Duran vs Mayweather or Pacquiao

[Cojimar 1946]

Also, with regards to Mayweather, his failure to fight Pacquiao earlier is an issue but he has faced numerous other top fighters. Even if the public is unhappy about it I don't know if failure to face one guy is a huge mark on his legacy. If Leonard gets a pass for not fighting McCallum than why wouldn't people overlook Mayweather not fighting Pacquiao?

[Ambling Alp II]

Leonard gets a "free pass" because he was not in his prime at the same time as McCallum.
Mayweather beat some good fighters, never beat a great fighter near his prime. He also was outboxed by the legendary Castillo only to have the judges bail him out.

Hearns, Duran, Benitez for that matter had wins over great fighters close their primes. They all many wins over good fighters as well.

[Tuan_Jim]

The public has been crying out for Mayweather to fight Pacquiao for years.

Cojimar, can you point to us the period when there was even a vague tremor of public demand for Sugar Ray Leonard to box Mike McCallum? I'll answer for you. No, you can't.

As for your other points, if Mayweather got stretched tomorrow by Golovkin you'd say, 'ah well, he isn't a middleweight.' And yet Hearns losing at middle to a banger like Barkley, and even later at light heavy, is a blot on his career? You're having to skewer far too many facts to defend Floyd Mayweather's cowardly career decisions, which shows how silly your argument is.

[IKSRTFO]

Also, with regards to Mayweather, his failure to fight Pacquiao earlier is an issue but he has faced numerous other top fighters. Even if the public is unhappy about it I don't know if failure to face one guy is a huge mark on his legacy. If Leonard gets a pass for not fighting McCallum than why wouldn't people overlook Mayweather not fighting Pacquiao?

Because Leonard beat Hagler, a better fighter than McCallum. Mayweather has not beat a better fighter than Pacquiao.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't see public demand as being terribly important in assessing a fighters legacy. Part of being a great fighter is fighting your best contemporaries. McCallum was clearly one of the best fighters of that era and someone Leonard should have fought. In the mid-late 80s through early 90s McCallum was clearly one the best fighters fighting at junior middleweight and middleweight.

Mayweather easily beat Marquez who knocked out Pacquiao. Pacquiao's failure to get the better of Marquez makes a match with Mayweather somewhat less attractive.

[Cojimar 1946]

As far as Hagler goes, he may have been better than McCallum (though its not clear to me on a H2H basis) but by 1987 he seems to have been past his best. McCallum may well have been better than that version of Hagler even if we rate Hagler higher overall.

[Tuan_Jim]

I don't see public demand as being terribly important in assessing a fighters legacy. Part of being a great fighter is fighting your best contemporaries.

Which Leonard did. McCallum became champ when Leonard was retired with retina problems. When McCallum moved up to middle and lost, Leonard was already gone, having beaten the top man at middle.

Keep groping for those straws though.

Mayweather easily beat Marquez who knocked out Pacquiao. Pacquiao's failure to get the better of Marquez makes a match with Mayweather somewhat less attractive.

Pacman had peaked by the time Marquez KOd him, which is the crux of the whole argument. Mayweather avoided Pac in his prime. That should draw criticism from you, given your supposed insistence that great fighters fight their best contemporaries, but you choose to ignore this with Mayweather while pulling as many unreasonable names out of the woodwork as possible for Leonard - who actually did what you demand greats do.

You're either extremely bigoted or extremely dim witted, whatever it is your stance is nonsense and it's worthless debating with you.

[dempseyfire]

Really?

Lets say Pacquiao wins. Nobody is going to say point out that he beat a 38 year old?

Lets say Mayweather wins. Nobody is going to point out that he beat a 36 year old who was in his 65th fight, with a ton of ring wars?

This fight needed to be at least 4 years ago to mean much. It's a payday, nothing more.

I disagree, on the basis that both are still ruling the welterweight roost. Lewis-Tyson was some time ago but i think it was plainly obvious Tyson was completely washed up long before Lewis got to him. Floyd & Pac on the other hand are still rated #1 & #2 by most having eased to wins over Canelo & Bradley who are among the best of the rest.

As for the Duran question, it's tough to say. When i think of SRL winding up bolo-feints i tend to think Mayweather would clown Duran, but Duran finding the pocket like Cotto or Maidana did is probably going to bust Floyd up real bad. As for Pacquaio, again tough to say, the Pacquiao that stopped Barrera would be 1 hell of a fight against Duran but if the fight got hot and leather was swapped I could see Pacquaio coming off worse.

