Perhaps it makes sense, but what's the point? The Fab four thing is just a promotional gimmick. Duran gets in on a technicality. Sure Benitez didn't fight Hagler, but that is meaningless. He still outclassed Duran, and deserved to be included in that group just as much as Duran, based on ability and record of achievement. Put Duran at number five then.
What are you talking about? Duran beat Leonard in the first superfight of the decade. I’d hardly call that a ‘technicality’.
So I owe an explanation, and to say right away that I agree with Johh. But I will also ask him something. Tell me honestly, if Toney and Hopkins were fighting, would Toney, Hopkins and RJJ be recognized as "The new fabulous three"? Honestly. So RJJ, Toney and Hopkins "traveled through the categories" like the fabulous four (except Hagler) and became champions. "The new fabulous three" started from middleweight as opposed to fabulous; who started from the lower categories. And what I wanted to say: - RJJ became the holder of the heavyweight belt - James Toney became the holder of the belt in the cruiserweight category - Bernard Hopkins became the lightheavyweight belt holder at the age of 48 All in all, I made an oversight because Toney and Hopkins didn't fight, but if they did, would you credit them for "The new fabulous three"?
I'm just not sure 3 is enough, and would they have gotten it on enough times? What did the fab four have, 9 fights? For me, not enough players and they would not have had enough output. We are only adding one fight. It doesn't even scratch the surface IMO.