Why do people think Thomas Hearns would beat Floyd so easily?

[BlackSoul]

Defence, effective aggression and ring generalship ALL for Floyd.

NSB Logic: Tommy Hearns boxed in the 80's, Tommy Hearn is stronger and taller therefore he wins by default. Let's forget about the judges criteria. Let's forget about the aforementioned Boxer (Floyd) being the most accurate boxer YOU have ever seen. Let's forget about all the chicken leg dances from Hearn. Nostalgia levels on 1000 and it disgusts me.

By you're italic filled argument, Tyson Fury beats any boxer that's ever exisited in the Galaxy!

how could mayweather be "effectively aggressive"? break that down for me in THIS fight.
mayweather fought alot of the same TYPE of fighters thus makin' his "defense" look that way when you fight certain types of fighters then your defense will look astounding.
and the worst of all you said "ring generalship"..........................
i aint even gonna answer that
ppl just throw out terms just bc they seen it before and dont question HOW ring generalship will play a factor into the fight of a STYLE that is WRONG for mayweather on ALL levels.

[SplitSecond]

The fight is on YouTube; same way most folks here have been able to see most of the other historical fights. Again, I'd advise you to watch the fight on YouTube.

Are you having a stroke? Lets try to keep the relevancy. How did you see the fight? Benitez beat Hearns is that it? you know what, I don't care, carry on.

[REMOVE SHARK 55]

how could mayweather be "effectively aggressive"? break that down for me in THIS fight.
mayweather fought alot of the same TYPE of fighters thus makin' his "defense" look that way when you fight certain types of fighters then your defense will look astounding.
and the worst of all you said "ring generalship"..........................
i aint even gonna answer that
ppl just throw out terms just bc they seen it before and dont question HOW ring generalship will play a factor into the fight of a STYLE that is WRONG for mayweather on ALL levels.

Ring generalship = the ability of the opponent to dictate the pace. I'm talking about Floyd Mayweather so that's self-explanatory, if you can't put two and two together you need help.

"I'm going to go out there and be the best Floyd Mayweather I can be"- Mayweather. He is quite possibly the best ever ring general to exist.

Hit and not get hit = effective aggression. Do you understand you can be effectively aggressive whilst fighting off the back foot.

Listen what you're saying isn't gospel, it's your opinion. You keep using generic terms such as 'his style is all wrong". You used the height and reach hypothesis and I've debunked it by applying Tyson to your theory. Mayweather beats Hearns according to an official Judges criteria.

[REMOVE SHARK 55]

If you tell me Floyd isn't one of the best ring generals EVER you don't deserve your opinion to be taken seriously.

[onetwopunch]

Why? How did you see it? I just remember Benitez against the ropes getting jabbed at and Hearns countering viciously when he dared to step to him.

- Benitez fought well againts Hearns. But again this is the reason why everyone thinks including me that Hearns would beat PBF. Benitez defense was out of this world, and he did it with his hands down, hence the name el radar. But he was out gunned, Hearns reach, hand speed and power and lethal combos, he would throw 4-5-6 punch combos..and they would flow smooth and fast..The guy was an offensive monster. Benitez was able to go the distance with Hearns..but I dont see PBF going more than 10 rds againts a guy like Hearns..the fight isnt even fair to be honest.

[From Russia]

I think offensewise Floyd would be completely outgunned. Tommy would keep him at the end of the jab and Floyd wont try to close the distance to land some leather on Tommy, cuz its not his style and it would be extremely dangerous, Hearns had huge power and insanely fast hands.

I see Hearns winning at least 9 rounds or even KO Floyd

[REMOVE SHARK 55]

The allied forces of the 1930s-40's would beat todays modern NATO forces because back then they fought much more tougher competition and they had wayyyy more men.

[Reloaded]

If you tell me Floyd isn't one of the best ring generals EVER you don't deserve your opinion to be taken seriously.

Most of the guys in here have no idea what it is , its Floyds greatest weapon and can be as dominating as a KO punch but infinity harder to do , Floyd is one of the greatest tactical fighters to ever lace them up .

As for beating Hearns , the biggest issue for me is Tommy size Floyds best weight as for his ability was 130-135 here he could stop anyone in history that weight , it was only his ability that allowed him to move up , Tommys frame allowed him to go to CW .

Floyd could beat Tommy but I would not bet on it , like someone pointed out Benitez beat Hearns so there is no doubt Floyd could also but nobody should be stomping their feet stating its 100% either way , great fighters do great things and one should never write off a great fighter .

The biggest problem on this site is most here can only see power punching , when it comes to the sweet science the average poster in here has no fckn clue .

[Dr Rumack]

78 inch reach. Great feet. Beautiful fluid boxing. Crazy power. The only welterweights that could beat Hearns are the ones that could knock him out. Floyd wouldn't be 'easy' but there's no way you could pick against Hearns.

[Reloaded]

The allied forces of the 1930s-40's would beat todays modern NATO forces because back then they fought much more tougher competition and they had wayyyy more men.

And in 30s 40s they were loaded up on crystal meth take the PEDS away and they were primitive lol .