Originally Posted by MAG1965
The Barkley fight to Hearns is like the Duran fight to Laing. No one cares that much. The totality of the fighters careers is what we look at. Hearns beat greats and was in superfights and Duran beat a great and was in superfights. Barkley and Laing beat them. I do think Hearns would have beaten Kalambay if anyone could it was Hearns with his jab. Hearns didn't fight McCallum because he had Hagler and Duran. Beating those guys would cement Hearns legacy more than McCallum would have and he beat Duran and lost to Hagler. It happens. The McCallum fight is what people mention now, but back in 1984-1986 not many guys mentioned that. They were talking about the fab 4 fighting each other and those other guys like McCallum fighting Curry.
The Hearns fight cemented Hagler's legacy which then makes Duran look better because Duran went 15 with him and then Hearns knocks out Duran which cements his legacy, so the fab 4 sort of build each other up. Duran never fought Kalambay or McCallum or Graham and Hagler didn't either. I don't think legacies are built on that so much as long as they have legacies to count on. In the 1980s Duran,Hearns,Hagler and Leonard with Benitez sort of are remembered more than the McCallum,Curry,Kalambay,Nunn fighters. Those 4 could have beaten some of the fab 4 I am sure, but that really doesn't matter much at this point. The famous group has an advantage in history. As wrong as it is.
Wait you consider his win over duran as some legacy building fight? Duran was a 15 year pro with 5 losses in a 3 year span, he was shot.
Hearns built his legacy by beating an old duran and then he fought an ancient leonard in 1989.
If hagler would have fought and defeated mccallum, kalambay and graham, his resume would have been stronger than monzons and he would rank higher, he didnt and thats why he generally ranks lower than monzon on all time lists.