Who was the most complete out of the Fab Four?

Size.

 

I went for Leonard because I think he had the best mix of physical attributes and the most ability to defeat any style put in front of him.

 

Yet Hearns outboxed boxers Leonard and Benitez and Virgil Hill and outpunched punchers Duran.

 

Duran.......last man standing:yep

 

exactly!!! Leonard is the best and Duran is the worst!!!!!! Why is Duran rated so high? For what??? the guy lost to everyone!!!!!

 

actually I think the last one of the fab 4 to box was Hearns in 06!!! Leonard was the best. best wins and best fighter of them all. Hagler was mechanical. Hearns had a chin problem and Duran was limited! Leonard had it all. Easy poll!!!!

 

and I would say Leonard was the most versatile as far as beating every style he had to.

 

I know Hearns is Mag's idol and all, and it can be difficult to speak a word against him, but I do feel the need to inject a little sarcasm into this.

You mean a guy who's taller and has a longer reach than another boxer might be able to outbox the smaller guy who has a lesser reach? Who'd a thunk it? (And while Hearns deserved the decision in the 2nd fight with Leonard, he failed to seal the deal in the first :deal)

So a fighter who is 6 inches taller than another fighter, started fighting at a weight class about 27 pounds heavier, while also being faster and younger than the little guy can KO him? Unprecedented!

Yeah, sorry, but as much as I love Tommy he easily had the worst inside game of the four, and the most vulnerability to a punch. Those alone are two major, major areas that he lacks and all the others had.

The speed, power, and punching technique of Hearns was overwhelming, but that's not all there is to the game.

 

Duran and Hearns were champions at the same weight of 154 when they fought. Seems like a fair match, and seeing that Duran fought as early as 1978 at 154 seems to say he could handle the weight. That is before Hearns, or Leonard or Benitez ever fought at that weight, and still Hearns and Benitez beat Duran easily at 154. Tommy had the worst inside game of the 4? But he beat Duran, and Duran did lose to them all not matter what. That is significant. I don't think Hearns had a weak chin , he just committed to punching too much and was caught when he was not expecting it. Part of being a warrior. And you say punching technique is not all to the game, well I think beating Cuevas for his first title, and Benitez for his second and Hill for the 175 pound title is something to the game. Duran did not beat that caliber for his titles. What Duran has is a win over great Leonard when Ray fought his fight. But Duran could never cut the ring off when Leonard boxed.

 

Leonard.

Jamming with a peaking Duran and staying right with him, forcing Duran to concede that Leonard was the best he faced after Duran beat him. Conceding the role of boxer to Hearns and then bombing him out once and damn near twice eight years later. Outboxing Hagler.

 

**** off & die:smoke

 

Hearns was taller then hagler if i'm correct and was established at that weight. He looked as good as he ever did.

Leonard was the same height as Hagler and only half a pound lighter. Of course his best weight was 147 but to me he still looked very impressive at 158

Duran of course was simply out of his weight class, shorter, and it looked like to me like he was out of shape which is why he fought in spots like he did. but he proved that he still was a very good fighter in defeating Barkley.

i don't think size played as big of a factor in the hearns and leonard fights as it did in the Duran fight

 

You're right. How could I expect that a 6'1 26 year old who started fighting at 147 should have an advantage over a 5'7 33 year old who started fighting at 120, already had 16 years of ring wear, and had already come back from people declaring him finished once already? Whatever was I thinking?

So, I assume you'd also agree that Cruiser Weight Holyfield vs Hearns would be a perfectly fair fight? And that Ali could outpunch the punchers based on KOing Bob Foster? Afterall, Bob Foster is (probably) the hardest hitting light heavyweight of all time!

Yep. Hearns was a well oiled, destructive machine at mid and long range, but his own body type worked against him on the inside. He survived a couple of bouts where opponents forced him to stay close (such as Roldan) but out of the Fab 4 he was easily the worst if situations would force him to fight nose to nose with someone else.

Which makes him a less complete fight than, say, a Hagler or Leonard that showed both an excellent ability to use the jab at long range and to brawl inside.

It was the worst of the 4. None of the other were KO'd in their prime.

Which makes him less complete than the others.

Which means he has a weakness and flaw in his technique that the others didn't, thus making him less complete in that area.

Being a warrior is great, and to be admired, but it's not the subject up for debate here.

Correct. There's also footwork, timing, stamina, chin, heart, ring generalship, body punching, counter punching, defense, ability to fight inside, at mid and long range, the ability to adapt to circumstances and being able to tailor your style to take advantage of your enemy's weaknesses, just to name a few.

That's not even going into things that are style specific, like being able to rough house an opponent, wrestle in a clinch and impose your strength if you're a physical fighter, etc.

