BoxRec

When I think about the pure size of Hearns and Leonard and company it is hard seeing Paq or Mayweather winning. However they are all greats in my book and it is truly fun as a fan to debate. Duran at lightweight was an absolute beast. Maybe the greatest lightweight of all time.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:I should think Mayweather would rank above Leonard based on consistency and number of top fighters beaten. If Mayweather beats more top contenders than Leonard and is more consistent than I would think he would rate higher.

The problem is Mayweather hasn't even fought ANYONE as top notch as Hearns, Duran, or Hagler. Leonard did. And Leonard will always be able to say that he tested his limits against EVERYONE who mattered.

Add Benitez to this. Mayweather's biggest win is not as good as Leonard's fourth; Leonard obviously fought much better competition.
Not to mention that Leonard was a very consistent fighter. The worst that you can say about him is that he lost a tough decision to Roberto Duran.
That's not nearly as bad as Mayweather needing the judges to bail him out against Castillo in their first fight.

The problem with the greats like Floyd Mayweather, Jr and Manny Pacquiao in not getting higher in the rankings is that both has not beaten SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY to be awed about. They are fighting in an era of more titles and LESS SKILLFUL BOXERS plus less rounds and lesser fights in their resume.

Mayweather missed out on fighting some contemporaries but Leonard didn't face McCallum, Nunn, or Kalambay. His failure to fight and beat these guys is certainly detrimental to his legacy.

Also, fighters can only beat the best foes in their own time. One could argue that Leonard's wins are better but that seems extremely subjective. What evidence is there that fighters in general were better in Leonard's era? There may be generational bias with older people favoring previous eras while younger people favor later fighters. You could just as easily claim that the Griffith-Dick Tiger era was superior to the Leonard-Hagler-Duran era.

Not fighting them is detrimental to Leonard's legacy?! That is just ridiculous. He beat 4 fighters who were better than them. He already beat three of them during his prime before the eye problems. He was certainly not even obliged to comeback and fight Hagler, much lesser fighters (in comparison) like McCallum, Nunn and Kalambay.

It is true that you can only fight the best in your era. The problem is that Mayweather did not do that. He needed to fight Pacquiao several years ago. It hurts both of their legacies. Pacquiao's less because at least he did beat some other great fighters.

Who are these four guys that rate above McCallum? I don't think Benitez or Hearns would rate above him in ability. Duran is well proven at lightweight but did not have many fights at welterweight so it is hard to assess how good he was at that weight.

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Mayweather missed out on fighting some contemporaries but Leonard didn't face McCallum, Nunn, or Kalambay. His failure to fight and beat these guys is certainly detrimental to his legacy.

No Cojimar. I got to disagree with you in that statement. The great Sugar Ray Leonard already made a name for himself at welter fighting EXTRAORDINARY FIGHTERS. I do not know about the Marvin Hagler win, but, by then, Leonard was already considered a legend, win, lose or draw with Marvelous the great

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Who are these four guys that rate above McCallum? I don't think Benitez or Hearns would rate above him in ability. Duran is well proven at lightweight but did not have many fights at welterweight so it is hard to assess how good he was at that weight.

I agree with you, Cojimar that the great Mike McCallum, in ability and talent, was better than the greats Wilfred Benitez and Thomas Hearns. McCallum was a COMPLETE FIGHTER. I do not think that Hearns, nor Benitez nor the greats like Roberto Duran or Sugar Ray Leonard beat McCallum at 154lbs or above. Maybe Hearns got the best chance of the four, but, that is it. I put my money at 154lbs for McCallum vs all four. Even though, I am a Duran fan. I cannot see him beating Mike.

The only fighter I think that could beat McCallum, is the great Marvin Hagler because I believe Marvin was stronger. But that is it.

elmersalsa wrote:

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Who are these four guys that rate above McCallum? I don't think Benitez or Hearns would rate above him in ability. Duran is well proven at lightweight but did not have many fights at welterweight so it is hard to assess how good he was at that weight.

I agree with you, Cojimar that the great Mike McCallum, in ability and talent, was better than the greats Wilfred Benitez and Thomas Hearns. McCallum was a COMPLETE FIGHTER. I do not think that Hearns, nor Benitez nor the greats like Roberto Duran or Sugar Ray Leonard beat McCallum at 154lbs or above. Maybe Hearns got the best chance of the four, but, that is it. I put my money at 154lbs for McCallum vs all four. Even though, I am a Duran fan. I cannot see him beating Mike.

The only fighter I think that could beat McCallum, is the great Marvin Hagler because I believe Marvin was stronger. But that is it.

And Sumbu Kalambay ?

Mike was not accostumed to the middleweight division quite yet at the time. But what happened after that?

Cojimar 1946 wrote:Who are these four guys that rate above McCallum? I don't think Benitez or Hearns would rate above him in ability. Duran is well proven at lightweight but did not have many fights at welterweight so it is hard to assess how good he was at that weight.

