Leonard's disgusting late eighties era

And which of those guys ruled their division and was lineal champ for 7 years?

He gets lumped in with them despite the fact he had already been fighting 12 years as a pro before stepping in the ring with any of them and despite the fact he started his career as a featherweight.

They are all great fighters but in the broader view of their accomplishments over their entire respective careers Duran has to rank above the rest.

 

Somehow Hagler lost his head in that fight. Made a bunch of bad strategic decisions.

 

Agee with all of this.

 

Gibbs' first card was ridiculous and I think most people would agree. He second card AT HOME was irrelevant. Even a neophyte of the boxing game knows that watching at home is different from being at ringside. That's why judges are close to the ring...they don't SKYPE in their decisions.

 

And you only had to watch the fight to know it was a one point fight either way.

Duran fought those guys a total of five times.

Roberto left the ring humiliated on three of those five occasions.

He clearly lost on another (against Hagler).

And he eaked out a one point win in one. (The first Leonard fight.)

One razor-thin win out of five fights.

He isn't near the top of the list.

 

If he's being compared to three guys who beat him easily, don't cry if he gets rated behind all of them.

 

As far as being inside the Fab 4, this is true. But DuranS best weight was lightweight and was clearly physically smaller than the other 3.

 

Hagler was lineal champ for about 7 years.
Hagler had only been fighting 10 years as pro before he went in with any of them though.

 

Agreed.. Roberto Duran is rightfully a p4p top 10 ATG. The other three men weren't

 

Evander Holyfield is 2-3 against R. Bowe and Michael Moorer. Thomas Hearns is 0-2 against Iran Barkley. Who do you rate higher among the above mentioned names?

 

And when compared with the other three, he's at the bottom of the four-man list.

That's why Pound-for-pound is nothing but fantasy.

When Duran actually got in the ring with them on five occasions, he barely managed one win. And the majority of the time (three out of five times) he was embarrassed.

So I guess the lesson is be careful who you compare someone with.

 

I appreciate your support. But I have to disagree with some points here. First of all, Leonard got his ass kicked in the first Duran fight. He rightfully won the next two but definitely not the first. Nothing controversial or iffy about it. Secondly, Duran rightfully sits higher on an ATG p4p list than any of the other fabulous four members. He is arguably the greatest lightweight that ever lived by most people's reckoning. He moved up to Welter and beat prime hall of famers in Palomino and Leonard ( again not a robbery. ) he captured belts at Jr. Middle and Middle. And he was long past his best for most of his meetings with the other fab four guys, with the exception of the first two Leonard bouts.

 

In terms of only wins and losses against them directly yes. But their legacy pales next to his. Leonard is the only one who comes close. There's more to rating fighters than just head to wins and losses.

 

If I'm making a list of who accomplished more, I'd pick the guy who accomplished more.

If I made a list of who was better out of a group of guys who fought each other, I'd take the guy who did the best when they actually fought.

Lists are fine. Everyone has a different opinion.

When Duran got in the ring and got destroyed by Hearns, we saw who was actually better among those two.

People can cite as many stats as they like. But all of Duran's "stats" didn't help him when Hearns left him for dead.