Who was the greatest fighter out of the fabulous 4?

I respect anyone who picks Duran over the other and there are some great arguments for doing so. I pick Leonard because of how well rounded his resume is. Olympic gold medal. Best results over the other three. Most quality in the smallest number of fights. But Duran’s claim to being the best lightweight of all time, huge wins in higher weight classes and overall longevity makes him one of the best ever.

 

Definitely. Especially after a load of beers and a few stripes with Harry Nilsson and Keith Moon.

 

Duran basically had a hagler like career at LW(except his best wins/challengers werent dragged up from below, which isnt a dig at Hagler)
And then you have everything else at WW JMW and MW on top of that. IMO his legacy is cemented at Montreal everything above/after that is only a bonus and cant be counted against him. The no mas quitjob is unfortunate but when you regard the rest of his career it really seems like just a one off, temporary insanity or maybe he truly just had diarrhea/cramps(i read an article by a reporter who saw him eat 4 16 oz steaks and several grapefruits, one of them whole with the skin after the weigh in and then literally heard Duran have diarrhea as soon as he ran into his dressing room toilet)

SRL is a close but clear second both of them High level ATGs.

Imo Duran is the best fighter since ali and SRL maybe top 3 but definitely top 5


Hagler Hearns are ATGs as well but a level below.

 

This is pretty easy , its Duran who is a top 10 ATG . the 3 others in any order are just out of the top 20

 

Definition of a shot fighter.

 

Don’t forget the P4P perspective.

Given same, my vote goes to Richard Starkey - not least for his durability and longevity.

My bad. He only lets his good friends like myself call him that.

To the rest of the world, he’s known as Ringo Starr.

He knows his music. He’s been right into Bach for years.

Yeah, I know. Get outta here!

 

That’s a bit too soon, I think.

 

With all due respect to all other fair and reasonable opinions expressed here, I'll just say, personally, I'm totally only board with your take Greg. Both your treatment of the question and your conclusions have been very comprehensive and logical.

 

Cheers Pug.

Duran is the greatest of the 4 by a comfortable, if not huge, margin imo and the opinion of the majority. That said, its subjective and I have no problem with anyone ranking SRL higher.

Trying to insinuate that Duran wasn't the smallest of the fab 4 and/or that size shouldn't be factored in when assessing the impact the results of their fights had on the standing of each, however, is something i felt needed calling out.

 

A distinction should be made between the words 'greater' and 'better'.

Duran campaigned at Lightweight for a far longer period of time and was more dominant in that weight category, and that's why he ranks highest at 135, but he was never better than he was for the first few years he campaigned as a Welterweight in my estimation.

This isn't a controversial view. The majority of people agree that Duran's best ever showing was in Montreal, which was fought at Welterweight, not Lightweight.

 

I think the distinction that needs making is between the weight divisions Duran fought at during his prime years (both LW and WW) and the weight division he was best at during his prime, relative to other fighters from that weight division (LW).

If "better" is what you are interested in, then create a poll, choosing Duran and 9 other LWs of your choice and ask them to vote who was the best H2H. Duran will get the most votes. Ill do the same at WW. Not only will Duran not get the most votes, he won't get the 2nd or even 3rd most. I'm not even sure he would be in the top 5. Which stands to reason, he was capable of making LW during his prime years, the other WWs I'd select for said poll, would not be. He is "better" p4p than fighters who are "better" than him at WW. He typically ranks as such on both greatness and h2h (I.e. based on who was "better") lists. This can only be true because he's smaller.

Inoue may end up fighting at FW whilst still prime. Hell, he may even get his career best win and performance up there. But he will always be a natural BW and a better BW than FW.

To repeat myself once again, my sole point is that Duran was the smallest of the fab 4 and that, that should be factored in when assessing his results against the others. Your responses to me seem to suggest you disagree with me on this, yet so far you have fallen short of saying as much explicitly. So, I'll ask you, do you consider Duran to be the smallest of the fab 4? As in, capable of making the lowest weight during his prime years and still performing at or very close to his best?

 

Duran was clearly better P4P at 135 than 147, he may have been more experienced and had more energy at 147 than 2 years earlier at 135 but given that his opponents were now 2 full weight classes bigger those advantages are negated.

I think Holyfield was better overall in his first few years as a HW than he was in his last year at 190 but i rate him higher h2h p4p at CW.

You can make that argument for several fighters who eventually outgrow a weight

 

P4P Duran to me gets a razor's edge over Leonard then Hagler followed by Hearns ....

 

Exactly

 

This is quite literally my position.

I'm not arguing that Duran ranks higher at WW than he does at LW, I'm saying that Leonard encountered arguably the best version of Duran that ever existed, and therefore his victory against him isn't diminished simply by virtue of the fact he started out as a Lightweight. If you say 'Leonard beat him but he was a natural Lightweight', then the implication is that he was somehow worse. I don't think this was the case.

Now as for who you rank as the greatest of the fab four, I have no motivation to argue with anyone who picks Duran. I understand the logic.

The waters have been muddied a bit here. Unnecessarily, I might add.