Canelo Vs Leonard, Duran & Hagler

Or anyone dealing with Hearns punch.. Hearns had a better chin than people said. He had great fights. To have greats fights you have to be in the fights long enough to be in one.

 

Just an honest question, was'nt Hearns losses in big fights by knockouts? Tommy got thumped by Sugar Ray Leonard on Sept 16 1981 and Marvelous Marvin Hagler on April 15 1985, then on June 6 1988 Iran Barkley knocked out Hearns in round 3. Hearns may have fought a long time but his chin appears to have failed him three times in big fights.

 

Well Marvelous Marvin Hagler and Sugar Ray Leonard. At that level someone has to lose, but he knocked out Duran and Cuevas two guys who don't get knocked out, and he outboxed Hill and Benitez two boxers. There is now way logical right now Bivol can compare to Thomas Hearns.
Wait for careers to be over to say how good a chin was. Being knocked out 3 times in almost 70 fights and his career is terrible? All those fights and wars?

 

We can agree to disagree.

 

Hard to argue about Hearns credentials no matter what.. But that is fine.

 

I think the thing about Hearns which frustrated me, but I see it as a weakness, and it was his fault. He himself created his problems. 78 1/2 inch reach on a welterweight. He could have boxed and just sat back and waited for the right hand to find it mark after settling down, but he wanted to entertain and go for it. Why I am not sure. Just his mindset, but that made him susceptible to counters when he was not expecting it, and the 3 times he lost by knockout were similar in that he was confident and he ended up hurt in confidence. He never lacked confidence. But I do think he was his worst enemy, but if you go up against a Hagler or Leonard or Duran or Benitez level something could happen where one of those guys finds that flaw and exploits it, so beating who he did in his career and Hill was amazing, and all the titles..

 

If anyone looks at boxing today as having more talent than, say, in the 60's or 70's (or almost any other era), then they don't know what they're talking about. There are the (very) occasional greats but Canelo is not one of them, and the gulf in skill & toughness is tremendous. Duran, Leonard and Hagler all win easily.

 

Greatness is really a mindset. The greats were not more skillful in body, but they had a special way to look at certain fights and make them great and different. Canelo can make fights happen, I think what he lacks is maybe those great fights Hearns and Hagler and Leonard and Duran and Benitez had. Just to have the fights regardless of wins is what differentiates. I know people say Shane was a great when Canelo fought him, but not really ... Good win... solid experience.

 

Agree with all of this, and that's what saddens me about Canelo, he's a damned good fighter in the greatest sport in the world. It's a tremendous discredit to him & all the hard work he's put in over the years in his career to be associated with this mess.

".....and may the best man win" That's who's hand I want to be raised, always.