Gerard McClellan vs Thomas Hearns at 160lbs

Both lights out punches at Middleweight and both big men. Hearns by far the greater fighter wth faster hands, better defense and superior boxing skills.

Only edge McClellan has on Hearns is chin.

And CHIN is all he needs folks! McClellan would draw Hearns into a brawl, with his insane agression, survive the early incoming and SPARK HIM OUT inside 3 rounds!

 

Tommy goes to sleep within 4.

 

In Hearns fights there is always the Slyfactor, err I mean the Barkley factor that if Barkley could stop Tommy then this and that fighter would. However more likely outcome is that McClellan runs into big shots early and gets knocked down and busted up so that the ref is forced to stop it in favor of Hearns

 

Yep. He's like a broken record. Because Barkley landed a shot out of the blue to stop Hearns, that means every fighter ever will do it in a MM. :bangh:

Yawn. It's just more of Stafford trying minimize great fighters from before the last 15 years.

 

ah give it a rest you grumpy self righteous motherfucker!

Who wins...or shut the fuck up!

 

Sly IS in fact a Hearns hater, but this is one style matchup in which I think Tommy gets clocked. And I HATE G-man.

 

I'm a Hearns fan. Loved his fights. One of the most exciting fighters in the history of the game and incredibly talented. I don't hate the man at all.

Only fighters I have ever "hated" are Larry Holmes and Chris Eubank.

 

How can you hate a bad ass like Holmes?

We can agree on Eubank though. Overrated, lisping, ducking fucker!

 

He tortured Ali (not his fault, I know, but I'll never forgive him for that nonetheless)...and he was always moaning and complaining and badmouthing other fighters. Annoying idiot.

But a GREAT GREAT fighter i admit.

 

Poor Stafford. :crying:

Sounds like I struck a nerve. Truth hurts, huh?

I will say whatever I like...whenever I like. And if you don't like it, too bad for you.

 

Any second now he will be telling us how much he loves Hearns, blah, blah, blah.

 

LOL. Like clockwork.

 

clever. you read my post and then said what I'd do next. How did you manage that?

 

Nope. I knew what you would say in the attempt to APPEAR objective. Same old Stafford..

 

Can't wait for the next anti-legendary fighter topic you start! See you then!

 

I forgave Holmes for everything when he dropkicked Berbick. Lifetime pass from me.

 

::

Why do you love provoking me. Can't you disagree without starting trouble and saying I'm shilling for favourites or in love with Bernard or hate old time fighters?

 

Whew. Good thing you never cause trouble and can post stuff like this without being a hypocrite.

 

Its funny

you worship Ali

yet you take every possible chance to diminish his greatest rival

the more shitty you make frazier sound, the more shitty you are making Ali look for having lost to him and having had to go to hell and back to beat him

 

Not really.
Thomas Hearns lost twice to Iran barkley. I don't see anyone here making out the Barkely was one of the all time greats.

 

Oh, my God. Please stop now. So...in your distorted version of boxing history...Frazier is no better or greater than Iran friggin' Barkley??? ::

 

Don't be silly. Joe is nowhere near as good as 'The Blade'.

Goddamn Frazier is overrated round here...

MTF ld:

 

Yes...that's exactly what I said. :notallthere:

Cdogg said that the more I make Frazier look bad the more I diminish Ali...since Ali lost to him. I was merely pointing out why that logic doesn't hold up using another example.

 

Cdogg is correct. Your other example (which you love to do instead of sticking to discussing the fighter involved) doesn't hold up because the situations are not the same. One is two great fighters who were evenly matched or very close to it, the other is a great fighter and a pretty good fighter who just had his number. It's not the same.

 

Stafford would apparently have us think that Frazier just some good heavy who just happened to have Ali's number.

 

Circular.

YOU and others are trying to suggest that both are evenly matched fighters and I disagree. That's Cdogg's position and that's why he said what he said. I disagree and showed an example where putting down one fighter doesn't necessarily putdown the fighter that he beat.

You can't just come and say as a "rebuttal" that [transliterating] "in the first case they're on the same level and in the second case they are not" :: That's the very point I disagree with.

We'll be going around in circles for the rest of the day...

 

Correct....glad to see you're finally getting it.

But let me elaborate a little:

....Frazier had POST-LAYOFF slower reflexes, less head movement, slower footed Ali's number in just his third fight back.

Ali who was a shell of his 60s self went on to beat Frazier the next two times they met...

 

No. Incorrect. Just the way you would like it to be. For some "Double L like" reason you have now decided Frazier was a bum and you will now be spend most of the forseeable future putting him down. That's how it is with you...either you love a fighter and he can do no wrong...or you don't like a fighter and he is overrated and no good.:shit:

LOL. And now Ali was nothing but "a shell". Ok Kid Dynamite, tell us how Tyson....uhhhh....Ali was washed up when he fought Frazier. And I suppose Frazier was better than ever when they fought, right? Can you at least try to show some objectivity?

 

That is what you do best...talk in circles and attempt to cloud the issue.

 

:: That's the best you can offer in a response to my clarification?