Hearns ranks way higher what an idiotic topic. Hearns went out of his to fight the best , win or lose and he won more often than not. May weather a little ***** who dodged tough guys to protect his fake record. PlusHearns ranks higher for his incredible skills and lethal power
And Floyd had one for an IV, which is why I mentioned it. An IV is not a PED, however. Manny's TUE is also a reason to not take his shoulder excuse seriously.
No, use of an IV is a prohibited method, for a variety of reasons. Floyd's TUE was granted retroactively and some significant time, after the fact. That's a lazy analysis of the situation, in order to jump to a conclusion that favors your bias. So, because he was already taking painkillers, what? The condition couldn't have worsened? Something new couldn't have arisen? If anything, it tells us there was a problem to begin with, which a committee deemed worthy of a TUE.
I'll say it again for a third time. What does affect it is Pac being past prime, but then again Floyd was also past prime. I don't give Floyd a pass for being injured against Castillo neither. Nor do I give Haye a pass for being injured against Wlad. Crying injury means zero to me. I'm pretty sure everyone is on PEDS so individual accusations mean nothing to me neither.
I don't think anyone can fault Hearns or any of the fab 4 from not fighting the best when they could. Mike McCallum? I remember it was talked about by Mike at times, but not much else in the 1980s. It was not a huge fight since Tommy had guys to fight and Mike was always in another division. He was a bit behind Hearns and Leonard and Duran and Hagler, and Benitez in timing. They had each other to fight. He wanted to crash the party by beating whom? Curry? Perhaps, but most people thought Donald was still reeling from his loss to Honeyghan, which is probably true the way that fight transpired a little. I read onetime that Mike told Hagler at one of the Hall of Fame dinners that how could he say he respected him when he didn't fight him to put food in his mouth. Something like that. This was after Hagler said he respected Mike when he was seated next to him. Mike said Hagler looked at him confused, and I can see why. Hagler retired before Mike fought Kalambay. It was not talked about. Mike always had a bit of a chip on his shoulder in regards to the fab 4. They had guys to fight. So beat all the guys you fight like Kalambay and Toney and guys like that, and you will have your legacy. And he does have a great legacy. He does not have the legacy of the fab 4, but things are not fair sometimes. They came up and fought each other. And he lost the first time to Kalambay.. and never beat Toney. And Floyd is undefeated but he never fought the big challenges when he could. No prime guy when he was prime. No big guess about who would win. He was always favored as far as I see it. How does that match any of the fab 4 who were known to fight each other?
And Hearns and Duran fight should have been a unification. And I think when Hearns and Duran fought, Medal was the champ at IBF. And Tommy beat him in 1986. So in reality, he was unified if you go by the Hearns vs. Duran fight and both being champs since Duran never lost the WBA title in the ring. They can strip Duran for not fighting Mike but in reality does that really take away the fact he was champion of the WBA? The fact is Roberto and Tommy also wanted money. They could earn much more fighting each other than fighting Mike, and yet the money they earned in 1984 was not what Floyd or others would win later. , Tommy and Roberto fought the best and still didn't earn the ridiculous amounts Floyd did for fighting much much much less quality guys. How much did Floyd earn for Conor McGregor? Let me look that up.. 275 million for Floyd in the end and Conor 85 million.. Prior to the fight it was guaranteed 100 million Floyd and 30 million Conor. Ok, how much did Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns get in 1984 when they fought? 1,850,000 each. 1.8 million each to legends compared to what Floyd got with Conor. Floyd sacrified fighting the best for money and knew how to do it. He was brilliant, but he will never be said to have fought the best when he could have. I do like the fact that Hearns and Duran got the same amount in that fight if that is true.
I think Hearns being top 20 I will take even though some might put him in the top 25 or 30 more than top 20, but Floyd top 10 no way. We know where to rank Hearns more than we do Floyd because he fought everyone he could. Floyd is top 10 for what? That is such a lofty place. I don't see how someone who fought defensively inside and outside of the ring is ranked that high. He needed more in the ring. He is top 10 earner and handpicking at the right time, but fighter? I don't see it.
That's where you're wrong though, everyone can have holes picked in their resume, it's just people only pick the holes in the resumes of the fighters they dislike. McCallum and Hearns were the best two LMW fighters in the world and Hearns never fought him despite Mike consistently calling him out. Every one has fighters they didn't face, but people highlight it for certain men and not others. For me Hearns is an ATG. He was second best only to Leonard as a WW, I strongly believe in any division not ruled by a a Sugar Ray he's a dominant champion. He's probably the best ever LMW champion in history, but never faced what would perhaps have been his sternest test. At MW his loss to Hagler is legendary, his loss the Barkley is troubling. From 1980 - 1992 he had been the top ranked fighter at LMW, MW, SMW and LHW and the only knock on his resume is Iran Barkley x2. The guy is a legend and a bona-fide, but just like anyone else (Floyd in this instance) he can have his resume and legacy picked apart.
