Re: Of the 80's Fab four, Duran, Hearns. Hagler and Leonard..Which is your favorite!?
Something like this I suppose:
Hearns just seems like a modest and nice guy, doesn't have the chip on the shoulder Hagler has, for example. As a fighter he always brought excitement to the table and never made excuses or carried bitterness for matches that went against him. What I like about Leonard is that behind that media persona he was a warrior that obviously liked to challenge himself. Also like his book.
Hagler and Duran are very nice to watch since they were so skilled and complete, but their fans and their personalities turn me off to a degree. There's just something so adolescent about the admiration for these guys. They are hailed as these "men's men - no nonsense" type of fighters, while in reality Hagler still is sulking like a little boy over his loss to Leonard, and Duran consequently refuses to give the guys who beat him their due but instead makes excuses. Hearns only beat him because he viewed him "as a chicken and didn't train for him" - not because he hit like a ton of bricks with fantastic speed and precision, apparently.
What fascinates, and kind of annoys, me is that grown men are much more concerned with Leonard's shrewd sense of publicity (which made him countless millions) than sulking and not giving great opponents their due. Amazing that the silly "two titles" thing with LaLonde carries much, much more weight with most than Duran never giving Buchanan a rematch and blatantly ducking McCallum.