Who are the four? Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler.
Yes Benitez and Hearns had more ability and were clearly better fighters than McCallum. Duran had many fights at welterweight if you bother to look up his record. He also had a lot of success above welterweight. Not that hard to assess that he was great at welterweight.

elmersalsa wrote:Mike was not accostumed to the middleweight division quite yet at the time. But what happened after that?

I know, I was just being obnoxious.

I wouldn't pick MCCullum against all the guys you do, and Kalambay still did well in the rematch, but I agree MMc was one of the best at 154/160. Even James Toney says so, and he's never exactly full of praise for opponents.

I put my money on the great Mike McCallum against the greats of Thomas Hearns, Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard at any weight class above 154lbs.

The Body Snatcher was so good at 154lbs. He was an unvelievable fighter that never got the chance to fight the big names above.

How many top fighters did Duran beat at Welterweight? As far as I can tell he beat Leonard and Palomino and not anyone else of note. Leonard of course is an impressive win but it seems like a reach to say one or two good wins make him among the best welterweights ever. He simply does not have enough good wins at this weight.

As far as Hearns goes, he lost twice to Barkley. Does Barkley also rate above McCallum as well as all the guys that beat him?

I see in Cojimar we have another of these posters who in order to justify a silly argument has to take the usual mad leaps of logic, demanding more than is reasonable from great fighters while expecting far less from the unproven fighter he prefers.

Leonard beating Benitez, Duran and Hearns isn't enough. No, he also has to beat Mike McCallum and everyone else who came after he retired with retina problems! Even beating someone bigger & better & more accomplished than McCallum - Marvin Hagler - is still not enough. Leonard's failure to make a fight no one was demanding tarnishes his career!

Duran beating Sugar Ray Leonard, one of the best ever at welterweight, is not good enough. No, he needs to beat more Sugar Ray Leonards!

Meanwhile Floyd Mayweather, who has no wins of this magnitude and circumnavigated his most dangerous contemporaries, is accorded all the benefit of the doubt. Mike McCallum, who has no wins of this magnitude and who lost to Sumbu Kalambay, is somehow a blot on the Fab Four's legacies.

If you are going to subject Leonard and Duran's careers to such harsh analysis then you must do exactly the same with Floyd Mayweather. Cojimar cannot do that because it would make his argument sound even more ridiculous than it already is.

I'd favour Duran over both of them. But he would have to be at his absolute best to beat Mayweather, and i'm sure Mayweather would get a win in a series of bouts, particularly at welterweight.

fanman wrote:I'd favour Duran over both of them. But he would have to be at his absolute best to beat Mayweather, and i'm sure Mayweather would get a win in a series of bouts, particularly at welterweight.

Any fighter in history has to be at his very best to beat the great Floyd Mayweather or the great Manny Pacquiao. That is including the great Sugar Ray Robinson

IKSRTFO wrote:

Cojimar 1946 wrote:I should think Mayweather would rank above Leonard based on consistency and number of top fighters beaten. If Mayweather beats more top contenders than Leonard and is more consistent than I would think he would rate higher.

The problem is Mayweather hasn't even fought ANYONE as top notch as Hearns, Duran, or Hagler. Leonard did. And Leonard will always be able to say that he tested his limits against EVERYONE who mattered.

Buy this man a beer you'v been reading my mind

elmersalsa wrote:

fanman wrote:I'd favour Duran over both of them. But he would have to be at his absolute best to beat Mayweather, and i'm sure Mayweather would get a win in a series of bouts, particularly at welterweight.

Any fighter in history has to be at his very best to beat the great Floyd Mayweather or the great Manny Pacquiao. That is including the great Sugar Ray Robinson

Yes you are so right.And even Tommy Hearns has said so.

Was a rusty 35 year old Oscar de la Hoya at his very best when he lost a razor thin decision to a peak Floyd Mayweather? Was a rotting 40 year old Mosley at his best when he nearly took Mayweather's head off?

Sugar Ray Robinson would clobber Floyd Mayweather on an off night.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Was a rusty 35 year old Oscar de la Hoya at his very best when he lost a razor thin decision to a peak Floyd Mayweather? Was a rotting 40 year old Mosley at his best when he nearly took Mayweather's head off?

Sugar Ray Robinson would clobber Floyd Mayweather on an off night.

Yeah cause a guy fighting at 154 for the first time after only 3 bouts as a welterweight is a good
test to see how good a guy is??????
Or getting tagged by a punch that would of knocked most welterweights out but was dazed for all of 5 seconds
is another great indicator of how good you are.

Let's not forget that Floyd won those fights.
Any fighter would have their hands full in a fight with Floyd.All greats struggled with way less talented fighters
at one point or another.So to think that they would walk through a defensive genius is insane.
I am not saying Floyd would win.But he would give anyone problems.

As far as McCallum goes, I don't see his loss to Kalambay as being as bad as say....Hearns losses to Barkley (one by early kayo) and Duran's loss to Kirkland Laing. I mean, didn't Kalambay actually beat Barkley head to head and show greater consistency.