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

I agree. Hagler was consistent and stronger than McCallum and would wear him down and either stop him late or win a decision.

 

I agree. I think a Hearns who was cautious like he was with Wilfred Benitez and Virgil Hill would outpoint McCallum at 154 and win a UD. Much of the knock on Hearns is at the Hagler and post Hagler fight when he started to brawl more and get more sloppy in his wins. But prior to Hagler, Hearns was more a boxer with fast hands and great speed. After Hagler he moved up and down so much I don't think he got comfortable at a specific weight, but at 154 he was solid and I think would have outboxed Mike. But people want to focus on the post Hagler -Hearns.

 

Don't go talking that ragtime down in Philly, my friend. Or at Kronk.

First of all, McCallum wasn't some young, green wanna-be at Kronk. And while sparring doesn't provide a total prediction about who would win in an actual bout, it can give you many clues. McCallum was a master-boxer who was physically stronger than Hearns with a world-class chin and a good pop who stood over 5'11. He'd pose real problems for Hearns. End of story.

James Toney fought at 200 lbs in 1996. So what?

I see you just waved your hand and made the earlier post about human frames and other facts just suddenly disappear.

So, in your opinion Duran was an overrated natural middleweight, who was beaten by the first guy "who moved on him like a legend" and who always got whipped by guys with legs.

Duran's career apparantly began in November, 1980.

 

No Duran's career did not start in November of 1980, but his career prior to that ranks him where? top 30? The fights which are going to get Duran rated ATG top 10 will be when he fought other greats like Leonard/Hearns/Benitez/Hagler, and he lost to all 4. Whether he was older and has excuses is irrelevant. He still lost. Well sparring still is sparring. If you asked guys like Jones or Mayweather if sparring means everything, they will say no since they know how guys go to the gym and go tops when they don't. But the guy who spars them will say it matters a lot. If a fighter in the 1980's spars Tommy and goes 90 percent when Tommy is going 75 percent it is obviously not an accurate gauge of Hearns skills. I am sure if Tommy sparred Roberto in 1984, that Roberto would give him a good sparring match, but in the fight Tommy knocks him out. Like I said Lindell Holmes used to think he could beat Tommy because he had wars with him at Kronk and could hit him. Dennis Andries used to give Tommy good sparring at Kronk much better than he did in the fight with Tommy in 1987. Not the best indicator. How each guy did against Minchillo is a better indicator since that is a guy both of them fought. Whether I say Mike was green in 1984 when he fought Mannion.

Fact is I think had he fought the same Mannion in 1987 he would get a stoppage of Mannion. Mike in 1984 was not as built up as he was in 1987 the way I see it, and yes I think Hearns would outbox him and outpoint him. This was pre-Hagler -Hearns who was at this weight for awhile and he was comfortable there. Later Tommy moved all over the place, but he still won in most of his bouts except Barkley. If you want to go by peak and all that. Hearns probably peaked in 1984 and McCallum in 1986 or 1987. Hearns had his tougher fights earlier than McCallum, even though Mike was older than Tommy. By the time McCallum fought for his first title in October of 1984, Hearns had fought 4 legends (Cuevas,Leonard,Benitez,Duran) and had 9 title fights, was about to fight Hagler. Then the talk is people say McCallum could beat Hearns in 1988 or 1989, but yeah in those years Tommy was a little diminished. But the Hearns of 1984 vs. the McCallum of 1984 and Tommy outpoints him. I have no doubt. Hearns vs. McCallum in 1987 and you have a toss up.

And the comment about Mike McCallum being physically stronger than Tommy. Probably so a little in 86 or so, but again that is in hindsight after Tommy looked smaller as a middleweight with Hagler and Barkley, which actually supports my claim that Tommy was not as strong physically as most guys want to say, even though he was 6-1 1/2. When he fought Virgil he was the smaller man, but he won a title 30 pounds above his first title weight against a 10 defense undefeated fighter. Duran did not do this.
I am not sure what you mean about me making my comments dissapear. My comments are still there. I make so many posts I do not even remember the post you are referring to.

