Hearns, Hagler, Leonard or Duran?

Huertas is not Hearns or Hagler. That partying stuff is a good excuse. Duran was still in his 20s when he fought Leonard in the 1980s. Seems like when he lost his excuses were age, if that did not work it was partying. Yet he got credit for beating Moore, he lost bigtime to Benitez and Hearns. Duran at 135 never fought a Pernell Whitaker or a Chavez. Would have changed things. The fact is that the 4 greatest fighters he ever fought Hearns,Hagler,Leonard,Benitez he lost to. Duran's lightweight reign does not get him p4p best fighter since the 1960s.

 

Tommy Hearns.

 

That's no more "the fact is" than saying Chavez barely got past Laporte and was in hard tough fights with guys like Lockridge and Ramirez around lightweight, so would likely be brutally dismantled by Duran.

I'm not one for focusing on partying excuses either.The fact he was so far above his best weight for most of those losses is the real key.Someone like Benitez was just a better junior middleweight, as was Hearns.

and why wouldn't he get some credit for beating Moore.Does the fact some can argue rightly or wrongly he wasn't at his best for some losses around this weightrange then preclude him from being given credit when he does beat world class fighters.

Think about it for a second and realise how ridiculous it is.Not that Duran doesn't have his fanboys..but c'mon.

 

Hearns
Hagler
Duran
Leonard

 

His overall career is more impressive than the Hagler's, Leonard's, or Tommy's. That's the reason why he rates higher.

Duran's career started a decade before Hearns or Leonard's, and about 5 or 6 years before Hagler's. His best weight was 12lbs below Leonard's best weight, 12-19lbs below Tommy's best weight, and 25lbs below Hagler's. By the time he fought Moore, Benitez, and Hearns he was already 15 years into his career, and about 20lbs above his best division.

By that same time - 15 years after their careers began - Roy Jones was getting flattened by Tarver and Johnson, Ray Leonard was getting outclassed by Norris, Arguello was getting stopped by Pryor, and Hagler was retired. Do you honestly think it's ridiculous to say he was past his prime by the time he was facing Hearns, Benitez, Moore, etc? That's why his wins around that time are impressive, because he was so clearly past his prime but was still able to pull of impressive wins.

He had a prime run of 72-1, twice avenging his lone loss, was the Lightweight champion for 7 years with 12 defenses and the Welterweight champion, wins over Ray Leonard, Ken Buchanan, Esteban DeJesus twice, Carlos Palomino, Ernesto Marcel, and very good conteders or former/future champions like Lampkin, Ishimatsu, Viruet, Kobayashi, Fernandez, Mamby, etc. I think Duran was still in his prime while at 147 when he quit against Leonard, so, after his amazing run from '68-'80, he quits, he has past his prime and above his best weight losses to probably the best 154lbs fighter ever, one to an ATG who visably fit better at the weight than he did, and a top 5 ATG Middleweight. He also has losses to the likes of Laing and Sims, again, an obvious sign that he was well past his prime. However, he still manages past his prime knockouts of Cuevas and Moore for the 154lbs title, a win over a solid fighter in Minchillo, and a win over Barkley to capture the Middleweight title 17 years after he won the Lightweight crown. Then there is the rest of his career in the 90's and up to 2001.

His resume is better than Hearns' or Hagler's, and given the quantity of good wins, better than Leonard's as well. He was a dominant champion like Hagler, and a multi-division champion like Leonard and Hearns. He has longevity over all of them, far and away. At his peak, virtually everone agrees that he was among the absolute best and most complete fighters in history. The vast majority of the boxing world are not wrong when they rate him as a top 10 ATG.

 

Ramirez was carried by Chavez. That was very evident. Lockridge was a good fighter at 130. I do not think Duran would have dismantled Chavez. It would have been an excellent fight. I would favor Duran, but it would be good. No way would he have a win against Chavez which looked like the Lampkin fight for example.
Duran fans give him too many excuses. He was a great fighter for his lightweight reign and beating Ray, but he also could not take it up a level and beat the greatest fighters he ever fought. Duran fans can say it is because he was not at lightweight and ignore the fact that Hearns and Leonard and Benitez were a much higher level than Duran's lightweight defenses.
I think the Moore fight indicates a guy Duran could beat and did beat-Moore had 11 fights to that point. Yet he gets credit for that. But he loses to great fighters like Hearns and Benitez, and all of a sudden he did not train. So a guy fights the best fighters he is going to ever fight and he loses and the excuse is he does not train? How great a fighter is that who does not train when he fights great fighters? Part of being great is knowing who has the tools to beat you. Duran just could not compete with the elite above lightweight, regardless of the excuses.

