If Duran face McCallum instead of Hearns, who you got?

You're one of the two or three posters I almost always agree with (except when it comes to Ali and Mr. Jones). If I don't agree with you, I try to anyway...!

 

I'd back Hearns. I'd also back the SRL that beat Hagler i reckon. The thing is, Hagler did beat a lot of men for a long time without loss. He's got a lot of runs on the board. Tough nuts like Sibbo and Roldan would take him a little out of his comfort zone at times too.

Oh, and can't see Hagler losing to Sumbu.

 

I'm in good hands then.

From memory we differ in Ali's ATG top 10 positioning, a bit on the dynamics of Hagler - Duran, Jones a fair bit and not much else.

 

That's the extent of it. Ali, by the way, is closer to the top 10 than I imagined by those calculations I did.

 

You've probably got him in the 5 now!!!!

 

Nah. I can't put him among the gods and live with my conscience -never mind my own personal intellectualy honesty. He's a duke. He's one of "The Dukes of War." Ha.

 

If i do a top 10 he's about 5!!!!

 

Right there in Duran's place.... Don't talk to me.
















kidding

 

I'll have to have Duran 4 then :happy

 

I'm so happy, I'm gonna go kiss a kangaroo.

 

I'm taking Hagler to beat McCallum personally.

 

Ok, we are in perfect agreement then LOL

 

McCallum's bitterness toward Hagler is misplaced. He was fighting guys like Sean Mannion and Luigi Minchillo and Hagler had Hearns, Mugabi, and Leonard on his radar. McCallum just wasn't accomplished enough at the time.
I don't even think McCallum beats an 86-87 version of Hagler and a prime Hagler beats him clearly.

 

Sparring is not fighting. Fact is most guys put their all into sparring Hearns since he was the top guy at Kronk and most guys wanted to go hard and act like they could beat the legend of Kronk. Other guys did this including Lindell Holmes who thought he could beat Hearns because he said he did better in sparring against him. As for Duran, again as I have stated before Duran fought in 1978 at junior middleweight. It is all excuses for Duran. Hearns moved up from 147 in 1981 and no one says he is not a natural at 154 and 160 and 168 and 175 and 190 pound fighter, yet he fought all the way past 190. Hearns used his boxing ability and had two ways to fight more than Duran did and that helped him be more versatile when he did move up. He could box and punch, once Duran had a guy who was moving on him like a legend he lost. Then he would make an excuse that he did not train. This is why I think he was overrated. Once a guy had that style like Benitez or Leonard to box, Duran was pretty much solved.

 

Mike was off base when he insulted Hagler for not fighting him. McCallum fought Curry at July of 1987 at 154 and had not fought middleweight yet when Hagler had already fought his last fight against Leonard. They never fought in the same division. Hearns and McCallum fought at 154 at the same time, but at 160 Hearns moved up soon after Mike lost to Kalambay. His arguments against the legends are a little exagerrated. Do I think some of them could have fought Mike? Yes. Why didn't they? He was a tough customer and yet he could not get them any more money then guys who were not as good, and Mike did not have an outgoing personality which marketed himself to get the big fights with the legends. It is kind of simple. Fact is Hearns or Hagler or Duran or Leonard did not need McCallum. They had each other and had the round robins against each other. They were already occupied.