That is simplifying what I said about Duran. Duran was not a natural lightweight after he moved to welterweight, unless Hearns and Leonard were natural welterweights when they fought Hagler, then I will admit that Duran was natural at lightweight. Duran weighed in at the junior middleweight division in 1978 before Hearns ever did. And as stated by you or someone else in another post he supposedly weighed 200 pounds before the Leonard 2 fight, which means he could carry more weight in 1980 than Hearns could carry between fights before 1992. Very significant. Duran was not this little lightweight. This is proven. I am not sure why people want to make him this little lightweight. Maybe to give him credit for beating bigger guys, but all of the legends moved up and beat guys in higher divisions, with Hearns beating Virgil Hill as a really great accomplishment. Benitez moved up from 140 ( his first title weight) just one division above Duran's first title.

I will clarify what I said about Roberto Duran. Duran fought well enough in the higher weights to get credit for wins and beat guys who were mediocre/good like Moore and Barkley ,but when he moved up and fought the legends like Leonard or Hearns or Benitez or Hagler he lost. This is not a lie he did lose to them all. And we know how he lost to them. In the Leonard 2, Hearns and Benitez fights (the 3 fastest guys he ever fought) his excuse was he did not train. What more can you make out of that. He made excuses. But they won and he beat one them, but then losses and quits and the excuse is he was out of shape. But then Benitez beats him easily a little over a year later. Again he didn't train. Hearns beats him 2 years after that and he didn't train again. There is a pattern. The question I have is why didn't he train for the 3 quickest guys he ever fought? If he really did not train maybe he was smart enough to know he couldn't beat them, or he just made an excuse. My point about Roberto and the weight was that he handled the weight well, and when he lost the excuses were he did not train or that he was not a natural at the weight. But the fact is he never knocked out an ATG fighter at lightweight or above , and the one he did beat, then came back and beat him two times after that easily- with speed and foot movement, as did the other greats who fought him. All of them beat him with speed. Compare the first fight and the second fight and watch Ray's feet.

 

About James Toney fighting at 200 pounds in 1996 well he fought later at 200 pounds, so that speaks for itself. Duran fought at 154 in 1978 and later he fought at junior middleweight. So there is a connection between fighting earlier fights and later fights at certain weights. Toney and Duran both were comfortable enough to have early fights in the higher weights and later they fought there and won titles there. Duran never fought at 200 pounds, but he did fight at 154 in 1978. My point was that he was comfortable at the weight. I am not sure what Duran's highest fight weight is but I think it was about 176 in the late 90's near the time he fought his two Castro fights

 

Hagler had a good jab against shorter hookers, Hearns came to brawl so the jab wasnt a factor in that fight, but against faster taller rangy men who could jab like Minter, Leonard, Obelmejias Haglers jab wasnt his effective weapon. McCallums a better jabber, similarly rangy, better at use of distance and a better defense. So no chance of Hagler winning this with his jab

Hagler probably is more dynamic and the better inside/mid range worker. I see this as were he needs to take the fight, but McCallum is still going to hit him with counters and bodyshots on the inside

McCallum would most likely be Haglers hardet fight, 1 I see as a close battle that the bodysnatcher edges

 

Hagler's movement and range is on par with McCallum, i don't see him being outboxed. But then also, McCallum could definatley hold his own close range, he was brilliant on the inside. They're both incredibly tough and i see it going the distance. With Hagler scoring points on aggression, forcing the action and controlling the ring, keeping McCallum humble with his power. McCallum scoring points with the jab as Hagler closes in on him and on conservative accurate shots trading on the inside. I see it as mostly a close range war of attrition, with Hagler edging it.

 

That one win against Leonard was a stunning victory. If you can't see greatness in even that, then we have no reason to even try to find a middle ground.

A little historical perspective would help if you can acknowledge it. Tell us the last time that another natural lightweight defeated a natural welterweight. When you're done there, tell us the last time a natural lightweight defeated a middleweight champion.

By the way, with all due respect, you have a basic misunderstanding of what natural weight means.

