Breaking Floyd's defence

[wmute]

I agree completely with those who pick Hearns, to be the worst possibe matchup at 147 for Mayweather, but we are talking about advantages in almost every physical department (huge advantages in height, power, reach). Speed probably even, chin hard to say.

In a Hearns scenario, Mayweather's skills wouldn't matter much, but I don't think this is the point of the thread... it is more "How do you get around his style/skills with style/skills?" than "How do you get someone/something big enough to demolish him?"

Incidentally though, Hearns has a great jab, and he would be using it all the time IMO.

[wmute]

I don't want to sound like I'm disrespecting Floyd, but it's the truth. Hearns is the worst matchup in the history of boxing for Floyd, I can't imagine any way Floyd doesn't get the hell beat out of him.

I can *imagine* something like the first Leonard fight happen, but I really need to close my eyes to imagine that. I would never bet on Mayweather in this matchup unless they gave me some ridiculous odds like 20:1

[New England]

I agree completely with those who pick Hearns, to be the worst possibe matchup at 147 for Mayweather, but we are talking about advantages in almost every physical department (huge advantages in height, power, reach). Speed probably even, chin hard to say.

In a Hearns scenario, Mayweather's skills wouldn't matter much, but I don't think this is the point of the thread... it is more "How do you get around his style/skills with style/skills?" than "How do you get someone/something big enough to demolish him?"

Incidentally though, Hearns has a great jab, and he would be using it all the time IMO.

the reason we pick that is no coincidence


its his size that gets him around mayweathers skills

his length on his jab and the ability to back floyd up with it.
his strength
his height
his punching power
his ability to keep his hands free
and even his chin.


that's style, sure, dependent on his size. brought about by his size.
cultivated in size.

it's hearns size and that which it affords him (all his advantages are essentially physical) that leads everybody to pick him over mayweather
nothing more, really.


there aren't many great fighters who are defined by their size as much as hearns

he was a massive and strong WW with true one punch knockout power who fought tall as well as anybody who has ever boxed.


i'm not really sure i get your post
but if you think size isn't the reason why hearns blows mayweather out of the water i will heartily disagree.
heartily

it's THE factor
it's what made hearns hearns. size, and fighting accordingly.

[wmute]

the reason we pick that is no coincidence


its his size that gets him around mayweathers skills

his length on his jab and the ability to back floyd up with it.
his strength
his height
his punching power
his ability to keep his hands free
and even his chin.


that's style, sure, dependent on his size. brought about by his size.
cultivated in size.

it's hearns size and that which it affords him (all his advantages are essentially physical) that leads everybody to pick him over mayweather
nothing more, really.


there aren't many great fighters who are defined by their size as much as hearns

he was a massive and strong WW with true one punch knockout power who fought tall as well as anybody who has ever boxed.


i'm not really sure i get your post
but if you think size isn't the reason why hearns blows mayweather out of the water i will heartily disagree.
heartily

it's THE factor
it's what made hearns hearns. size, and fighting accordingly.

I think we have a communication problem, like in the other thread. :-)

I 100% agree that size is what makes the difference here. Size (and the style Hearns built around it) is the reason I pick Hearns to beat Mayweather.

What I am saying is just that... it's not fun. Because taking it to the extreme it's like answering the question "Who can break Willie Pep's defense?" with "Bob Foster".

Mayweather and Hearns are not fighters of the same size. They have like 5 inches differences in height I think. Hearns never made 147 after his 23rd birthday. Mayweather was still fighting at 130 at that age. Mayweather was not a real welter until age 30, or maybe later (filled up during layoffs). By the time he turned 30, Hearns was fighting at 168. I don't think I ever saw thoe phantasy matchup "Armstrong Vs Hearns", and for good reason.

If you see my first post, I split the question in two.

1) Who can beat him? and the answer is (to me) simple and boring, and it can be roughly summarized as "another ATG, but bigger". Hearns is representative of this case. Style matters, but as we all agree the fuel here is the size difference. I think Hearns is the perfect answer to this question, but others would work.

I think it is more interesting to answer the other question, more similar to the one the other TS was asking

2) "how can a guy who is roughly the same size beat Mayweather?"

And on that part we have not found a consensus judging by the posts I see.

[New England]

I think we have a communication problem, like in the other thread. :-)

I 100% agree that size is what makes the difference here. Size (and the style Hearns built around it) is the reason I pick Hearns to beat Mayweather.

What I am saying is just that... it's not fun. Because taking it to the extreme it's like answering the question "Who can break Willie Pep's defense?" with "Bob Foster".

Mayweather and Hearns are not fighters of the same size. They have like 5 inches differences in height I think. Hearns never made 147 after his 23rd birthday. Mayweather was still fighting at 130 at that age. Mayweather was not a real welter until age 30, or maybe later (filled up during layoffs). By the time he turned 30, Hearns was fighting at 168. I don't think I ever saw thoe phantasy matchup "Armstrong Vs Hearns", and for good reason.

If you see my first post, I split the question in two.

1) Who can beat him? and the answer is (to me) simple and boring, and it can be roughly summarized as "another ATG, but bigger". Hearns is representative of this case. Style matters, but as we all agree the fuel here is the size difference. I think Hearns is the perfect answer to this question, but others would work.

I think it is more interesting to answer the other question, more similar to the one the other TS was asking

2) "how can a guy who is roughly the same size beat Mayweather?"

