Your example is too simplistic, in that it both lacks detail and is incomplete. What are the two sides arguing about, for a start? Is it about why Hearns didn't fight McCallum or how Hearns not fighting McCallum impacts his historical standing? The second argument provides far better reasoning for both points of contention and that's before we get into the detail of why the actual window for a Hearns/McCallum bout isn't as simple as your example's 5 years; the boxing politics involved; McCallum's lack of box office appeal, etc. etc. Your position seems to depend on the misuse/abuse of 'the weight of evidence', which is easily identifiable when a weight of evidence is denied, in favor of a singular or set of weak opinions. I see that scenario arise a lot on here, and that's fine because it's only boxing forum debate, on which a material outcome is not reliant (If one did, we'd be screwed). But, in good quality, well-reasoned debate, a better argument is almost always apparent, regardless of a stubborn opinion.
Plenty of great fighters faced guys who were talented but not huge draws or especially well known. I find the argument bizarre that top guys had no obligation to fight Mike McCallum because he was relatively unknown and not a massive draw when they faced plenty of guys fitting this category. Hearns had many fights with relatively obscure opponents when there was no massive public demand that he face them. Moreover, Mike McCallum was highly ranked for years. I don't see anything odd about two highly ranked opponents facing each other especially given Hearns found time to fight many guys ranked below McCallum.
No you under simplify. What I am saying is a poster will pick holes in the resume of a fighter they don't like and defend those same holes in the resume of a fighter they do like. It isn't about the quality of argument, its about bias and hypocrisy.
He did. The TUE got him out of it having been administered, but still didn't cover off the circumstances of its administration. It was also a rush job, missing key dates, decisions and actions. I can't be bothered to go back and forth on this with you any more. I really don't care about it that much and, with you being so hopelessly in love with Mayweather, it's a pointless discussion, anyway.
It either is a TUE or it isn’t. It is a TUE, therefore he didn’t cheat. He never even had to appeal a violation like others; and that’s in 50 fights.
Holes in resume sure.. They all have it, and that is how we ranked them and say who could have found those holes. Let's look at the timeline of the Hearns and McCallum thing at 154. Hearns won his first title in 1980 and was thrown into the mix with the greatest era in welterweights for a long time 147-154.. Cuevas, Leonard, Benitez, Duran. By 1984 he was an elite name, and Mike had not won a title until October of that year. Calling out Hearns was common. All guys call out the top guy in the division. Most guys called out Hearns I remember. They would win at 154 on TV and say, I want Hearns. As far as Mike goes, Tommy was signing to fight Hagler months after Mike won his first title. He was into his own career and era with Marvin and all of those guys he was winning titles around at the same weights like Duran or Benitez or Leonard. And Mike was still at 154 for another 4 years. Tommy only going down to 154 in June of 1986 to have that short defense while people waited on Marvin to decide if he would A. fight Leonard, B. fight Hearns or C retire was not really a resumption of his 154 pound reign as much as staying busy and having fight card which included Tommy, Duran, McGuigan called the triple hitter .. So Tommy who was not comfortable at 154 fought Medal and he was cautious in that fight, going 8 rounds and being careful after seeing Stevie Cruz beat Barry on the undercard. The point is. Tommy and Mike were on different paths. Also, Roberto and Mike were on different paths. THe same reason Ray/Tommy/Roberto did not fight Mike is the same. He was out of the loop. If they focused on him, then they would have made them good fights. But they were on their own agenda and he was a little behind them, or rather a lot. Tommy and Roberto and Wilfred and Ray and Marvin were on a certain path which almost had to intersect each other. Mike was not in that group, and for people to say, well Mike called him out he should fight him. Why? Tommy had other fights to focus on, but I tell one thing --Had he focused on Mike and had Mike been in his group Tommy would have fought him and focused on it intensely. I think Tommy had enough on his plate so he didn't focus on Mike at all.. He didn't need him. And also, I think Tommy motivation to beat Mike was less than Mike's to beat Tommy since that would have been Mike's claim to fame. He didn't face what would be his sternest test? McCallum? That is hindsight since he fought Benitez and Duran who were champs and both those guys knocked out good fighters in Maurice Hope and Benitez outboxed Duran, And Duran knocked out Cuevas and Moore. That is said now, but what if Duran would not have been stopped and gone into the 8th round and started to hit Tommy. That would be a stern test. Tests are there if the fight goes on and the fighter cannot take them out and change that. Had Tommy not knocked out Duran it might well have been a stern test. The pre-Hagler -Hearns would have outboxed Mike at 154. That I see clearly. The post Hagler -Hearns might have stuggled with him since something happened to his sharpness a little. But it would have been a great win for Mike regardless, but after Hearns diminished a little (very slight in balance and stamina and mindset)many guys wanted to fight him even Lindell Holmes acted like Tommy ducked him. Holmes, a guy Van Horn beat. With Hagler, Tommy fought a stupid fight and he paid for it. I don't get why he came out so reckless. Tommy had confidence like no one in history has. He thought he would take Marvin out. He really did, but he broke his hand and Marvin was great and won. That shows how great Marvin was. Marvin needed that fight to show what he had. The Duran fight made Tommy think he could stop anyone. That showed you how great he thought Duran was, because it made him think if I can stop Duran I stop anyone. The Barkley fight. Some of that same Hagler mentality and also