Who was the most complete out of the Fab Four?

Pulp Fiction:smoke

 

Wtf is this about Hearns as the most complete? He was by far the least complete. I voted Duran, but a good case has been made for Leonard by several posters in this thread. Hagler is always a live candidate in a discussion such as this.

 

For as sharp Hearns was in certain areas (jab, single punch power) he was horribly poor in others (chin, stamina, reluctant to clinch in his early career).

At least the other guys were well rounded in their abilities.

I'm gonna stick with Hagler as my pick. Leonard and Duran aren't that close behind either. It's hard to definitively select one fighter out of those three. Hearns is the easiest to exclude, or at least put on the bottom of those 4.

 

Yeah, Hearns had some fantastic assets, but he was not very skilled defensively and lacked physical strength and durability. The other three would probably get at least 8 marks out of 10 in any area one can think of.

I don't really get you here.:huh Did you mean "aren't that far behind"?

 

Hagler doesn't deserve the mention, his left was weak and hurt his overall composite punching somewhat IMO

 

I think "weak" is a bit harsh, but, yeah, it wasn't great, so you definitely have a point.

 

take it from the man himself.

 

You must mistake me for Duranimal. I for one don't take Duran's opinion about the guys who beat him for gospel.

 

Duran showed that he did not have the most complete style and it was proven vs. the ATG's he fought. His losses were due to the fact he could not adapt to not fighting his fight. At least with other ATG fighters.

 

As far as proven it Leonard proved it by beating guys with different styles. I think again Duran is overrated and Hearns underrated. I do think Hearns problem with defense was his own fault since he loved to swing and go for a knockout which left him open. Duran is one of the only greats who gets a pass when it comes to beating greats and yet gets to be rated by many as top 10 ATG.

 

they were all great! Look at this video. I voted for Hearns. I think honestly Leonard might be the most complete but Hearns had the best weapon of them all with that right hand!!!!!It hurt or knocked down all of them including Benitez!!!! [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL9TrZcHp1o[/ame]

 

Most fighters have problems with speed when they themselves have slowed due to age. Hagler had it with Leonard, and Leonard had it with Norris.

Benitez, Laing and Hearns handled Duran with almost embarassing ease, but I don't think the problem was adabtibility, more just the fact that Duran couldn't keep up. It does raise the issue of how outstanding Duran's defence really was, though. Guys like McCallum, Toney and Hopkins still proved/prove very hard to tag cleanly and consistently even after they had/have slowed down considerably. But that's a bit moot in this argument, since Leonard, Hagler and Hearns also proved quite hittable once they slowed down.

 

If one looks at Hearns defensive moves it's clear that he wasn't that very skilled in this department. His guard was quite open, he didn't rely much on using his shoulder to ward off blows, his head movement wasn't very special and his footwork lacked a bit in terms of angles and inventiveness. His defense was mostly made up of quick feet, reach and firepower that kept most opponents at range.

When this line of defence was breached, the result was often a KO.

 

Hearns fought Virgil Hill when Virgil was 26 and Tommy 32, nearly the same difference and Duran and Hearns in 1984 I must add in mentioning Duran vs. Hearns and the age issue since I do not think it was age as much as Hearns being effective and sharp. And Hearns was moving up in weight from his starting weight of 147. The fact about Duran slowing with age is a little exaggerated. Fact is he moved up in weight and was in his late 20s and early 30s when he fought in the fab 4 bunch including Benitez, and he was slower not because of age as much as just slower.

I see your point although McCallum and Toney and Hopkins did ok with age, but also the caliber they fought was sometimes not the top level. When Mike fought Curry he was very hittable, and Toney didn't have an answer for Jones and went into a shell. Hopkins was ok with defense, but against Taylor and Calzaghe I wouldn't say he avoided all punches, but he certainly didn't open up much when he knew he would be countered and then he lost decisions.

 

Hearns defense was his offense a little as Hagler said once or the threat of the right hand counter-his style was to always be in position to counter which left him open to the punches if his opponent wanted to be a little reckless and take chances. But Tommy was usually faster than his opponents and landed before they landed on him, and when he went up in weight he was getting hit more as he slowed a little and his punches were not as effective as in the 147 and 154 divisions. Yet after Hagler and even more after Barkley he became a little more of an inside fighter and used his left hook to the body more since he learned he had to work harder to get his punches in. Hearns never had the patience to fight cautious as would have been needed to be like McCallum or Toney, but to be honest he was greater than those guys so why would he want to be more like them. They were great, but not like Tommy or did they fight his caliber of opponents in my mind.. The iconic opponents. He wanted to entertain. But to be honest, Virgil Hill and Benitez fights show that he could jab and box and use his counterpunching to keep guys at bay. Even the Roldan fight when Roldan hurt him, Tommy bobbed and weaved and then held Roldan. So he improved.