Playing the Devil's Advocate for the Great Mike McCallum?

[Onetimeonly]

Cervantes said he called Duran and asked for a fight and Roberto said no. Antonio's manager said Duran didn't want to fight him.

There's a tape when Duran was on all Cervantes' face after Cervantes beat Esteban De Jesus in Panama. He even wanted to fight him for free if it was possible.

Nonsense, Cervantes called him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Cervantes said he called Duran and asked for a fight and Roberto said no. Antonio's manager said Duran didn't want to fight him.

There's a tape when Duran was on all Cervantes' face after Cervantes beat Esteban De Jesus in Panama. He even wanted to fight him for free if it was possible.

That is damning evidence. A fighter said he wanted to fight another fighter. That automatically means that he really wanted to. I guess Duran really wanted to fight Cervantes, and for free! Obviously Cervantes was chicken.

Oh wait, but there was a phone call from Cervantes, and Duran declined!!!

Maybe at one time, Cervantes was a chicken. But then he was not a chicken anymore. Then later Duran was a chicken.
That must be how it all went down.

[Onetimeonly]

There's a tape when Duran was on all Cervantes' face after Cervantes beat Esteban De Jesus in Panama. He even wanted to fight him for free if it was possible.

That is damning evidence. A fighter said he wanted to fight another fighter. That automatically means that he really wanted to. I guess Duran really wanted to fight Cervantes, and for free! Obviously Cervantes was chicken.

Oh wait, but there was a phone call from Cervantes, and Duran declined!!!

Maybe at one time, Cervantes was a chicken. But then he was not a chicken anymore. Then later Duran was a chicken.
That must be how it all went down.

It was easy for Duran to play machismo after Cervantes had already fought 15 RDS. When Antonio called him man to man, and I know this happened because an old man told me in a south beach bar, Duran was not up to the challenge!!!! Case closed

[Onetimeonly]

Duran flunked at making big fights at 140. Why couldn't he fight Cervantes instead of dozens of non title fights against bums? Why not Cervantes instead of Monroe Brooks? Dint even get me started on pedroza ducking Ruben Castillo! Castillo sent him a singing telegram!!!!!!!

[oogiebe]

Duran flunked at making big fights at 140. Why couldn't he fight Cervantes instead of dozens of non title fights against bums? Why not Cervantes instead of Monroe Brooks? Dint even get me started on pedroza ducking Ruben Castillo! Castillo sent him a singing telegram!!!!!!!

Didn't he fight Brooks at welter?

[Onetimeonly]

Duran flunked at making big fights at 140. Why couldn't he fight Cervantes instead of dozens of non title fights against bums? Why not Cervantes instead of Monroe Brooks? Dint even get me started on pedroza ducking Ruben Castillo! Castillo sent him a singing telegram!!!!!!!

Didn't he fight Brooks at welter?

He wouldn't fight Brooks at 140 either, Cervantes didn't care about the weight. He just wanted the fight. Duran flunked.

[oogiebe]

Didn't he fight Brooks at welter?

He wouldn't fight Brooks at 140 either, Cervantes didn't care about the weight. He just wanted the fight. Duran flunked.

He did fight a bunch of tomato cans during that time after DeJesus.

[Onetimeonly]

He wouldn't fight Brooks at 140 either, Cervantes didn't care about the weight. He just wanted the fight. Duran flunked.

He did fight a bunch of tomato cans during that time after DeJesus.

All during his reign, Jr welterweights called him and he wouldnt answer. Cervantes was a 15rd fighter, after 7 RDS Duran's ko% was a paltry 20%!

[Onetimeonly]

Besides Leonard once and barkkey Duran flunked every challenge above 135. FLUNKED!!! His biggest fights ever were Leonard, hearns, hagler and benitez. Let me tell you 20% , ironically the same ko percentage after 7, on any test is a FLUNKING grade! Maybe Roberto knew he couldn't handle guys his own size?

[elmersalsa]

Didn't he fight Brooks at welter?

He wouldn't fight Brooks at 140 either, Cervantes didn't care about the weight. He just wanted the fight. Duran flunked.

[Wee Tommy]

Besides Leonard once and barkkey Duran flunked every challenge above 135. FLUNKED!!! His biggest fights ever were Leonard, hearns, hagler and benitez. Let me tell you 20% , ironically the same ko percentage after 7, on any test is a FLUNKING grade! Maybe Roberto knew he couldn't handle guys his own size?

I thought Elmo jacked your account!

[Onetimeonly]

Besides Leonard once and barkkey Duran flunked every challenge above 135. FLUNKED!!! His biggest fights ever were Leonard, hearns, hagler and benitez. Let me tell you 20% , ironically the same ko percentage after 7, on any test is a FLUNKING grade! Maybe Roberto knew he couldn't handle guys his own size?

I thought Elmo jacked your account!

Tommy lost his two biggest and he pays for it BIG TIME! 5 out of 6 has to be worse. That is criteria. Lmao

[Cojimar 1946]

I agree Moore and Griffith were great fighters. They fought a lot of quality of opponents. They usually won. (Though Griffith got the benefit of the doubt by the judges about a billion times.)

