Hagler or Hearns. Hagler beat Heanrs at his natural weight but he also beat Duran who everyone has higher then Hagler P4P Hearns knocked out Geraldo in 1 who went the distance with Hagler Hearns Knocked out Duran in 2 rounds who also went the distance with Hagler. I though Hearns looked more impressive in his two fights with Leonard then Hagler did. Take away common opponents and Hearns 3 biggest wins over Cuevas,Hill,and Wilfredo in my opinion are better then Hagler 3 biggest wins
I think Hearns is one of the toughest guys to rate. His combination of speed, grace and power is close to unique in boxing history, IMO. But, he had a couple of glaring weaknesses, unusual for someone who is rated so highly by most of us... I personally think he was a fighting genius, and its a good job he didn't have a granite chin as then we would have no P4P debates on ESB...
Hearns is my favourite boxer. I am curious why you have the wins over Wildredo Benitez and Virgil Hill over the knockout of Roberto Duran
Hearns, wherever he fought, was always second best. Hagler was the man to avoid for some time, and then he became king.
Hagler all the way. I like staying at 1 weight. Plus I just think he is better. Tommy was too Fragile. Would lose too many Xs to nobodies with a good punch throughout history if he fought everyone at his weight. Hagler would suffer no freak losses.
Hagler for better longevity, but both of those men were top 10 of 12 pfp ATGS imo...easily. Amazing fighters with breath-taking accomplishments.
That's a tough one, as Hagler stayed great (perhaps greatest) at his weight class, while Duran kept moving up (and not always winning). Another factor is how (strangely) well Duran actually did against Hagler. After seeing the great Hands of Stone get pulverized by Hearns, I expected Marvelous Marvin to blow him out even worse. Didn't happen (far from it). So, it's tough for me to rate either above the other.
