Interesting matchup actually. Leonard was a small Middleweight and fought in spurts at that weight. McClellan is naturally the much bigger fighter and possessed more overall power than Tommy Hearns as well as a better chin. of course McClellan had zero defense or boxing skills and so the safe bet would be Leonard by decision....as long as he doesn't get careless in the early rounds...
This guy is very average, didn't even win his biggest fight, and his victory hinges upon likely an early KO. A guy who's fought Duran, Hearns and Hagler and beaten them all without being KO'd. Hell, even slugged with the first two and didn't get KO'd. This bum does not win, no matter how much punching power = winning in MM.
Well his one defeat is overshadowed by a life threatening injury and we don't know when that happened or the role it played in the fight. He was winning early. I think 'mediocre' is ridiculously dismissive, the guy was an exceptional fighter. But yeah overall i'd probably agree with your assessment, i just don't understand why you have to be so abrasive. I guess Im a delicate petal.
TLC is right, for once McClellan was NOT THAT GOOD he is certainly not good enough to beat Sugar Ray Leonard
Yup, I agree with his overall assessment just not the use of the world 'mediocre'. Language like that is only baiting for a response here. Juan Diaz's a mediocre champion. Carlos Baldomir's a mediocre champion.
