The shit I've heard on another forum today........

Nope. Hearns was weight drained and settled the score in the rematch so that win is shit too.

 

Also that Napoles is the greatest welterweight of all time and would have schooled Leonard. ::

 

Not crazy, imo.

 

Can't see Napoles "schooling" Leonard.

I think it would be one sided in Leonard's favor actually.

I think Benitez on his game beats Napoles.

 

I feel like both fights could go either way

 

Gun to my head I think napoles would beat Leonard & Benitez

 

It would be very competitive against Benitez.

But I think Leonard is too big, too strong, too powerful, and IMO even faster than Mantequilla. Can't see how Napoles would be able to outbox Leonard.

 

+ clown ring (first one) and running like a bitch (both)

 

I wouldn't pick Napoles over Benitez if Will brought his A game. However, it's possible. I cannot envision Napoles beating Leonard though. He'd be competitive, but win? Nah. Ray would be too much for him.

 

because hindsight IS 20/20

there's little if any correlation between predicting the outcome of a fight between two current fighters with incomplete careers and predicting the outcome of a fight between two fighters whose careers can be more objectively assessed thanks to the passage of time

A fighter's rating or rank or historical status is much more accurately assessed when contemporary bias (which is enormous in any sport, both for and against depending upon the individual) has faded away leaving only the facts

This is the fundamental difference between how I view sports and how you view them, which is why we never agree... It is why you say "Primera > Randy Shields" and I say "whaterya nuts?"

Mickey Mantle objectively is the best player, the player with the most value, in the American League at least 6 times during his career, maybe 7... He was voted MVP 3 times, not 7. Now, we could just say "no, Roger Maris was better in 1960 because he won the MVP and Mickey Mantle didn't" but that would be untrue because Roger Maris, objectively, was not better than him in 1960... We can see this because we are removed from the biases of the time, we have not necessarily more good information at our disposal now than the voters had in 1960, we just have less meaningless or frivolous information

I eagerly await your "no, you are just a stupid loser who knows nothing about statistics and as much about economics as a monkey" response

 

Not even if they were allowed to fight as a tag team.

 

indeed.

These 2 are taylor made for Hearns to ko them in 3 rounds max.


on another subject I think that Garcia would give a really good fight to taylor, so I don't think it's that ridiculous of a statement. Nor is the chavez is overated statement (even if i dont agree with it)

 

Wrong.

 

Hearns vs Cotto. Jesus Christ, after two rounds Cotto would be willing to tag Margarito in as his partner and best friend.

 

This is really a stupid post.

 

Would make no difference. With their little stubby arms all Hearns would have to do is make sure he KO'd the first one facing AWAY from the Ring apron.

 

Thinking about Cotto or Canelo fighting Hearns, even as a tag team, is painful. Hearns could fight them both on the same night and still be done in less than 12 rounds.

 

I wasn't asking a question. ::

 

Did Hearns ever have an easy time with a championship level guy as big as Alvarez?

 

James "Black Gold" Shuler...

Full Fledged, World Class MIDDLEWEIGHT of the Mid 80's...Also Made the 1980 U.S. Olympic Team, which BOYCOTTED the Moscow Games...Hearns Literally STRETCHED Shuler in LESS than 1 Round...

REED Doubts if Shuler Layed a Glove on Hearns, After the Ceremonial Touch...
REED:hammert:

 

Hearns vs. Shuler...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOPS_1PThCc

NOT the Greatest Quality Footage, but...Yeah....



REED:fightme:

 

Alvarex is a fucking midget.

 

Yep. And before the fight, some naysayers were going on about Shuler being "too big" and "too strong" and Hearns wasn't a "real middleweight" and Hearns could only win by decision if even that, etc...

And then the fight happened.

 

Alvarez would be a big middleweight in the mid 80s

 

He's a wee jaxy cunt and you know it. That rabbit vs the 3 pissheads in the van puts up more fight.

 

THICK Middleweight, Yes...



REED:hammert:

 

What I liked about Shuler was that he didn't have to fight Hearns, but did so anyway. He was the #1 contender after beating James Kinchen and could have fought lesser opponents while waiting for a title shot or wait for a vacant title to open up as Hagler's retirement seemed to be getting closer. But he didn't...he wanted to prove he was the best available challenger for Hagler by taking on Hearns.

 

I think big worked as an adjective. According to the objective laws of physics, he'd be big.

 

But he's SHORT for a Middleweight & SHORT ARMED for a Middleweight...& He's NOT a Balls to the Wall, Take 2 to Land 1 Sort, Either...

Hearns is All WRONG for Canelo, Bro...



REED:hammert:

 

Yes. Hearns is good, Canelo is not.