fab 4 era overrated?

Duran ruled his division for the best part of a decade and in an era when there was only 2 governing bodies, he beat them all. He became only the 2nd man in 40+ years to successfully jump up from 135 to 147 & comprehensively beat the P4P Goldenboy of the day. Name me another lineal Lightweight champion who became Lineal Middleweight Champion! You can't! There's only one! DURAN!!! He did that at the ripe old age of 37.

You gob off he was the WORST of the fab 4 He had no right even being in the ring with any of them in his 30's whilst they were all in there prime & him being a blown up lightweight competing with the Titans of the 147 & 160 divisions. It just shows you what an incredible accomplishment it was that he could outbox & hammer the likes of Leonard all over the ring in Montreal! Batter a up & coming young superstar in the making in Davey Moore who was being groomed as the new SRL when just 8 months earlier he was being told to retire for being just a fat washed up old pug when he lost to Laing. He gave Hagler fits! The very same Hagler who SRL & Tommy wanted no part of, gets knocked out by Hearns then beats the man who wiped Hearns out and at 37 years of age.

What you DON'T know about boxing and this era could fill a book:deal

Last man standing - DURAN:bbb:deal

 

It wouldn't be a good fight if it was only one fighter displaying great skills, it takes two fighters going to war to make for a great fight. Funny thing is those who don't like Duran don't even appreciate these kinds of fights. And some of the newer posters knock this type of fights even though they've never taken the time to watch them. They just can't imagine anyone being as good as Pac or Mayweather, which to me is sad.

 

Now that's a post worth reading!! :good

 

There's too may dipshits on this forum for my liking. Tell me kid how many Duran fights have you watched?

 

The truth hurts.

 

you have great credibility with your nick name, **** off troll, fan girl

 

jesus.. i have no time for it... duran was a force in his natural weight (lw divison) but he never was tested at lw against another all time great, buchanan was very good at best, so he was not proved enough at his best weight, he did beat leonard once beacuse sugar fought the wrong fight and he owned duran in the rematch, he lost by brutal ko against hearns and he got dominated by hagler( this fight was not close actually, duran was lucky because hagler did not fought aggressive this night), in few words, duran never was tested against another all time great lw, and he lost against every legend that he faced (leonard, hearns and hagler), pipino cuevas, benitez... were very good but not great ,of course that he was the worst of the 4, robinson was a natural small welter and he owned great guys who were naturally much bigger like lamotta. leonard did beat hagler and he was naturally smaller too, so does not matter the excuse of the natural size.. the worst of the 4 , period

 

waiting for solid facts and not a bit more of "the bunch say it so i t is the truth" some thing like "ali is the greatest lalala"

, de jesus, benitez, pipino cuevas, buchanan... all were good but not great, leonard fought the wrong fight and he did beat duran in the rematch ... plus duran had a good chance with leonard because stylistical motives, tell me where is the argument in order to prove that he was the best of the 4... pure speculation? prime lw duran would beat anyone? some thing like "prime tyson 86-88"? ridiculous... you can argue that he was good because he was a natural lw and he was " competent" against leonard and hagler, but he lost clearly... i can´t see any point to say that he was the best of the 4...(even pfp)

 

wanker

 

Why do you have excusses for his wins and not his losses? To me the wins are the wins and the losses are the losses. Which means he beat Leonard and he came close to beating Hagler, and yes he lost the rematch to Leonard and he lost to Hearns. Accept all this for what it is.

Now because I was a bit bored recently I checked out the height and the reach of the fab 4. Hearns was 6'1" with a 76in reach. SRL was 5'10 with a 74" reach and Hagler was 5'9/2 with a 75" reach. Duran was 5'7 with a 66" reach.

So he was giving up between 8-10 inches of reach between these fighters. If you know anything about boxing you know that's not easy to overcome, especially if you're fighting elite fighters in their best division.

But hey you don't have to care about whether or not this is a factor, nor do you have to like Duran, but these are facts which probably don't matter to you, but they mean something to me and the majority who give the nod to Duran as best of the fab four P4P.

 

I think it's semantics. He is the greater fighter of the four due to his career accomplishments. In head to head competition among the four, tho, his record is the least. However, he also beat the best version of the fighter with the best record of the four. You take into account that he was the oldest (7 years older than Hearns, 5 than Leonard and 3 than Hearns) and by far the smallest of the four, truly fighting out of his prime weight class, and you begin to see how impressive he was. Career and legacy-wise, he is the greatest of four. He ruled an entire weight division for 7 years before even venturing into the land of the Fab 4 and was still active and relevant long after the others were retired or beyond relevancy. His post prime wins over Moore, Barkley and a Castro just removed from the WBC title have only Hearns' victory against Hill (who was the age of Duran in the Moore fight) as equals for displays of skill in old age.

 

Hearns wins over Benitez and Hill top any win Duran ever had except Leonard, and then Ray won the rematch easily. His post prime wins over Moore and Barkley are good wins, but never could get a guy a top 10 ratings or rated over Leonard. Leonard beat all 4 guys. Hearns,Benitez,Duran, Hagler. He is greater than Duran on that, unless you can show me guys of that caliber which Duran beat at lightweight, since he did not beat that level above lightweight which he had only something like 10 defenses in 8 years. Virgil Hill had something like 25 title defenses in his career. And if beating Ray makes him top 10 (regardless of the fact I don't think Ray was yet a superfighter) that would make Ray number one fighter ever. What fights make Duran the best of the fab 4? Who did he beat to make him that?

 

First, I'd like to say I appreciate all the sane members who have contributed to this thread. I agree. This era is different because the demands and expectations of the fighters are different.

Sometime between the 80's til the 90's, the importance of remaining undefeated for whatever reason (marketing I'm sure) became the top priority. That doesn't make it okay, but it is what it is.

Great logic. So Holmes and Bob Foster are **** too, huh? So a fighter is penalized because of a lack of top-shelf opposition?

Specifically at LW, Whitaker never fought another great LW- does that mean we can discount him? He moved up to face bigger names and great talent just like Duran...

 

I like Mayweather. he is fast, slick, quick, and makes opponents sick. he is still going strong past an age where Norris easily defeated SRL. Therefore, Floyd should be ranked much higher. I mean, look at him! he just keeps winning!

I hope Floyd goes out undefeated. I don't want him ending up like Sugar Ray Leonard

Hagler was the best. In his prime, no one would go near him. Hearns sidestepped him for 3 yrs, Leonard for 5. 5 was enough

Duran's time was during the 70s and his career had run its course by 1979

Hearns peaked in 84 and only Hagler could beat him

 

Dran beat Leonard who beat hagler who beat Hearns who beat Duran

I dont think this makes any sense at all. it's nonsense. Duran was a fighter of the 70s

if u want to count his losses from the 80s at higher weights, then u MUST count Leonard's loss to Norris!

u cannot apply one standard to Duran and not apply the same standard to Leonard

Leonard was easily destroyed at an age Floyd Mayweather is still going strong.Therefore, Floyd is ranked higher than Sugar