Why are you going on about Duran? Was I singing his praises over Hearns or saying that he was better than Tommy in my original post?

 

Duran started fighting at 120? He won his first title at 135 and weighed as high as 230 between fights in 1986. I use where he won his first title as where his natural weight was. If my memory is correct he started boxing in 1967 at the age of 16. He had growing to do. Why all the excuses for Duran anyway? I think the fact is that beating great fighters would have been something which spoke for itself, and Duran does not have that on his resume. He has a complete big record, but what is missing is great fighters he beat. He fought them, but he lost and sometimes very easily.
The fact is he did not beat many greats. He beat one great fighter in his career and then lost to him in rematch and rubbermatch. And the fact is he retired in 2001 which was 17 years after the Hearns fight which sort of negates your comment about him being ringworn and finished as you sort of said in your first paragraph.
The Hearns fight was actually before the midpoint of his career in years believe it or not. He was 32 when he fought Hearns. Regardless of a birthday one day later, the fact remains. He was champion at 154 when he fought Hearns and that is as legit a reason for fighting a unification at a weight as any other. I read the newspapers and magazines at the time. No one saw the Hearns/Duran fight as a mismatch and most picked Hearns by UD. Later after Hearns knocked out Duran did his fans use excuses as they always did with Duran when he lost to greats.

If you are talking about Tommy Hearns, he moved up from his first title winning effort at 147 and 11 years later won the 175 pound title from top fighter who was undefeated Virgil Hill with 10 title defenses. That is about ring generalship and quality of opposition. He did not just win a title against some on and off again fighter. \

Hearns is underrated, and his losses to Leonard and Hagler are what hurts his legacy a bit, and I agree he messed up in those fights and didn't fight disciplined fights like he should have , but the fights were electrifying. Even when Tommy lost he put on a show.

Duran had a good run at lightweight and fought above average guys, but all guys he should have beaten. No real great fighters there. I have even seen guys try and make Buchanan into a great fighter just so Duran looks better. Fact is and I think most people will agree Duran didn't fight a real great until he moved up to 147, which was a weight he could easily hold as he was fighting as high as 154 since 1978.

The ability to do all the things you say is correlated with beating great fighters, which Duran did not do much. He fought them and beat Ray, but other than that he had many almost wins. He loses big time to Ray in the rematch and rubbermatch. Loses to Benitez easily and gets knocked out easily by Hearns, yet his fans want to point out that he went 15 with Hagler and they say he almost beat Marvin, when all Marvin did was pour it on late and win a decision. It is as thought his losses to Hearns,Benitez and Ray were ignored in favor of the Hagler fight ,which he still did not win. I saw the Hagler fight, it was not close. Marvin fought too relaxed, but he saw that the fight was too close and he upped his energy and won the later rounds and the fight. Not really too hard for Marvin. Then 7 months later Duran moves back down and fights Hearns at a weight he has a title at ,and somehow Duran is this little fat guy who has no business fighting Hearns, even though he fought at 154 3 years before Hearns fought that high.

You mention Holyfield fighting Hearns at cruiserweight? That is the same thing? Are you sure? Did Hearns fight at cruiserweight before Holyfield ever did? I am not sure where you get that correlation. Hearns and Duran fought near the same divisions from 1980-1990. 10 years. Like I said Duran fought at 154 before Hearns did. Duran fans do not want to hear the truth.

The worst of the fab 4 head to head was Duran. He lost to them all including Benitez, and the fashion he lost to them being not competitive many times is significant. Hearns was competitive in all his superfights, and the Virgil Hill fight alone is better than any win Duran had post Leonard.

Sure Duran was not koed in his prime, he never faced a great fighter until he was 29, and he quit in the second fight before Ray was going to stop him. If you notice in round 8 Duran is starting to get hit to the body and head and he quits. It had nothing to do with Ray moving, it actually happened when Ray started to connect. Regardless of anything you say, Duran fought at 154 before Benitez,Hearns and Leonard who all easily beat him near that weight. He never knocked out a great fighter like all those others did. Had he not beaten Ray who fought his fight, he would not have one single win over a great fighter. I think Duran was great, but completely overrated. Ray was not the only guy who could outbox Duran. There are other guys not as great as Benitez or Leonard who could easily outbox Duran. Lets compare Duran to Pacman. Manny has wins over several greats. That is a guy who like it or not beat greats and that is the criteria for a top 10 ATG, and still I don't think Manny is rated there yet. My argument has been that Duran is overrated and does not belong in the top 10 ATG. He doesn't. He needed more wins over greats.

 

i beileve Hearns if the most complete fighter out of them as the only thing he lacked was a good chin. if he had a granite chin he would be unstoppable in his prime? what do yas think?
leonard too was great but he lacked power and sometimes common sence..