added on this was like the Medal fight in 1986. Stay busy while waiting for Marvin to fight him. He really didn't have anyone to fight in 1988 except the young guys Tate , and possibly Kalambay, who was not a big name at the time. He was focused on other things and not on that fight. If we look at it in retrospect, had that fight gone on another round Tommy stops Barkley by TKO. Who ever did that with body punches and cuts on Barkley?. And it would have happened. He was close. Steele was looking at Barkley very closely. I think the Barkley loss is about Tommy losing a little steam and not learning how to adjust to that ,, but later he did more and beat Hill when he was a 4-1 underdog. He learned how to slow with the action and pick his shots more, which is why he went the distance to 12 in his next 5 out of 7 fights. The Barkley rematch? Barkley had a style for him. Everyone has that style which does well against them, which throws in the middle of exchanges and capitalizes on Tommy's aggression. Tommy fought enought guys in his career where it came up. I think the body punches were the key for Hearns beating Barkley, and crazy as it sounds- I do think had that fight been a 15 rounder Tommy wins by TKO. He was more on autopilot in round 12 than Barkley and landing body punches and wearing on Barkley. Tommy's main concern in the rematch was not getting hit with a clean punch and his broken nose.. Staying on the inside and landing his punches, which was rare for Tommy.. But Floyd did not have the competitive nature to fight everyone at anytime like Tommy did. That is why the comparison is off a little. You are comparing a guy in Hearns who fought everyone in a stacked era and who came to fight and take chances, against a guy who did not take chances and controlled the guys he fought to preserve his undefeated record to earn top money. He was brilliant, but the careers are hard to compare. Floyd never fought a Leonard when Tommy did, or a Hagler when Tommy did. Or a Benitez at his best. He never fought a Duran. Maybe he would have beaten them all, but I doubt it. He would not have. He fought that top level and tested himself that way. Guys who took chances. He fought Canelo and had the weight lowered to 152. His legacy is set but something is missing with Mayweather. He admitted in his own way how boxing is a tough sport and he will do what he wants, almost admitting that he handpicked and got advantages when he wanted them. Floyd does not have a legacy like any of the fab 4. The fact they are in that class or group is because all of them came to fight. It was not about undefeated with the fab 4 or you wouldn't have a fab 4. You would have Floyd. It is great I guess, but not what I like to look back on. Watching Floyd's fights against Canelo who was 152 is not entertaining.
1. PBF ducked in terms of who he fought (Williams, Margarito, Tszyu etc), when he fought (Pac is the prime example) and where he fought (catch weighted or brought up in weight Hatton who was best at 140, JMM whom he brought up from 135 etc). Hearns fought a much better resume without ducking, or waiting for people to get old, or catchweights. 2. PBF was given decisions against Castillo, ODLH, Pac (imo Old Pac landed more significant punches). Hearns lost a contentious decision to SRL. 3. PBF eeked out many close decisions with pitter patter punching and punch and hug whilst using his a-side status to ensure pillow gloves were used. Hearns won convincingly more often: his win against Duran for example. 4.Many claim Canelo as one of pbf's best wins. However, Canelo has clearly had a string of gift decisions as the A-side fighter, clearly using PEDs to ensure he doesn't get koed and then the subsequent gift. No matter what the media feed you, Canelo is not in the league of SRL or any of Hearns top 10 opponents. Floyd just didn't fight the resume to be even compared with Hearns. He made his decision to choose money and low risk, but history shouldn't be kind to his achievements as he didn't rise to the challenge.
I never thought the Barkley fight hurt him much as far as ATG status. I thought the win against Hill helped him more than the Barkley losses hurt him. Hearns always had the flaw with a guy like Barkley in a way. There was a guy he fought for his first title defense named Luis Primera who came at him a little like Barkley, and Tommy started to go to the body and stopped him with body punches. That would have happened had Tommy not become careless.
Look at the time and effort you put into explaining why Hearns and McCallum didn't fight. Would you put the same time and effort into explaining why Floyd and Pac didn't fight until 2015?
Wait a second, Canelo got blatant gift decisions against Lara and Trout. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
No. What I put forward was uncomplicated enough that it could use your own example to demonstrate it. I don't dispute bias as being a factor. What I am saying (as I alluded to, more than 10 pages ago) that a poster can look at both resumes and use reason and the weight of evidence, in order to make a stronger case for one fighter or the other. One side of an argument is often stronger than another, regardless of bias. In terms of debating the relative strength of two ledgers (or debating on any topic, for that matter), "quality of argument", "bias" and "hypocrisy" are entwined. Separating them is part of the process. If we start with the idea that bias is a measurable, overarching and predominant constant, while dismissing the possibility of reason and the weight of evidence even being factors worth considering, then debate is pointless. A few debates are and, though there are many discussions, which exemplify entrenched opinions, based on favorites, I disagree with your perspective, on the whole. But, anyhow, I'm sure there's nothing else I can add to this debate so, happy for you to have the last word, if necessary.
I am not too familiar on the Mc Callum situation but it seems to me that he just was not a big draw at the time. And Steward knew Mike from Kronk. Maybe, it is a situation where the reward did not warrant the risk. To me,Tommy always seemed like a fearless fighter, willing to take on all challenges. On the ranking we slightly disagree. To me, at best Floyd and Hearns rank between Top20-Top30.