 

So are you saying that since his career started before those guys he does not belong in the fab 4 of the 1980s? He certainly was the least dominant of the 4.
He was 7 years older than Hearns and 5 than Leonard. And Hagler was only 3 years younger than Duran. How was he so much older than those guys? He fought Hearns at 32 years old. How old was Hearns when Tommy beat Virgil Hill who had 10 defenses of the light heavy title? 32!! See how ridiculous these excuses are. Leonard was losing to Norris the same year Hearns was beating Hill. Leonard did not stay sharp and fight the fights Hearns did, so saying Leonard was washed up in 1991 still does not mean Hearns was.
You cannot say Duran's wins over Cueves and Moore were that great, or else you have to admit that Hearns and Benitez beat the Duran who beat those two guys. Duran fans give him the credit for the wins, but not admit his losses.
His record of 72-1 is good, but he fought a lot of non title fights to pad his record. Even Yori Boy was undefeated with 50 fights or so once wasn't he? Fact is Duran's lightweight reign was mediocre, but he was dominant. But he did not have the discipline or skills to keep this dominance up as he moved up,and that reign does not make him top 10 ATG. So what does?. I think Hearns win against Virgil Hill is better than any win Duran had above lightweight including Leonard. Leonard was inexperienced when he fought Duran. Hill had 10 defenses. Duran's reign and career says top 20, but not top 5. No way.

 

His wins over Moore, Barkley, and Cuevas are impressive because he beat them past his prime. That's the most impressive thing about them. Hearns and Benitez beat that Duran, and that Duran was a past his prime Duran. How much weight do you put on Hearns's losses to Barkely? Right after beating Hill he lost to Barkley. His win over Hill must not be that great then right?

His record of 72-1 was filled with good wins. His reign was Mediocre? He beat a top 10-15 all-time Lightweight, and another top 15-20 all-time Lightweight. He beat the best contenders of his day. His reign at Lightweight was no more mediocre than Hagler's at 160. Leonard had a very extensive amateur career and had already given what very well may be the best all-around performance of his entire career when he beat Benitez.

I disagree completely with your ranking of Duran as only top 20, but I have a question regarding it. you say he is only top 20, yet he should rank lower than the other 3, so do you rank Hearns and Hagler as top 20 too? I personally don't see that.

Anyway, I think there are a clear top 5 all-time (Robinson, Langford, Greb, Armstrong, and Charles), so I disagree with placing Duran as top 5 as well, but saying he is the greatest of all of the other contenders for a spot at #6 is reasonable to me.

 

he beat Ernesto Marcel (who later beat Sam Serrano and Alexsis Arguello) in his 16th fight and dominated over some excellent lightweights Buchanan. Dejesus,Hiroshi Kobayashi,Guts Ishimatsu, Edwn Viruet,Saol Mamby,Lou Bizzaro, Vilomar fernandez, Suger Ray Lampkin..also he was a natural 135 lber that moved up and beat 147lb Leonard and a 154, Cuevas, Moore and 160 Barkley at age 38....Duran was sporatic and not always in top shape but made it close vs Hagler( I had the difference 2 rds ) and he beat 101-5-2 Jorge Castro at 165 and 46 yrs old....Duran was Dominant at 135 ( PERFECT WEIGHT FOR HIM) the Duran of Leonard 1 would have been a tough fight for any 147 lber EVER, GIVE OR TAKE

 

leonard was my favourite to watch as a kid - he was entertaining and exciting cuz he did the unexpected - but all were great to see in action.

 

Hearns /Duran--The hitman was the only one do to that to Roberto before or since,WHAT A DISPLAY OF POWER!!.His span of victories through the divisions are awesome. Roberto's dominance was before the 80s,have to give him credit for being in the fab 4. Hearn's accomplishments are greater than the rest(minus his loses)..

 

Hagler was a bumbler, and doesn't even belong on the list.

The other 3 are all tied.

In who was the best...... #1would have to be Leonard as he beat all of them and handed that plodding southpaw Hagler his ass.

 

speaking of bumbling plodders:



http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=norris+leonard&aq=f

 

Another bitter Hagler fan, who wants to use the Terry Norris fight as a measuring stick of how good Leonard was. :roll: Why not use the Camacho fight?

Better yet rewatch him make Hagler look the fool.:nut

 

Welcome to the forum.

I was and still am a huge leonard fan and the others here at ESb can testify to this. But let's be honest; Leonard had a lot of legs left going into the Norris fight while Hagler had nothing going into the Leonard fight.


I love Leonard but I can't in good conscience give Leonard credit for beating a shell.

The Norris fight accurately gauges leonard's ability to handle to deal with fast moving boxers, something that Hagler no longer was. Hagler had no speed at the time of their meeting while Norris was by far the fastest opponent of ray's career. As was hector Camacho. In those fights we see the stark contrast in performance. It was the speed he couldnt deal with.

Tommy Hearns, who didnt quite possess Terry's versatilty or speed, would have won comfortably but didnt possess 15 round stamina. Tommy had the right plan but the tank was only half full. Terry had no such weaknesses and as a result, left Leonard swatting the air.