Best resume of the Four Kings...... if they hadn't fought each other

they probably wouldnt be four kings in the same way - this is one of those self destroying oxymoron questions worthy of lewis carroll.

 

It is true. They all would have tremendous resumes without the fab 4 fights except for Leonard, who really didn't have many fights, but Hearns,Hagler and Duran fought many different styles and fighters. Long careers. And in the end Leonard was the greatest because he beat them all including Benitez.

 

Ok, i couldn't for the life of me understand how SRL is 4th when all fights are included and thought it was a typo. Barely ayone would have Leonard 4th with all included. An easy 2nd for me.

 

if they did not have each other to fight. Well Leonard fought Benitez,,, so that is a great fight, but Hearns and Duran fought Benitez also, but Duran lost to him. otherwise Hearns beat Cuevas and Hill,, So it is hard to say. The question is interesting in many ways.

 

He has SRL last even counting their fights with each other. That's what threw me. Leonard is a decent candidate for last if we discount their actual battles for sure.

 

it is very interesting. I don't think Ray was the toughest of all of them mentally. He hated to lose which is why he tried to win and had guts in the ring, but there was logical side to Ray once the fights were over which prevented him from having a long wearing out career like Duran, Hagler and Hearns had with fights and fights and tough fights sometimes against guys who were not that great when they got older. It didn't take much for Ray to have a tough fight and say, this is it.. Sometimes I think he set up the Norris fight knowing Norris was too young and he knew he would lose to force himself to retire. He did not have the toughness mentally of the other 3, but he had the skills. Ray's logical side told him to box and try to avoid tough fights near the end of his career.

 

Leonard has the names but not the fights I am looking for. Even with the other 3 of the 4 as his opponents. If you take away the Hagler fight ( wihich I believe Hagler won) and of course give the win to Hearn's instead of the draw... You perhaps can see why I have him 4th. He has wins he SHOULD not be credited for. (Hearns 2 the most obvious)

First off, Hagler and Hearns would have WINS against Leonard and sugar would have 2 l's to greats...it absolutely reverses the lists..... Leonard would get credit for fighting Duran 2 after he blew up in weight between fights ( Duran was not peak in the second fight) and a third win while Duran should have been in a nursing home. Hearn's would have the win, and there would have to a third fight to settle it. SO...How can Leonard be anything but 4th? Hearns, Hagler and Duran would have wins against him!

In my opinion Leonard is given his lofty status for the official wins, not based on reality. He also had about half the fights the others had in their careers.

 

Hagler or Duran easily. I lean towards Duran.

 

Fair enough. I had Leonard nicely outboxing Hagler and losing a close one in the rematch to Hearns by 1-2 points, probably 2. The rematch with Duran was just 5 months after their first fight so i'm definitely not giving Duran a free pass on that nor SRL a demerit.

As for the third match and Duran belonging in a nursery home he had just beat Iran Barkley in an inspired performance and Iran himself was coming off a sensational upset of Tommy. I don't put huge stock in the rubber match as both were well past prime and up in the weights but both were still winning world titles.

 

Hearns probably has the best wins with Benitez, Cuevas and Hill. Duran the most number of quality wins with IMO Barkley as his best considering weight and age. Leonard has one great win (Benitez) but lacks depth. Hagler has depth in his resume but lacks the big wins.

I don't think Heanrs get's enough credit for his win over Hill, IMO the best win the fab four have that was not one of them given weight, age and the quality of Hill himself.

So, Hearns for me, Duran second. Hagler third. Leonard suffers from his inactivity, without the other three he probably would have ended up rate closer to Sugar Ray Seales than Sugar Ray Robinson.

 

Probably can't really judge Leonard fairly because of his absence from the ring.
Hearns beat Cuevas , Benitez , Roldan , Andries , Hill.
Duran beat Buchanan , Mamby , De Jesus, Palomino, Moore, Barkley.
Hagler beat Watts ,Hart, Briscoe , Antuofermo,Minter, Hamsho , Sibson, Roldan.
Hearns 1st on the basis of him defeating champions from WW to LHW.
Duran 2nd on his long reign at LW and winning MW title.
Hagler 3rd take out Duran and Hearns he never would have a signature fight.

 

I agree with this order. I think that Hearns and Duran (who also beat Cuevas) would be relatively close, followed by Hagler at a significant distance behind them, and then Leonard a significant distance behind Hagler.

 

I agree. I never saw that Hearns got the credit with Hill either or winning 4 and 5 titles or being the first one. I think the problem with Tommy is the old thing about his biggest time in the spotlight and he lost to Hagler and Leonard. The only thing which could have made people forget losing those two fights is beating Tyson. A guy who beat Virgil Hill alone in 175 would have been remembered, because Virgil in 1991 was still good.

 

Good post but l think it short changes Duran's accomplishments at 135, but l have no problem with this order. I know it's only one opponent but Duran's win over Barkley and Hearns loss is far more impressive than Hearns win over Benitez and Duran's loss give the size disparity between Hearns and Duran.