¿Should Wilfred Benítez be considered the fifth fantastic of the 80s?

Here there is an extensive thread on why Hagler - Benitez didnt happen:
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/why-didn’t-marvin-hagler-fight-wilfred-benitez-in-1982.681779/

 

Correct, you'd think people would get the concept by now geez.

 

He didn't fight any of these guys. The main idea behind this "big 4" concept is the group fighting each other and having a split series. Barkley would be next man up if we made it a group of 6.

 

The fascinating thing is that this can be flipped. Substitute Benitez in for Hagler. Benitez fought the other three and completed the task 5 years before Hagler did. One can say well Hagler never fought Benitez so he's not in the club. It's literally the same.

I'm not saying it should be this way, but i can 100% understand why people are confused at times.

 

Now see, that’s interesting. I guess because I tend to hold Benitez a bit below Hagler, I never bothered to think of that particular grouping.

If you already have your Rushmore, you don’t really think of altering it.

 

I'm exactly the same mate. I think it was Saint Pat a while ago that said something similar, or the same. I didn't get it for a bit lol

 

Benitez enters in, never fought Hagler but fought the better version of the two (Hearns and Leonard), Duran was humiliated in his own field but I'd argue that the man looked a bit more prepared for Hagler than Benitez.

 

That is a fascinating idea: Benitez being actually the legit 4th King and Hagler being actually an usurper.

All things considered, the key factor for Hagler being considered the 4th King over Benitez is his fight with Leonard. But lets remember that:
1) That fight almost didnt happen.
2) It was a fight versus a past prime out of retirement Leonard.
3) On top of that Hagler embarrased himself losing to Leonard.

Maybe Benitez is the rightful 4th King after all...