But that's just it, an awful lot of people did not think Tyson was washed up going into the fight. He was considered past his best, but still having a lot left. We kept hearing from many people how he would knockout the "glass jaw" Lewis. Many people thought that he would knockout Lewis. It was only after the fight, that so many people were saying that Tyson was washed up.

This is going to happen with Pacquaio and Mayweather. They aren't washed up, but they aren't a their best either. Historically, people will look back at this fight and say the loser was past it. Down the road, it will not be that important when rating these fighters.

That's not true; sure celebrities and people who didn't know boxing thought Tyson had a chance, but there was a pretty unanimous opinion among boxing scribes that Tyson was washed up and Lewis would win, with a couple of outliers.

[dempseyfire]

I don't see public demand as being terribly important in assessing a fighters legacy. Part of being a great fighter is fighting your best contemporaries.

Which Leonard did. McCallum became champ when Leonard was retired with retina problems. When McCallum moved up to middle and lost, Leonard was already gone, having beaten the top man at middle.

Keep groping for those straws though.

Mayweather easily beat Marquez who knocked out Pacquiao. Pacquiao's failure to get the better of Marquez makes a match with Mayweather somewhat less attractive.

Pacman had peaked by the time Marquez KOd him, which is the crux of the whole argument. Mayweather avoided Pac in his prime. That should draw criticism from you, given your supposed insistence that great fighters fight their best contemporaries, but you choose to ignore this with Mayweather while pulling as many unreasonable names out of the woodwork as possible for Leonard - who actually did what you demand greats do.

You're either extremely bigoted or extremely dim witted, whatever it is your stance is nonsense and it's worthless debating with you.

Manny's peak ended with the Margarito fight IMO. Since Mosley it's been clear he's slipped physically, especially his footspeed.

[Cojimar 1946]

Mayweather was active from 1987 through 1989 and at that time McCallum was fighting anywhere from 153 up to 171 according to boxrec. A fight could have been made during that time period as they were fighting at around the same weight. Likewise, fights with Kalambay and Nunn could have been made around that time. McCallum himself might not be quite such a big deal if he had fought and beaten guys like Nunn and Kalambay but he didn't face any of them.

[Cojimar 1946]

With regards to Pacquiao, the second and third fights with Marquez are generally regarded as competitive, close fights that could have gone either way. Do people feel Pacquiao was past it by the time of the second fight in 2008? Many people seem to believe that Marquez won that fight. Out of curiosity, how did people score the first three fights?

[Ambling Alp II]

Mayweather was active from 1987 through 1989 and at that time McCallum was fighting anywhere from 153 up to 171 according to boxrec. A fight could have been made during that time period as they were fighting at around the same weight. Likewise, fights with Kalambay and Nunn could have been made around that time. McCallum himself might not be quite such a big deal if he had fought and beaten guys like Nunn and Kalambay but he didn't face any of them.

Leonard's prime was 1979-1982. Those guys weren't in the picture then. He was not obliged to fight anyone after that.

[Ambling Alp II]

dempseyfire-I remember this vividly. There were an awful lot of people who thought Tyson would beat Lewis. Not just celebrities. So called experts and fight fans as well.

[Cojimar 1946]

Isn't longevity important when ranking fighters? If his prime really only lasted from 1979-82 wouldn't that hurt him in comparison to guys whose primes were 3x longer or so?

Moreover, if we are going to argue that Leonard's prime was only from 1979 to 82 then can't we use similar arguments in favor of other fighters. For example, Holyfield was past his prime against Bowe, Tyson was past his prime against Holyfield, Frazier was past it against Foreman.

[Cojimar 1946]

For people who actually believe that Leonard's prime was from 1979-82 do you think it's fair to totally disregard Frazier's losses due to him being past it? Would this greatly increase his rankings among heavyweights? He would have numerous good wins and be undefeated had he retired pre-Foreman.

Likewise, Tyson would only have the Douglas loss if we argue that he was past it when he fought Holyfield.

[Ambling Alp II]

Isn't longevity important when ranking fighters? If his prime really only lasted from 1979-82 wouldn't that hurt him in comparison to guys whose primes were 3x longer or so?

Moreover, if we are going to argue that Leonard's prime was only from 1979 to 82 then can't we use similar arguments in favor of other fighters. For example, Holyfield was past his prime against Bowe, Tyson was past his prime against Holyfield, Frazier was past it against Foreman.

