Tweet
Well, considering he lost those fights to arguably the greatest middleweight of all time Marvin Hagler and one of the top three-five all time great welterweights in Leonard apart from the loss to Barkley when he was at a higher weight and could be considered past it, they are really not as bad as being KO'd twice to a couple of decent fighters and losing to a great but very past it Morales.
Those are only a couple of his big fights. He beat Roberto Duran, Wilfred Benitez, Pepino Cuevas, Dennis Andries, Juan Roldan, Virgil Hill, Nate Miller, Ray leonard (though it was ruled a draw; one of the great robberies), Bruce Curry, Muangsurin (the quickest title winner in history and defended the title eleven times!), Angel Espada, Murray Sutherland, Randy Shields, Eddie Gazo, and Clyde Gray among many, many others. A lot of those are Hall of Famers and all amazing fighters and world champions.
He held titles in every division he entered from welterweight to cruiserweight (147-200 pounds), was the first four division world champion ever and won titles in six modern weight classes!
I think that beating fighters like Cuevas, Gray, Gazo in the late 70's and early 80's through to beating an undefeated great in Virgil Hill at LHW in '91 and the fine cruiserweight champion Nate Miller in late 1999 is as long a prime as anyone has ever had, though his true prime was from the late 70's to the mid 80's.
I think if looked at in perspective there is no way Hearns should be below Pac and many people have him too low. Having beaten three top 70 fighters, two of which are in the top 20 (I'm still counting his BS draw against Leonard as a win
) and his biggest losses by two guys also in the top 20 ATG's as well as many HOF'ers, I think it speaks for itself.
Pac is getting just a little too much credit here. Oscar was no prime, undefeated Virgil Hill. Hearns was the old one in that fight, whereas Pac was the prime, young one and Oscar the old, ****e, dead one. Pac is a truly amazing fighter but why are all these ATG P4P lists having him above fighters like that?
Man, if he had done what Hearns did, he would undoubtedly be considered the GOAT, above Robinson, with the way people are going on about it. Just to be really picky (
) if you're basing it on Hearns losses, Pac's are worse. Hearns lost in his true prime twice. One to Hagler and one to Leonard. He also lost to Barkley twice and once at the end of his career. His main losses are to two ATG's, but why don't you use the same guide for Pac. He also lost quite badly but to lesser fighters, also by KO as well as to Morales.
Anyway, I know I'm being very picky, but there are quite a lot of fighters that he should not be above. It's not hate or dislike at all, just pure perspective. A fighter like Hearns just should not be below him. He did so much more, it's not funny. Nonetheless, great list overall, it's damn hard to make a top hundred.
Those are only a couple of his big fights. He beat Roberto Duran, Wilfred Benitez, Pepino Cuevas, Dennis Andries, Juan Roldan, Virgil Hill, Nate Miller, Ray leonard (though it was ruled a draw; one of the great robberies), Bruce Curry, Muangsurin (the quickest title winner in history and defended the title eleven times!), Angel Espada, Murray Sutherland, Randy Shields, Eddie Gazo, and Clyde Gray among many, many others. A lot of those are Hall of Famers and all amazing fighters and world champions.
He held titles in every division he entered from welterweight to cruiserweight (147-200 pounds), was the first four division world champion ever and won titles in six modern weight classes!
I think that beating fighters like Cuevas, Gray, Gazo in the late 70's and early 80's through to beating an undefeated great in Virgil Hill at LHW in '91 and the fine cruiserweight champion Nate Miller in late 1999 is as long a prime as anyone has ever had, though his true prime was from the late 70's to the mid 80's.
I think if looked at in perspective there is no way Hearns should be below Pac and many people have him too low. Having beaten three top 70 fighters, two of which are in the top 20 (I'm still counting his BS draw against Leonard as a win
) and his biggest losses by two guys also in the top 20 ATG's as well as many HOF'ers, I think it speaks for itself. Pac is getting just a little too much credit here. Oscar was no prime, undefeated Virgil Hill. Hearns was the old one in that fight, whereas Pac was the prime, young one and Oscar the old, ****e, dead one. Pac is a truly amazing fighter but why are all these ATG P4P lists having him above fighters like that?
Man, if he had done what Hearns did, he would undoubtedly be considered the GOAT, above Robinson, with the way people are going on about it. Just to be really picky () if you're basing it on Hearns losses, Pac's are worse. Hearns lost in his true prime twice. One to Hagler and one to Leonard. He also lost to Barkley twice and once at the end of his career. His main losses are to two ATG's, but why don't you use the same guide for Pac. He also lost quite badly but to lesser fighters, also by KO as well as to Morales. Anyway, I know I'm being very picky, but there are quite a lot of fighters that he should not be above. It's not hate or dislike at all, just pure perspective. A fighter like Hearns just should not be below him. He did so much more, it's not funny. Nonetheless, great list overall, it's damn hard to make a top hundred.
Comment