Duran did not "comfortably carry" 200 lbs. He was a fatso, not a fighter. Toney did not comfortably carry 200 lbs, he was a fatso fighter who was not as effective as he was as a supermiddle. If you want to know where a fighter's natural weight is, I would suggest seeing what weight they fought at when they were 25 years old. Duran was a LW. Leonard a welterweight. Hearns a junior middle. Hagler a middleweight, Toney a supermiddle, and so on. That system works pretty well. Benitez was an exception. He was winding down fast at 25, though that was very impressive against Duran.

Gaining weight because of laziness or because there is money to be made or glory to be had against bigger men does not indicate some "amended version" of "natural weight."

So, his being a naturally smaller man, past-prime, fighting guys who were naturally bigger, faster, stronger, taller and in their physical primes means nothing? Duran fought Leonard at welterweight, Hearns at junior middle, and Hagler at middle when all three were at or near-prime. Means nothing, right?




Wrong.

There's always room for doubt with hypotheticals. McCallum had ALL the tools you'd want against Hearns. Have doubt that Hearns would beat him. Have plenty of it.

Duran did better.

I couldn't disagree more --with the reasoning, with the point, with every word in the post.

* Leonard was a natural ww whose defeat -however controversial- against Hagler was stunning.

* Hearns was a natural JMW. He got sparked by Hagler. By the way, he got KOd because Hagler was physically too strong, too durable, and Hearns made the understandable mistake of trying to bomb him out. Excuses? No. Reasons.

* I find it revealing that you call the Hearns win against Hill a "really great accomplishment" and wave off Duran's win against Barkley. Go take a look at the tale of the tape for that one. Barkley just destroyed Hearns in his previous fight. Duran managed a bit of vicarious revenge. Hearns got ruined by a fighter you yourself consider second-rate, but he gets a pass. Duran gets sparked by a prime, dragon-like Hearns in his natural division and you penalize Duran. Incredible.

This is a deceptive point. Benitez was 140 when he was a teenager. Duran's first title was LW, but he began as a superbantam. Neither were finished growing! Be careful with these double standards that are coming to the fore.

Duran had some glaring faults -his training habits and arrogant overestimation of himself among them. He could be stupid. But your position is just as untenable in its own way. Duran was in his thirties, easily the smallest of the Four, and had more fights before 1980 than Leonard, Hagler, and Hearns had over their whole career. His legs were never the same after that first fight against Leonard.

Excuses?

Nope.

Facts.

(And if it isn't, I want to see your 45 year old self on the basketball court outpivoting and outrunning those neighborhood kids to prove me wrong.)

 

you are making more out of the Duran first win of Ray than should be made historically. Duran had fought at welt. and above for 2 years prior to this and Ray was inexperienced and Duran won a fight Ray fought his fight. Simply how is that a very great win? It was a good win and it was a popular fight I remember myself it was all over the news. I think anyone who sees it objectively knows that the win is good but not great. And Duran couldn't stop Ray, and then he losses easily in the rematch when Ray fights his fight. Lightweight to welterweight is not that great a jump, especially to a guy whom you guys say could weigh in at 200 between fights and fought at 154 in 1978. Jones moved up from 154 all the way to heavweight. Hearns from welterweight to lightheavyweight and beat a not inexperienced undefeated champion in Virgil Hill. Whitaker moved up successfully. Spinks won the heavyweight title and won two times, not just once. And that was a real jump, not 2 divisions for a guy who was walking around high in weight. Duran beating Ray was not a little guy beating a small guy. That point is made by Duran fans to try and make the accomplishment more than it was. Ray fought his fight and lost, but he won the rematch and rubbermatch easily. Very easily. Watch the fights and compare Ray's foot movement in fight one and two. Big difference and it was everything.

 

No offence taken on you saying I do not understand weights. Actually I have a good understanding of weights in relation to reality of good and bad wins and significance. What I disagree with is overexxagerating certain wins to be greater than they were. Duran grew out of the lightweight division and fought Leonard who had a great name but was inexperienced, and he admitted to fighting Duran's fight. Winning a gold does not make a guy experienced. Even saying he fought his fight and that "I almost beat him at his own game". So that comes from one of the participants mouths, not mine. Everything I say is from Ray or Roberto and the facts. Again look at Ray's feet in the first and second fight. That is the key. Not Roberto. Same as Wilfred and Tommy were the keys to Roberto losing, not Roberto. I tell anyone. Go look at fight one and two side by side if you can and watch Ray's feet.


