Originally Posted by McGrain
There's absolutley no concievable reason to have McLarnin ranked below Foreman. His win resume at WW alone is better than Foreman's entire HW resume. Holmes above McLarnin p4p? Impossible. I disagree strongly on Hagler, too, though at least there is a case there.
Purely and entirely based upon who he beat in terms of quality, there are only a handful of men who should be above McLarnin. There are other factors to consider for sure, but in terms of who he beat, McLarnin is top 20.
McLarnin was a great fighter. But he was inconsistet and didnt have dominanat title reign. Lets not forget Ring Magazine didnt even have him in there top 50 fighters of the last 80 years.