Canelo Vs Leonard, Duran & Hagler

Thinking it and yet seeing Hearns level of opposition are two different things. Lara or those guys beating Benitez and Duran is easy to say. I can say now GGG knocks out Monzon easily in 8 rounds, but does that make it true. This era is limited and watered down.. Kovalev? I don't know what to make out of that comment or of him. He is washed up, and Bivol is not at Hill's level. Hill had 10 title defenses and had beaten Czyz and Stewart and had 30 fights in a deeper era. Again anything can be said, but the eras have to be analyzed.. 19 fights compared to 30 for Hill in a deeper era. Where is the Bobby Czyz or Leslie Stewart in Bivol's record?

 

Hill’s success is largely owed to how weak his opposition was that he beat, but he lost most of time when he stepped up. A good fighter, sure, but he was no comp at all for Jones and Hearns also did his thing as did Dariusz.

You’re giving passes in one direction while moving the goal posts on Canelo. Hearns, Benitez, and Duran all had embarrassing loses and rough fights that should’ve been easy. Meanwhile, you’re unwilling to accept that Canelo exceeded the hype and that he is not a plodder waiting to be exposed as suspected a decade ago. You’re discrediting his era to achieve this.

 

Hill had more fights and did beat Czyz a two division champion,and Stewart whom if I remember in Sept 1987 when that fight happened was favored. Hill had 10 title defenses in a deeper division. Hill was limited in his left if you compare him to Hearns, but that was a great left jab and counter left and he had great legs and was physically strong. He was much better than Bivol and a deeper fighter . It is obvious that Canelo is having easy fights and handpicking at this time, and he looks good doing it but we really don't know if he could have beaten the Hill or Hearns or Spinks or levels a little higher than he has been fights. It is such a watered down era.. I mentioned something John Scully said oneday and I will post it here. I hate to do this again, but it tells us what we are dealing with. "60 years ago there were TEN TIMES as many fighters in the world than there are now…today we have less fighters and 43 belts to choose from. LETS FACE IT. Boxing sucks." Now take this into consideration, 35 years ago or 40 this would have been a similar situation..

 

Lol at lumping in Spinks with Hill and 175 Hearns.

John Scully is full of **** and there's absolutely nothing to support his claim, but boxing is obviously drawing from a more global talent pool and larger world population today.

Hill fought better fighters than Bivol but there's nothing about his performances that proves he's better than Bivol. Bivol's easyish wins over Joe Smith, Barrera, and Pascal show that he's good.

 

They are all Hall of Fame and why not lump them. Hearns was a great fighter. You cannot in all logic say anyone Canelo has fought since GGG was comparable to Hearns. Pascal was washed up. Joe Smith? A hard limited puncher. Barrera? Those guys are tops? Scully knows boxing and he is right. Boxing is watered down and there are too many titles, and Canelo can handpick in any division and look good.. Bivol has 19 fights. Canelo should win. And Virgil Hill has been underrated since he lost to Jones and Hearns, but those guys were exceptional. Hill had something like 25 title defenses in 3 reigns from Light Heavy to Cruiser. He was not a a bad fighter, and better than Bivol. Bivol is handpicked. If Bivol wins he has to stick to his jab and counter left and make this a simple fight.

 

Bivol won almost 300 am fights and got a title in 12 fights by design. Don't play dumb.

 

Who is playing dumb. Professional fights are different than amateur, and he still has onl 19 pro fights and Canelo has near 60.... That is a huge difference at this level.. I think you are the one playing dumb.

 

You seem deeply opposed to the idea that guys from former Soviet countries with hundreds of am fights who turn pro and go straight to contendership are adding depth to the sport. Of course, they weren’t around when Duran was in his pomp.

If am fights don’t count, I guess we’ll just call it coincidence that Rigondeaux, Lomachenko, and Usyk went straight to the top without filler fights.

 

Do the questions and answers on this thread become mooted when Bivol’s counterpunching drops Canelo at least once en-route to a clear UD? Is that a prediction you ask? Maybe, maybe not.

 

I think he might beat Leonard at 160.

I think he loses to the Hagler of Hearns and the Duran of Moore.

 

What loss was embarrassing of Hearns? He always went out on his shield.

 

Leonard wins close decision, Hagler wins close decision, Duran loses decision.

 

I think Canelo will be one of the 3 best Mexican fighters ever, along with Chavez and Sal Sanchez.—Mark

 

This is a watered down era. Bivol has amatuer pedigree, but Canelo is not as good as he has seemed in the last 7 fights since GGG. So it has to be the opposition.

 

Still feel that way?