Who was the greatest fighter out of the fabulous 4?

Hagler.

 

No. I don't think it can be reasonably disputed that Duran was not still prime for SRL 1, it's a good shout for his best ever performance. At what point after that, his prime ended, is open to debate.

It is my contention that Duran's best weight was LW & that SRL was bigger. Those are views held by a collection of our peers and frankly, until tonight, not ones I ever thought I'd see questioned on here.

 

I don't think there's a boxing enthusiast on the planet that would dispute the idea that Duran ranks highest all-time as a Lightweight, but this doesn't mean he was any less of a fighter when he fought Leonard in Montreal and New Orleans. On the contrary, some of Duran's best performances came after he moved up.

Duran's longest reign of dominance and most consistent results were at Lightweight, but is this because he was objectively a better fighter during this time or was it a result of fighting not only smaller guys, but lesser talents than the likes of Leonard, Benitez, Hagler and Hearns?

If someone wants to make the argument that Duran is the greatest of the Fab Four because of his combined achievements in multiple weight divisions, I understand that argument, but this wasn't some blown up aging Lightweight David vs Goliath story that some would like portray. Far from it.

 

I think we're at cross purposes.

You're saying Duran was still in his prime when he first competed at WW. I agree. I'm saying that Duran was a LW at his best & that SRL was bigger. I suspect you agree with both of those contentions.

Was Duran still prime vs Palomino & SRL 1 at WW? Yes.

Was, for example, Pernell Whitaker still prime vs JCC at WW? Yes.

What weight divisions do Duran & Whitaker rank highest in, both from an achievement & H2H perspective? LW. There are fighters who rank above both at WW, but below them P4P. That's because they were both natural LWs during their primes. This is not a difficult concept to comprehend.

The heart of the matter in dispute can be defined as - "Is size relevant to ranking the fab 4 p4p based on their fights against each other" - when it comes to Duran vs SRL, the only question that is relevant to this is:

Who was bigger, SRL vs Duran? I'll happily have a friendly bet with any poster that a poll will determine that to be SRL, by a clear margin.

Imo, the answer to the question you pose in your middle paragraph is - prime Duran was better P4P than every opponent he ever faced. He certainly typically ranks as such. He was dominant at LW because he was typically fighting boxers around his size. Same size & better = consistent domination Duran. Whereas, above LW, Duran was fighting boxers naturally bigger than him. That, allied with the fact that the the best 4 x boxers he

 

I don't know if Duran was at his best as a Lightweight. Just like I don't know if Morales was at his best at Super Bantamweight.

Just because a fighter enjoys more dominance and consistency in a certain weight class doesn't necessarily mean that was the best version of said fighter, it could simply be the result of having fought a lower level of competition.

 

Bingo…. Greg’s argument seems to be centered around the idea that just because Duran started at a lower weight class than the other 3 fabulous four combatants that it automatically gives him a leg up in a p4p rating. Leonard went 4-1-1 against the Fab Four. Duran went 1-4

 

I'll give Greg the benefit of the doubt because he's clearly an intelligent guy with a genuine passion for the sport, but these conversations are often just thinly veiled attempts at trying to dismiss the fact Duran went 1-4 against the best opponents of his career.

There's so much emphasis on Duran being 'naturally smaller' that you would think all four guys (Benitez included) just walked him down and imposed their physical advantages. Duran was outboxed in a lot of these match-ups, especially in his fight with Benitez.

It's totally legitimate to cite the H2H records when comparing these four guys in an all-time sense. It should be an obligation.

 

Agreed 100% as well as to include losses to lesser men. In addition I acknowledged a long time ago in this thread that most people rate Duran higher than Leonard but that I’m in the minority and stated multiple reasons why . Some people can’t just seem to accept that

 

No it isn't.

I've given 6 reasons Duran was smaller than SRL and not one if them cited the weight division Duran started in.

Tbf, you've not answered any of my questions directly. I kindly request that you answer the following 2 questions directly.

1. Who was the bigger fighter, as in had a naturally heavier fighter, at their respective peaks, Duran or SRL?
2. If I posted a poll, "who was the bigger/naturally heavier man in the respective primes" with Duran and SRL as the 2 options, roughly what % votes do you think each would attract and why?

 

Maybe you don't. But a collective vote of our fellow posters ranked Duran #1 all time at LW and #17 all time at WW. I consider that pretty conclusive in Duran being a greater LW than he was WW. Where do you rank Duran all time at LW and at WW?

 

Genuine question - Why do you think a collection of our fellow posters ranked Duran highest of the fab 4, p4p? Do you think its:

A) Because they were unaware Duran went 1-4 vs his greatest 3 opponents;

B) Some kind of collective bias (which is what you appear to be suggesting in this post; or

C) Because they factor size into those fights, as well as the careers of each aside from fights against each other?

 

The answer #1 is Duran. The answer to #2 is still Duran because Ray Leonard was bigger regardless.

but you seem to think this argument about who was bigger is the be all end all of the whole issue and it isn’t for me

 

I think you mean SRL? As in, you think SRL was physically bigger and that he'd be voted as the bigger of the 2 in a poll?

Not at all, as I've said previously, I've no problem with you ranking SRL higher. My only point was, always has been and remains, that Duran was smaller and that should be factored into which of the two you rank the greater p4p.

I.e. Ray shouldn't rank higher just because he had a better win-loss ratio vs the other members of the fab four. But if a part of the reason you rate him higher was because you think he did better than Duran vs other members of the fab 4 relative to their respective sizes, then fair enough, no problem.

 

Marvin barely beat the diminutive Panamanian. He was losing on the cards until the 14th round and he lost a hotly contested decision to a corn fed welterweight who had one fight in five years. He is not those men's better no matter how much his fans want it to be so.

 

He’s also the only one out of the Fab Four to never challenge for a title outside his weight class.