ATG: Who Ranks Higher? Tommy Hearns or Floyd Mayweather Jr.

*except Mike McCallum 1984-1987

 

There was perhaps a single window of realistic opportunity for that fight to come off, when McCallum was a virtual unknown. Hearns faced Duran and then Hagler instead.

If anyone wants to complain about that, they're welcome to cry into the abyss.

While this might be true, it's difficult for posters on this forum to avoid all the facts and opinions, isn't it? How could they, when there's always someone here to point out the resume weaknesses of the other side?

This is when and where unique circumstances, of such cases get discussed and taken into consideration. Oftentimes there's a sensible reason. See above.


So, what challenges did Mayweather face, as alternatives to the opponents, whom some people allege he missed or watched gathering ring-wear, over a period of years, before deciding to offer them a fight?


As I've alluded to earlier, it's all a matter of a 'point of view' - a qualitative, as well as quantitative assessment. However, there are fairly clear points of distinction that can be made between ledgers, in respect of their completeness.

Whether it's all about opinions or not, some assessments are just better than others.

 

I am not too sure on Hearns ducking Mc Callum but I do agree with your more general point that it is easy to take apart anybody's resume. Also on the fact that Hearns defeats against Barkley are a black mark on his record. That is why he does not make the Top 30 ATG in my opinion.Unfortunately, Tommy could not avenge that Barkley defeat although he gave a great effort in that fight

 

1. An IV is retroactively granted for dehydration and related conditions. Because the condition is acute and not chronic, the TUE is formally given after administration. Floyd’s camp knew that when the IV was given.
2. Betamethasone aka Celestone is not a painkiller. It is a corticosteroid that inhibits inflammation. Manny took it to prevent inflammation in his shoulder rather than have surgery. The reason it is a PED is that it shortens recovery time significantly, allowing a fighter to train harder and more frequently.

 

Of course some assessments are better.

But the reality is, better is often determined by who one is a fan of.

 

Ducking is actually a strong word tbh.

But, imo, a champion should offer his top challenger a fight. If he doesn't, he's ducking him.

Imo a challenger should accept the offer he's been given for a fight, if he doesn't then he's ducking him.

Hearns as the champ should have faced McCallum. But I don't really hold it against him, I'm using it as an example for those who seem to believe Floyd is the only fighter to fail to make a big fight.

As for Hearns. I actually have him number 20.

Whilst Barkley is a black mark he was the only none great to defeat Hearns at his best so it could just be that he had his number. Even in the rematch, Hearns started strong but Barkley hurt him and momentum shifted in his favour.

 

We could go around the houses with this all day.

In my opinion, the use of an IV, which had not been declared in advance and required a retroactive TUE to be granted, in order to avoid repercussions; was administered at home and not under clinical supervision, is much more suspicious than the use of a fairly innocuous anti-inflammatory, which was administered in conjunction with other substances applied to 'kill pain', as well as promote healing - and was declared in advance.

Split hairs and make comparisons all you like. Mayweather was having his backside kissed for ushering in 'Olympic Style Testing' (as if) and then found to be breaking the very rules he'd been responsible for putting in place. Mayweather's connection to USADA and the manner in which promoters became paid clients of a testing organization - effectively, side-stepping the State Athletic Commission - is the fly in the ointment.

Throw in the fact that Mayweather was found to have broken the rules and it kind of confirms that the whole thing was a paid for masquerade.

 

'Better' is determined by the facts and sound reasoning.

 

Maybe I’m not being clear here.

If you’re dehydrated and require an IV, it has to be treated immediately or you can go downhill fast/**** blood/fight will be cancelled, etc. The existence of a retroactive TUE is for that reason. It cannot wait until the next day.

Mayweather and Pac both played the TUE game and I think it ultimately had little impact on the outcome of the fight, which was predictable.

 

Tommy.

Multiple division champ when it meant something, and laid Roberto Duran OUT COLD (NOBODY did that).

Floyd hasn't got a win like that.

Floyd's career post 2007 is smoke & mirrors laced with controversy.

 

No it's not.

Facts are manipulated to suit the reasoning of the person arguing.

For example: the fact is Hearns and McCallum never fought.

Person A: McCallum called him out multiple times, they were ranked in the same division from 1982 to 1987. Hearns could have fought him at any point during those 5 years.

Person B: During the same time frame he fought Benitez, Duran and Hagler and only spent a portion of the time in the LMW division.

Both guys make sound arguments. Both guys are using the same fact. Both guys are coming at from a perspective of either trying to pick holes or trying to defend.

Both guys would probably argue the opposite argument if a boxer they liked/disliked was in the opposite situation.

 

When it meant something?

This was the same era Leonard fought Lalonde for the SMW/LHW belt.

 

A 3 time champ back then was a big thing.

 

But back then was the same watered down multi belt era we have now.

Fighting Lalonde should not increase your divisional total by 2.

 

No. I think it's you, who is having a problem with understanding the rules.

If you need only he dehydrated to require an IV then perhaps they should be administered to all boxers, post-weigh-in, as standard.

Who determined that Mayweather's dehydration required an IV? Was it administered in hospital? Was Mayweather undergoing a surgical procedure or was some other clinical investigation necessary?

He broke the rules, period.

Perhaps, but you can't possibly know that. It just suits your outlook.