Mosley vs Forrest compared to Leonard vs Hearns

[Pastrano]

Really, its funny I didn't notice this before, it just came to me watching the first Forrest-Mosley fight. There are similarities between them and Hearns and Leonard. Forrest was compared to Hearns because he was such a tall welter with a good jab and a smashing right. Mosley was like a stockier, more muscular version of Leonard-a fast, dazzling fighter who could punch. Even though I think Mosley hit harder than Leonard ever did, but nvm. And in both cases, the relative underdog won or was winning. Hearns was winning when his stamina bailed on him in the 1st fight and definitely won the rematch.

I think its possible that had the first Mosley-Forrest fight been 15 rounds, Forrest woulda scored a tko. And one can wonder what would happen had the second Leonard-Hearns fight gone 15. But whats for certain is that there are similarities here, Mosley-Forrest WAS the modern version or the closest we got anyway of Leonard-Hearns fights.

[Sugarj]

I'd agree, I've thought this is the closest comparison too.

Your bound to get some fanboy crashing this thread saying how Moseley was in no way comparable to Leonard.......or Forrest to Hearns. But that wouldn't really be the point.

I'd add that Floyd Mayweather has never had to stylistically deal with an elite level boxer with the reach and dimensions of a Forrest or Hearns. A couple of years ago, a Paul Williams fight might have been very interesting.

[Pastrano]

I'd agree, I've thought this is the closest comparison too.

Your bound to get some fanboy crashing this thread saying how Moseley was in no way comparable to Leonard.......or Forrest to Hearns. But that wouldn't really be the point.

I'd add that Floyd Mayweather has never had to stylistically deal with an elite level boxer with the reach and dimensions of a Forrest or Hearns. A couple of years ago, a Paul Williams fight might have been very interesting.

Thats exactly what I always thought. Hearns picks him apart, Forrest hunts him for the entire fight and wins on points. Maybe even scores a tko.

[Sugarj]

Thats exactly what I always thought. Hearns picks him apart, Forrest hunts him for the entire fight and wins on points. Maybe even scores a tko.

Alot of people think Mayweather's jinx will be the speedy southpaw style of Pacquiou. I'd be willing to bet that it might come in the form of a rangy orthodox technician who can bang a swift educated jab at Mayweather from range at him all night. Hearns would have been perfect for this.....

Problem is, at welterweight there isn't anyone at the moment.

[joseph5620]

Really, its funny I didn't notice this before, it just came to me watching the first Forrest-Mosley fight. There are similarities between them and Hearns and Leonard. Forrest was compared to Hearns because he was such a tall welter with a good jab and a smashing right. Mosley was like a stockier, more muscular version of Leonard-a fast, dazzling fighter who could punch. Even though I think Mosley hit harder than Leonard ever did, but nvm. And in both cases, the relative underdog won or was winning. Hearns was winning when his stamina bailed on him in the 1st fight and definitely won the rematch.

I think its possible that had the first Mosley-Forrest fight been 15 rounds, Forrest woulda scored a tko. And one can wonder what would happen had the second Leonard-Hearns fight gone 15. But whats for certain is that there are similarities here, Mosley-Forrest WAS the modern version or the closest we got anyway of Leonard-Hearns fights.

I don't think there are any similarities between the two fights. Especially when you're comparing Forrest to Hearns and Mosley to Leonard. Mosley was hurt and dropped early against Forrest. That never even came close to happening to Leonard. In fact it was the opposite. Hearns became the boxer and Leonard became the stalker. Forrest vs Mosley was a completely different type of fight. Hearns was badly hurt by Leonard in both fights.Forrest was never hurt by Mosley. Other then comparing the aesthetics, the two fights are not similar in any way.


And if the second Hearns-Leonard fight was a 15 round fight Hearns likely would have lost. He was saved by the bell in the final round even though he deserved the decision.

[joseph5620]

I'd agree, I've thought this is the closest comparison too.

Your bound to get some fanboy crashing this thread saying how Moseley was in no way comparable to Leonard.......or Forrest to Hearns. But that wouldn't really be the point.

I'd add that Floyd Mayweather has never had to stylistically deal with an elite level boxer with the reach and dimensions of a Forrest or Hearns. A couple of years ago, a Paul Williams fight might have been very interesting.

You just crashed the thread yourself by bringing Mayweather into it.

[young_robbed]

these fights are nothing alike, to be honest. sorry.

Forrest dominated Mosley over 12 rounds, Hearns was winning the fight until the late rounds and Leonard staged his attack and won by TKO. I don't see the comparison.

I do see the comparison between Forrest and Hearns, but other then that I don't get it.

[Rossman]

I just don't see the comparison other than height difference.

[northstar]

One thing's for sure, although hearns was better than forrest in almost every way possible, if he could clinch like forrest he might have gotten the W in the first fight.

[SCtrojansbaby]

Alot of people think Mayweather's jinx will be the speedy southpaw style of Pacquiou. I'd be willing to bet that it might come in the form of a rangy orthodox technician who can bang a swift educated jab at Mayweather from range at him all night. Hearns would have been perfect for this.....

Problem is, at welterweight there isn't anyone at the moment.

??? Mike Jones fits your description to a tee