Does anyone rate Hearns greater than Duran, Hagler and SRL?

IMO, Ray Leonard is the best of the bunch.

 

Duran

Leonard


Hagler/Hearns

 

My pick for top of that list is unquestionably Duran. The man totally dominated the lightweights in his early career and represented himself well up to near the end of his career when he couldn't make the lower weights of welter and below. After Welter, he didn't fare so well and that is when 14 of his 16 losses occurred.

His longevity is a testament to his greatness by the fact he started fighting in 1968 below 120 lbs and didn't finish fighting until 2001, fighting as high as 176 lbs. In his early career he ran off 31 straight wins until his loss to De Jesus, then ran off 40 more wins until his loss to Leonard at 147. That gave him a career record up to that time of 71-2. That is probably 30 or more career fights than many of the champions that came after him.

His 70 stoppages alone are more than any of the others total career bouts.
Well, that's my reasoning for Duran. I'm sure others will and have disagreed.

 

Listen up zombie, A 32 yr old alleged washed up Duran went straight in with Hagler after he beat Moore then Hearns eventually went in with Hagler after he'd KO'd Duran but Leonard ducked Hagler for 5 years & thats the controversy along with the fact he only re-matched Hearns (8 years) & Duran (9 years) when they were well passed it & had too agree too SuperEgoBitches catchweight $MILLION penalty contract stipulations. But i doubt that you'd comprehend anything seeing you were still an un- fertilised blob lurking at the far end of a dark yeast filled organic tube

 

Hearns was big, was more exciting to watch and the way he demolished Duran which Hagler and Leonard didn`t really.

 

in that order

Duran
Leonard
Hearns
Hagler
Benitez

 

Current poll has SLR in first place! What is wrong with people?

In terms of his overall record and career achievements Duran has to be first.

However Hearns has to be a close second because his ring achievements are the most outstanding and historic of the four.

Compare Hearns resume to SRL and he has out performed him where it counts.

Hearns was the first ever five weight champ and also took an IBO belt at cruiser making him the first ever six weight champ. Hearns is also the only welter to ever fight at cruiser.

Hearns also fought in better class than SLR overall, particularly post 160lb. Moreover Hearns always made weight for his post 160 title fights, SLR always fought closer to 160 at 'catch weight'. Hearns was a genuine SM and LH belt holder because he made weight.

Hearns also fought a longer career than SLR ending up 61(48)-5-1.
SLR's record was only 36(25)-3-1. How is that better than Hearns?

Hearns won more titles in more divisions and also fought more champions and top ten ranked fighters than SLR. Hearns has a better record with more historic achievements.

Can someone therefor explain to me why the Poll rates SLR at 21 and Hearns at 4?

 

He is my favorite of the 4 by far, though most people rank him the last of the 4. I dont have a good enough understanding of the era to accurately rank them plus Im biased to want to put Hearns higher.

People sometimes underrate him with this chin ****, he was over-trained for the leonard fight and was stopped in the late rounds, if it was a 12 round fight he would have won a decision. Leonard deserves the win and all that but if his chin was **** he would have been stopped earlier not so late. With hagler he broke his hand in the first and still fought like a warrior with a broken hand.

 

Its also lame SRL waited so long for the rematch. Its not like it wouldnt have sold well or the public didnt want it so he cant use that excuse. He gets full credit for his win but he knew he was outboxed the majority of the fight and if Hearns didnt get hurt and tired down the stretch again there was a big chance he would loose a decision

 

Hearns deserves to be second in the poll because his ring achievements merit it.

Between Hearns and SLR much rests on their post 160 achievements and Hearns is more legit, prolific and historic on every comparable point. Hearns did more than SLR; fact.

People also forget that in the first fight at welter Hearns was ahead on points when SLR stopped him in round 14. Therefor Hearns actually beat SLR over 12 rounds at welter - there are good reasons why 15 rounders were banned.

As for Hearns' chin it was suspect, but not that bad. Hagler and Barkley would have dropped anyone with the shots that knocked out Hearns. Furthermore SLR has two KO losses on his record too.

In anycase it is a fact that Hearns has more historic achievements than SLR and a deeper, longer record. He therefor deserves a higher rating than SLR.

 

sugar ray he got the best of all of them head to head

though Hagler has the best title reign

hearns has the most titles per class

and Duran has the best longetivity

 

For the record the second Hearns SLR fight was officially scored a draw, which was very unpopular at the time.

However Leonard later admitted that he thought Hearns had clearly won in spite of the official verdict.

 

Yep. Money in the bank:deal

 

:good:good:good

 

duran , no doubt!