My main point is that Griffith and Moore did not "clean out the division". Nobody ever does.
The guys that I mentioned were not all time greats. But they were good fighters. And they were contenders for several years. And Moore and Griffith probably would have beaten. them. But they didn't.

Hearns didn't beat as many quality fighters as them. However, this is a guy that fought Benitez, Duran, Leonard, and Hagler. Not to mention people like Cuevas, Hill, several other solid fighters. Of all the people to rip for not fighting someone, it's silly to pick on Thomas Hearns.

Say you are the champ. You want to beat all the top 10 contenders. Let's say, somehow, someway, you managed to schedule 5 of them in a year, then 5 the next year. You beat them all. (This has never been close to happening, btw.)

You have now "cleaned out he division", right? No. There are now new fighters who are now contenders. If you retire, then it's why didn't you fight the new guys?

If you can't clean out an entire division you can at the very least focus on fighting the best opponents available. Griffith, Moore largely did that. The guys they didn't fight appear not to have gotten fights because they lost again and again to guys Griffith and Moore ended up fighting instead. Essentially they kept losing the eliminators.

As far as Hearns go, there are plenty of other guys whose legacies are uncertain because they failed to fight many of the best available opponents.

Roy Jones should have fought Joe Calzaghe, Dariusz Michalczewski, Steve Collins, Chris Eubank, etc

Tony Zale should have fought Charley Burley, Bert Lytell, Jake LaMotta, etc

Jim Jeffries should have defended against Jack Johnson

[Nile4000]

And Larry Holmes should have defended against Greg Page and Pinklon Thomas.

Bob Foster should have fought both John Conteh and Victor Galindez.

[Duran1970]

I agree Moore and Griffith were great fighters. They fought a lot of quality of opponents. They usually won. (Though Griffith got the benefit of the doubt by the judges about a billion times.)

My main point is that Griffith and Moore did not "clean out the division". Nobody ever does.
The guys that I mentioned were not all time greats. But they were good fighters. And they were contenders for several years. And Moore and Griffith probably would have beaten. them. But they didn't.

Hearns didn't beat as many quality fighters as them. However, this is a guy that fought Benitez, Duran, Leonard, and Hagler. Not to mention people like Cuevas, Hill, several other solid fighters. Of all the people to rip for not fighting someone, it's silly to pick on Thomas Hearns.

Say you are the champ. You want to beat all the top 10 contenders. Let's say, somehow, someway, you managed to schedule 5 of them in a year, then 5 the next year. You beat them all. (This has never been close to happening, btw.)

You have now "cleaned out he division", right? No. There are now new fighters who are now contenders. If you retire, then it's why didn't you fight the new guys?

If you can't clean out an entire division you can at the very least focus on fighting the best opponents available. Griffith, Moore largely did that. The guys they didn't fight appear not to have gotten fights because they lost again and again to guys Griffith and Moore ended up fighting instead. Essentially they kept losing the eliminators.

As far as Hearns go, there are plenty of other guys whose legacies are uncertain because they failed to fight many of the best available opponents.

Roy Jones should have fought Joe Calzaghe, Dariusz Michalczewski, Steve Collins, Chris Eubank, etc

Tony Zale should have fought Charley Burley, Bert Lytell, Jake LaMotta, etc

Jim Jeffries should have defended against Jack Johnson

Jones did fight Calzaghe

[Ambling Alp II]

I agree Moore and Griffith were great fighters. They fought a lot of quality of opponents. They usually won. (Though Griffith got the benefit of the doubt by the judges about a billion times.)

My main point is that Griffith and Moore did not "clean out the division". Nobody ever does.
The guys that I mentioned were not all time greats. But they were good fighters. And they were contenders for several years. And Moore and Griffith probably would have beaten. them. But they didn't.

Hearns didn't beat as many quality fighters as them. However, this is a guy that fought Benitez, Duran, Leonard, and Hagler. Not to mention people like Cuevas, Hill, several other solid fighters. Of all the people to rip for not fighting someone, it's silly to pick on Thomas Hearns.

Say you are the champ. You want to beat all the top 10 contenders. Let's say, somehow, someway, you managed to schedule 5 of them in a year, then 5 the next year. You beat them all. (This has never been close to happening, btw.)

You have now "cleaned out he division", right? No. There are now new fighters who are now contenders. If you retire, then it's why didn't you fight the new guys?

If you can't clean out an entire division you can at the very least focus on fighting the best opponents available. Griffith, Moore largely did that. The guys they didn't fight appear not to have gotten fights because they lost again and again to guys Griffith and Moore ended up fighting instead. Essentially they kept losing the eliminators.

As far as Hearns go, there are plenty of other guys whose legacies are uncertain because they failed to fight many of the best available opponents.

Roy Jones should have fought Joe Calzaghe, Dariusz Michalczewski, Steve Collins, Chris Eubank, etc

Tony Zale should have fought Charley Burley, Bert Lytell, Jake LaMotta, etc

Jim Jeffries should have defended against Jack Johnson

You are nopw pretty much agreeing with me.

If you look at the four best fighters that Hearns could have fought during his career, they would be Leonard, Benitez, Duran, and Hagler. He fought them all. After that, there are several other guys he conceivably could have fought. Some he fought and some he didn't, just like Griffith and Moore.