Originally Posted by BoxingGlove1
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.
The Ring's list was only marginally better. How exactly do you come to the conclusion that McLarnin was inconsistent? On a ratio of number of fights in comparison to quality of opposition he has probably the greatest resume of all time.