You put Hearns as a junior middleweight just because you want him there. You have to follow your own criteria if you are going to argue points for Duran on it. I think anyway, since otherwise the facts go all over the place. Fact is if Duran won his first title at 135 and he is naturally a lightweight, then Hearns and Leonard and naturally welterweights and Benitez naturally a junior middleweight. The only middleweight was Hagler. The rules cannot change for Duran just for him to benefit from the wording.

Leonards win over Hagler was good. I did not say it was not. If Hagler were Duran, Leonard would not be given any credit for the win since people would say Duran was out of shape or overtrained or did not fight for a year. Duran gets considerations other fighters do not. As for Hearns and Hagler. Yeah Hagler knocked him out. No excuses. What I say about that fight is that it was unique and that any two fighters fight that fight in round one, someone is going to be stopped in a few rounds. That fight was not the usual fight for either guy. But it definitly favored Marvin. Tommy got a bit too cocky from stopping Duran is all I can think and believed he would stop Hagler. But the Hearns prior to Hagler who stayed at 154 for awhile and was good at the weight I think would outbox McCallum. The Hearns who moved up to middleweight and went to 154 to fight Medal and then up to 175 and back to middleweight might have big problems since that is when he started to struggle, when he did not make a good home at one weight. The pre-1986 Hearns at 154 i think outboxes McCallum UD. Look at his pre Hagler record at 154. Wins over Benitez and Duran-two champs at the division.

 

starting at bantamweight and Benitez not does not mean much to me. Each person grows differently and matures at that age differently. Growth spurts and all that. Fact is Benitez won is title at 140 5 pounds above where Duran won his first title.
That last comment is the comment Duran fans want to use to say little old Duran had no chance against these great legends of the 1980s. Yet then people will say he beat Moore and Barkley (who beat Hearns). So his fans want to give him credit for the 1980's and beating a guy who beat Hearns, but when people say he lost to all the legends he becomes old and sloppy and out of shape-just like that he becomes this old guy. He was only 29 when he fought Ray in 1980 both times. He fought another 21 years. Legs were done in 1980? Come on. That is stretch. When he had the right fighter in front of him who did not move he looked great at lightweight and above. Duran's career was 34 years. Hearns fought Duran in Duran's 17th year. If you look at the career, he fought Hearns in the first half of his career. Believe it or not. He fought another 35 times and 17 years. Not exactly proof of a shot fighter. My point is if Duran is top 10 ATG he should have beaten Ray in the rematch and then beaten Benitez and Hearns at 154. Hagler would have been a nice icing on the cake. But he lost to them all. So I think he warrants top 25. I don't think my post is disrespectful to Duran, I am just trying to honest. I always believed that if you put Duran in with a guy like Tyson, if Duran could take the punch he could beat him. Give Duran a guy who stands in front of him he does great, but give him a mover and he does not. One guy who he would not have beaten at 160 is Olajide. Just on style Olajide moving around would have been terrible for Duran. Yeah Olajide, a guy who barely beat Dennis Milton. My point? Duran was great but a little overrated. It happens. I think his machismo and charisma give him ATG ranking points, and Tommy is underrated because he did not have that outgoing personality to really catch people's attention.

 

Towing the party line, I see. The idea that Leonard fought "Duran's fight" is good in hindsight, nothing more.

Duran's faults were on display in the 2nd and 3rd bouts. I've always conceded that. But if you honestly believe that he was the same fighting machine for II and III that he was in Montreal then there really is nothing more to discuss here.

Twelve pounds is a considerable jump, MAG. Again, if it is "no big deal," then tell me when the last time another natural LW dethroned a natural WW before Duran. I'm still waiting.

By the way, by your own standards (which I don't believe are sensible), Duran had a span of 57 pounds. That's more than Hearns. Speak to that.

 

Your wisdom is wasted on MAG, "ye cast pearls amoungst swine"

Anyone that spews out that old tosh that SRL was inexperienced can not be taken seriously

 

Wrong. Duran did not grow out of the lightweight division. He ate himself out of the division, and that is a basic fact that you are twisting to your own ends here. Duran was fully grown when he stepped up to the welterweights, over-the-weight bouts are not what you think they are.

