

"Even" upset Scypion. You make it sound like an esteemed achievement. It's not. Is this the same "Hard Rock" that was 5'5, had a record of 22-10-2 and was whupped in just 2 rounds by Curry? I thought so :lol:

Green could have beaten John but was worn from his battle with Animal Fletcher. The Mugabi fight proved if you're going to take on the beast, you're going to get hit. And when he hits you he's going to hurt you. How would leonard take it?

He'd had 4 fights since Fletcher including a loss to David Braxton. Most people would never had heard of him, let alone seen the man. As far as Mugabi always hitting people, tell that to Thomas :nut

Mugabi would take cop that much Sugar he'd be lucky not to end the bout with diabetes.