He did more in that period of time than almost ever other fighters does in his whole career.
As for your examples:
Holyfield was not past his prime against Bowe in their first tow fights.
Tyson was closer to his prime than Holyfield was to his when the fought and he still lost.
Frazier was not past it for the first Foreman fight.
So all of those fights count.

[dempseyfire]

With regards to Pacquiao, the second and third fights with Marquez are generally regarded as competitive, close fights that could have gone either way. Do people feel Pacquiao was past it by the time of the second fight in 2008? Many people seem to believe that Marquez won that fight. Out of curiosity, how did people score the first three fights?

The rematch is practically always scored as a 1-2 pt fight either way. Very close.

Not so with the rubber match; a majority had Pac losing. I thought Marquez was a clear winner, and I scored the first two fights for Manny.

[IKSRTFO]

As far as Hagler goes, he may have been better than McCallum (though its not clear to me on a H2H basis) but by 1987 he seems to have been past his best. McCallum may well have been better than that version of Hagler even if we rate Hagler higher overall.

And Leonard was past his best in 87 also. But Leonard fought Duran, Hearns, and Benetiz in their primes. What level of fighter has Floyd beaten in their prime to be considered better than Leonard? Corrales? Alvarez?

[Tuan_Jim]

Gentleman, you're trying to educate a dunce. He thinks Mike McCallum boxing an over-the-weight bout against a journeyman at 168 or 175 means he's a live qualified contender in those divisions. He thinks Sugar Ray Leonard's peak being cut short by a detached retina influences the careers of Joe Frazier and Evander Holyfield.

How many posts does this imbecile has to make before you abandon him as a lost cause?

[Cojimar 1946]

I think you could make a good case that Frazier was past it by 1973. His prime seems to have been 1967-71 or thereabouts. Reasonable people can disagree but it certainly seems plausible that he had deteriorated somewhat. He doesn't have many good wins following the Foreman fight.

With regards to Tyson-Holyfield, how can we be sure that Holyfield was farther past his best than Tyson? Tyson's best wins virtually all date from 1986-1991 whereas Holyfield beat Bowe in 1993, Tyson in 1996, Moorer in 1997, and would go on to defeat John Ruiz and Hasim Rahman who were all highly ranked when he beat them. Tyson's best win post-Holyfield is probably Francois Botha which is less impressive than Holyfield's best wins. It's possible that Holyfield was farther past his best but I'm wondering what evidence there is of this.

[Cojimar 1946]

As far as weight goes, Leonard had never fought at middleweight prior to facing Hagler. His lack of prior success at the weight did not stop the fight from being made.

[Ambling Alp II]

Tuan_jim may be right; this may be a lost cause. However, I will give it a go.
Frazier was 29 when fought Foreman. He was not old. He only had 29 fights. He did not have a lot of wear and tear. He clearly was not past his prime when he fought Foreman.
People can make the usual crybaby excuses that Frazier has lost the fire or wasn't mentally ready. However, those are simply lame excuses.

Holyfield was 34 when he fought Tyson. Tyson was only 30. That is a significant difference. Holyfield also had a lot of wear and tear being in a lot of tough fights before the Tyson fight. Neither were in their prime but Tyson was clearly closer to his than Holyfield was to his.

One of the many mistakes you are making is taking way too much consideration at what happened after the fight in question and not enough in the latest fights prior to the fight in question.

Not even sure what the point about Leonard's weight is. His lack of prior success at middleweight was because he wasn't a middleweight. However, that he was not used to fighting at middleweight is just more evidence what a great achievement it was in beating Hagler.

I'm about at the end of my patience as well. You are losing credibility with the McCallum nonsense as well.

[misterpunch]

oh dear! yet another poster who has the mike mccallum disease. bodysnatchitus alltimegreatitus - that's the medical term for it

the pac-money fest doesn't interest me as a true boxing contest

duran beats both pac and money

[Cojimar 1946]

My major point with regards to Mayweather is that there seems to be a double standard at play. There are virtually no fighters who faced everyone they could have. People are understandably upset that he did not fight Pacquiao earlier. However, this kind of argument could be used against anyone. Mayweather has beaten many of the top fighters of his era like Cotto, Castillo, Corrales, Marquez, and Mosley.

[Cojimar 1946]

As far as McCallum being an all time great I'm not sure, I mean he didn't have the privilege of getting blasted out by Iran Barkley in his prime and obviously this hurts him.