And on that part we have not found a consensus judging by the posts I see.

ok thank you for the clarification

you're talking about a much more difficult problem to solve

i think if i had the answer for you i'd be training world class fighters and quit my dayjob ^^


i think you'd need the right ref to let them work inside and be messy about it
who wont break them if floyd is only able to partially tie up his opponent or if he's able to keep one hand free

and then you'd have to grind him out

i think anybody who is simply looking to box with floyd would be fighting the wrong fight. not saying it's impossible. i'm just saying at WW it would be the rout to head.
at WW he's not historically great in terms of size and strength or durability


i think leonard might fit your bill, being a larger man that mayweather but still markedly smaller than hearns
ie closer in size to floyd than tommy

he could match floyd's mind and shandspeed (probably beat his handspeed with his combinations)
he had the pedigree in boxing to not get outclassed in a pure boxing sense

but i still see him imposing his strength, so he might not be the style.


maybe burley would fit the bill more, of the names i brought up, because of his punching power that he brought with a style not based on imposing physicality. i think they would go tit for tat, with burley landing the more eye catching and effective punches/counters because of his advantage in natural punching power

of course burley also finished his career as a MW, and is larger than floyd as well.


good posts from you regardless
nice to see them in the history section

[raf727]

You need speed and a left hook to get past it.

Think about it. The only time Ortiz landed was what? A left hook off the bum rush.

Mosley? Looping ass hook.

Judah? Short hook made his glove touch the canvas. (albeit right hook)

You combine high end speed. Hand speed above Floyd's. With the left hook. You've got a recipe for success. Specially if you bombard him with many punches then sneak a hard left hook in. If the guy had some good pop. I'd favor that guy.

Just be prepared to get grabbed when you come in too hard.

Nice try, but negative. Mosley had success when he used a throw away jab and a straight right, not a 'looping ass hook'

[Mugwump]

I don't disagree that Hearns has all the physical attributes and skills to beat Mayweather. But he also had the same to beat Leonard and Hagler - but didn't.

Surely whether Hearns has the size or the reach or the power to beat Floyd is bit of a red-herring. The key question is - does he have the temperament?

Let's switch the discussion about and put Floyd in against Leonard with four rounds to go and a huge points advantage. Would he have folded like Hearns did? I have my doubts.

[jabsRstiff]

I don't disagree that Hearns has all the physical attributes and skills to beat Mayweather. But he also had the same to beat Leonard and Hagler - but didn't.

Surely whether Hearns has the size or the reach or the power to beat Floyd is bit of a red-herring. The key question is - does he have the temperament?

Let's switch the discussion about and put Floyd in against Leonard with four rounds to go and a huge points advantage. Would he have folded like Hearns did? I have my doubts.

Thomas Hearns outboxed the two best boxers he fought in Leonard and Benitez. Leonard had the physical strength, toughness, temperament, and offensive abilty to push through Hearns and pull out a victory.

I think it's very conceivable that Thomas Hearns controls a fight with Floyd from long range, and stays disciplined in doing it...while Floyd does not have what Leonard had to make up the deficit.

[wmute]

I don't disagree that Hearns has all the physical attributes and skills to beat Mayweather. But he also had the same to beat Leonard and Hagler - but didn't.

Surely whether Hearns has the size or the reach or the power to beat Floyd is bit of a red-herring. The key question is - does he have the temperament?

Let's switch the discussion about and put Floyd in against Leonard with four rounds to go and a huge points advantage. Would he have folded like Hearns did? I have my doubts.

The thing is that Leonard and Hagler are just bigger and stronger than Mayweather is. On top of that we know Mayweather's chin is certainly good, but we don't know *how* good, but Leonard's is great and Hagler is off the scale.

To answer your question, in terms of discipline and ring smarts Mayweather is leagues ahead Hearns of course, whose boxing IQ is not even special if you ask me, but the physical advantage for Hearns is just huge, and he has the skills to use them.

To me Mayweather is the better fighter, but we are not talking about a hypothetical p4p matchup, rather how they would fair at their actual size.

Like I said, I personally accept the scenario, that Mayweather pulls a Leonard on Hearns, but I find it very very unlikely. What odds would you want to bet on Mayweather?

[Mugwump]

Thomas Hearns outboxed the two best boxers he fought in Leonard and Benitez. Leonard had the physical strength, toughness, temperament, and offensive abilty to push through Hearns and pull out a victory.

I think it's very conceivable that Thomas Hearns controls a fight with Floyd from long range, and stays disciplined in doing it...while Floyd does not have what Leonard had to make up the deficit.

True. But he also has other skills that Leonard didn't quite possess. For sure, there is no question about who is/was the better attacking fighter. But Floyd is no slouch. Indeed, I get the feeling we have never truly seen him let rip fully as he seems happy to do precisely what it takes and little more.

But I have a real problem with anyone putting absolute faith in Hearns staying focussed in a top-tier fight given his - for want of a better word - choke in the Leonard bout. I mean, I give Ray enormous credit for his display in those final rounds but I bet today even he admits Hearns' lack of focus played some role in his victory.

Like I said, I personally accept the scenario, that Mayweather pulls a Leonard on Hearns, but I find it very very unlikely. What odds would you want to bet on Mayweather?

I would never bet for or against Mayweather because it's enormously difficult to know just how good he is. As stated above, I get the feeling he is always fighting within himself. Which means I'm effectively opposing loaded dice. However, the one thing I am very sure of is he is mentally rock solid. I can't say the same about Tommy.