Who was the most complete out of the Fab Four?

Just from the footgae it's clear that Duran was considerably slower than he had been. Hearns destruction of him was magnificient, though.

They all had fight were the took some good shots obviously, but not the clean bombs Hearns took from Leonard, Hagler and Barkley, or that Hagler took from Roldan and Mugabi, nor the combinations Benitez, Laing and Hearns rattled off on Duran's head or Norris rattled off on Leonard's, etc, etc.

 

maybe so about Duran slower, but at the same time there are clips of Duran fighting Hagler and Moore where he looks fast counterpunching, yet against Hearns he looked slow because of the contrast in speed. You know as I do how a guy can look fast against one guy and then fights a top fighter and he looks very slow.

Hearns had his weakness like all fighters. His offense was his defense too much, but when he got older he did go less of the going tops and then getting into brawls and being hurt. He learned more of the game of clinching and inside fighting, yet he learned it when he was starting to diminish a little. Had he learned it earlier it might have made things interesting.

A side comment unrelated to my response here. Most of you guys I have studied boxing for years. I respect Duran's career, but at the same time there is no way he should be near Leonard as far as complete fighter. His resume against the top guys does not warrant it. He had a great long career and fought top guys and was a warrior, but beating the best is the criteria. Fighting lesser caliber guys at lightweight show he was dominant and ferocious, but not complete since he was so much better than those guys it is hard to see what his true top skills were until he does fight that great fighter. There is a difference. If he were more complete than he could have relied on those other skills and beaten Benitez and Hearns and Leonard (in the rematch) regardless of age or weight since he did fight another 17 years after Hearns and fought at 154 before Hearns and Benitez or Leonard fought there. Since Duran lost against the top greats , he did not have the multitude of skills or ways to fight to fall back on like Leonard did. So that right there shows Duran's different facets were not equal which negates him being complete. Leonard could be the aggressor and stop a great fighter and yet outbox a guy and win a decision against a great. Duran never showed he could.

 

If I made a list, it's really hard to select anybody being in the top 3 amongst Hagler, Leonard, and Duran. Hearns obviously gets the 4th spot.

Simply put, you mentioned in that you voted Duran, but Leonard has a good case out there and Hagler is a live candidate. They're all very close in selection as "most complete".

 

what do you know about the best or complete fighter or athelete??? Your avatar picture is Iverson. Maybe you should change it to Kobe,Shaq or Duncan!!!!:rofl

 

Oh, get over yourself. He was one of the greatest one-on-one players ever. That being said, the avatar is only there because I think the picture shows his *******-attitude on the court. He is not the best player. Neither is Kobe, Shaq, or Duncan. That, and what does that have to do with the title of the thread? Seriously man. Stick with the theme of the thread. You wanna talk basketball? PM me.

 

As I said, Hearns should have huge credit for his perfomance against Duran. Duran was still a very, very good fighter and I for one get pissed off when the usual excuses are made about his shape and commitment etc.

 

Probably Hagler until his reflexes faded. but sometimes he fought like a lamb while other times he fought like a raging lion.

Hearns? he didnt have the defense, took shots flush, never kept his chin tucked, hands too low so he could very well finish behind Leonard

Leonard seemed to have everything in plce but I question his toughness. Also, didnt seem to know how to deal with boxers that could be slick N quick. Shouldve beat Terry Norris but had no clue

and please, let's top with the excuses. he was a massive favorite to win

Duran is my number two. Tied hagler's number of defenses at light weight with 12. But back then he was slim N trim, not fat N pudgy

 

Leonard wins the poll easily and then Hagler and Hearns. Duran never could deal with the Benitez/Hearns quality but he sure as hell could beat the heck out of normal fighters!!! He gave Barkley and Moore beatings!!!!!

 

he had trouble throwing it straight sometimes and he looped it, but I always thought it was a good measuring stick for his right hook.

 

Seeing as you once again ignored the substance of my posts in favor of blabbing on and on about Duran for forever and a half when I didn't pick him as the most complete and barely talked about him, and that you yourself agreed that Hearns had holes in his game that the others didn't, I'm just to take this as you conceding defeat.

However, just because I can't resist pointing out a few gaping holes in your post:

So, by your own admission Duran was 3 weight classes (19 pounds) above his natural weight.

Out of curiosity, do you consider 147 Hearns' natural weight, or one he had to squeeze and relentlessly drop weight to reach? Especially considering that Hearns was weighing in above the 147 limit and had already had fights at Middleweight before meeting Duran at Jr. Middle?

Quite true. Duran was probably a half-starved street kid in his first pro bouts.

Just putting things in perspective.

After 16 years in the ring, any fighter is ringworn. I think the inconsistency of that part of Duran's career is proof of that, and really Duran had no real career after 1989. He just had a way to make a few bucks and support all his bad habits for a little while longer.

By comparison, lets look at Hearns using your same criteria. What was he doing after being in the ring for 16 years as a pro? Dropping decisions to Iran Barkley, like he did in 92, and challenging nobodies for the WBU and IBO belts. But there's no way he could have been past it that point, he fought all the way to 2006!

Heck, even his loss to Uriah Grant must not have been past his prime, he still had another 6 years to go before the end, and won all his fights after the Grant bout! So Uriah Grant beat a prime Tommy Hearns! Right?

Hearns' career went from 1977-2006. So the midpoint is 1992, right when he was dropping the second bout against Barkley. So there's no reason Tommy shouldn't have won that fight, right?

Come on, lets judge everyone under the same criteria. Look at your favorite fighters the same way you look at your less favorites and see how they come out.

How do you rate Ernesto Marcel and Carlos Palomino? And we'll leave aside the very good challengers and such that you dismiss like Lampkin, DeJesus, Viruet or Kobayashi, (though I think Kobayashi is more marginal than the others myself) and lets set aside Buchanan, who you specifically excluded from consideration.

All of those guys are at least world class fighters. How many victories do you need over top contenders and world class champions before it counts for anything?

Personally, I think he might fall a hair short of it myself. But then I never said he belonged there, so exactly why did you spend so much time and energy arguing against it?

I have no particular attachment to Duran one way or the other. For me, it's purely a matter of arguing over what I see as biased comments and a disservice to the truth.

 

Also, wow, rooster popped in and did not trash Leonard. That's weird. :huh

 

Sorry, bit if that were the case he wouldve had no problems w young speedy Norris

when u got speed, Leonard loses & loses BIG!

 

Ray's whole style was reliant on speed. once he lost it he was not Sugar Ray Leonard anymore.

 

Just like Leonard lost big against Hearns in their first bout and against Benitez, right? :roll:

By the way, using a fight that happened 20 years after a fighter turned pro is a pathetic argument. Hey, as long as you're Trevor Berbick you can whip Ali! You don't need a game plan, you just need to be Trevor Berbick!

By the way, how did your hero Norris look after 12 years of fighting?