BoxRec

You still have not made any sort of decent argument.
Barkley was better? You gave no reasons outside of the Hearns.
You can't use the argument that Barkley was good because he beat Hearns if you are trying to argue for how good Hearns is. Are you really that dense?

Iran Barkley could hang with any middleweight or light heavyweight in history? Iran Barkley? Sheer lunacy.

Roldan didn't get breaks like Lalonde? Really? Again, who the world did Roldan ever beat? Did he fight say Hamsho, Sibson, anyone like that? No. He beat a bunch of stiffs.

He had more wins and Kos than LaLonde? Congratulations on a meaningless stat. Guess what? Lalonde had a higher than Roldan. Lalonde won a couple of title fights.
Lalonde had a higher winning %, Ko %, Kos than Barkley.

Remember we are talking about Hearns and Leonard.
Again, if I say that Hearns had the losses to Barkley are embarrassing, then you need to say why losing to Barkley is not embarrassing. You can't say because he beat Hearns. I explained this to my 10 year-old and she understands this. Unbelievable believe that an adult doesn't.

Ambling Alp II wrote:You still have not made any sort of decent argument.
Barkley was better? You gave no reasons outside of the Hearns.
You can't use the argument that Barkley was good because he beat Hearns if you are trying to argue for how good Hearns is. Are you really that dense?

Iran Barkley could hang with any middleweight or light heavyweight in history? Iran Barkley? Sheer lunacy.

Roldan didn't get breaks like Lalonde? Really? Again, who the world did Roldan ever beat? Did he fight say Hamsho, Sibson, anyone like that? No. He beat a bunch of stiffs.

He had more wins and Kos than LaLonde? Congratulations on a meaningless stat. Guess what? Lalonde had a higher than Roldan. Lalonde won a couple of title fights.
Lalonde had a higher winning %, Ko %, Kos than Barkley.

Remember we are talking about Hearns and Leonard.
Again, if I say that Hearns had the losses to Barkley are embarrassing, then you need to say why losing to Barkley is not embarrassing. You can't say because he beat Hearns. I explained this to my 10 year-old and she understands this. Unbelievable believe that an adult doesn't.

Losing to Iran Barkley is not embarrassing. If you're not at your A game, you could lose clearly. He wasn't a gimmie like Kevin Howard. I can't picture myself seeing the great Tommy Hearns getting dropped by a BUM LIKE HOWARD. That's embarrassing! Put Tommy in the ring with Howard, and Howard doesn't last 2 rounds even if The Hitman had not fight in 10 years.

Put the Sugar Ray that fought Donny Lalonde vs Barkley and The Blade wins that fight. I would not be surprised if he did beat Sugar Ray at that stage of his career.

Like I said, Lalonde HAD THE BREAKS. His break to win the light-heavyweight championship was easier than what Juan Roldan got through. Switch both of them to the other one's class and I don't see Lalonde, even if he was a 175lbs pounder, beating phenomenal fighters like Marvelous, The Hitman or Michael Nunn. But, I can see a light-heavyweight Roldan beating a Leslie Stewart for a world championship at 175lbs.

I guess people forgot how DEVASTATING of a puncher was Tommy Hearns at 154lbs. His knockout wins over the great Roberto Duran and Fred Hutchins were something to be awed about. What a fighter!

And Sugar Ray beats him at 154lbs? No way!

We gotta be outta of our heads!

When I see polls like Lennox Lewis beating the great Mike Tyson prime per prime or this one like Sugar Ray beating The Hitman at 154lbs I gotta shake my head. Really!