Sounds like you are making what you define as "excuses" on Leonard's behalf! At the very least you are towing the party line.

Keep an open-mind and reconsider what the press had everyone believing all these years.

Here's a quote from a recent article:

"MYTHS
Duran’s strategy was drilled into him. He was instructed to be elusive against the jab, close the distance, crowd Leonard, and hammer the body. Leonard’s aggressive strategy was not expected. It made things more not less difficult to cope with for precisely the reasons that Dundee had alluded to –good little guys don’t beat good big guys. “In this fight, Duran’s not the puncher,” he added, “my guy is.” Their respective knockout percentages over their previous five fights confirmed this: Duran’s was 40%, Leonard’s was 100%. Leonard stated that he planned on “standing and fighting more than expected.” “They all think I’m going to run. I’m not,” he said to New York Magazine, “I’m not changing my style at all… he’ll be beaten to the punch…those are the facts,” he continued, “What’s going to beat Roberto Duran is Sugar Ray Leonard.”

Dundee substantiated this in his autobiography. Leonard’s strategy became certain from the moment that he watched the films and deconstructed Duran’s style. Duran, he said, was a “heel-to-toe guy. He takes two steps to get to you. So the idea was not to give him those two steps, not to move too far away because the more distance you gave him, the more effective he was. What you can’t do in the face of Duran’s aggression was run from it, because then he picks up momentum. My guy wasn’t going to run from him.”

So there you have it.

Leonard’s strategy in Montreal was deliberate, and sound. After the fight, Dundee and Leonard revised history and a willing press has gone along with it ever since. We’ve been spoon-fed a fable that has long since crystallized into orthodox boxing lore. It is the archetypal image of the Latin bully who “tricked” the All-American Hero into an alley fight, and it sprang from the idea that Leonard “did not fight his fight” because Duran challenged his masculinity. The problem is that it is at complete odds with statements made by Leonard and Dundee about Leonard’s clear physical advantages and the strategy that would be formed around those advantages. It contradicts Dundee’s earlier statements about Duran’s high level of skill and it contradicts statements that both had made immediately after the bout –before they had time to think about posterity: “You’ve got to give credit to Duran,” Dundee told journalists, “he makes you fight his fight.” When asked why he fought Duran’s fight, Leonard said he had “no alternative.”

Since then, Leonard’s loss to Duran has been cleverly spun, re-packaged, and sold at a reduced price. It’s time to find our receipt and exchange a fable for the facts...."

No one is disputing that Duran was defeated by those three men. There are no asterisks beside those "L"s.

However, in my opinion, you have a clear bias against Duran because of his apologists and because of his character flaws -to wit, his excuses. You are hung-up on him personally and it colors your ability to recognize that the man for what he was, an all-time great.

What are you going on about? My own criteria was followed. Hearns was no longer a WW at 25. In fact, after 1981, Hearns was never again a WW. You are plainly guilty of confused reasoning. Natural weight divisions are determined by what weight they got their first title in? That's a bit naive if you know boxing politics and history.

"Duran gets considerations that other fighters do not." Come on. This new party of Duran detractors have to stop the hand-wringing. Duran has paid more of a price for his character flaws than any fighter alive -especially the great ones. All of his accomplishments are eclipsed by two words to the whole world.

...which is why I believe that 154 was his natural and best weight.

 

If you say Duran weighed 200 pounds between fights one and two and then say 12 pounds is a lot as far as weighing in when he went as to 154 as far back as 1978, I would say not really, but I do not say Duran fought at 200 pounds. Duran was fine at the weight and looked good at welterweight. Whether he was out of shape and didn't train later is his fault, but to say he was a small fighter at 147 and 154 is not true. Duran certainly looked better than Oscar did against Sturm in most of his fights, to use another example of a fighter moving up. I think the first fight with Ray is making a win more than it was. It was good, but not a great win. Had he made the Leonard who fought Hearns in 81 fight like that then it would have been great. Ray learned the whole game, sort of similar to how Hearns learned how to hold. It does help a person be a great fighter to know the mental/physical and emotional aspect of the game as Leonard always said.