fab 4 era overrated?

:rofl what the hell are you talking about? did you see even the fight? hagler won this fight clearly...

 

duran lost against all them, i don´t think that he was naturally MUCH smaller than leonard. shorter yes, not much smaller

 

I rewatched duran leonard 1 recently and imo there is clearly a big size differance.

 

Duran jumped two divisions to take on a 24 year old Leonard and was 29 which is fairly late for a lightweight, and had already been around for 13 yrs with 74 fights under his belt. how much life do u think he had left?

I knew no matter what, he wasn't going to go as far in the 80s as previous

Duran is a fighter of the 70s

 

What's your definition of smaller? He certainly had a huge height and reach disadvantage against them all, as I pointed out.

Oviously you're not going to let mere facts and history deter from your dislike for him, so what's the point of discussing this further.

 

On the other hand, it was a litle early for Leonard in his career. I could see why he would be a little concerned regarding if he was ready for this kind of challenge.

Leonard seemed to be more confident in the rematch

 

What the hell are you talking about, I laid out their heights and reach differences and there's a clear difference between Duran and the other three. Hell your eyes alone should be able to pick up on that. But that aside his record is what it is, this is merely an explaination as to why most people rate him the highest of the four on a p4p comparison.

 

so according to you then thomas hearns and michael nunn were bigger than tyson,frazier ,qawi,marciano and tua right? , the size is not just the height and the reach...leonard was naturally a bit heavier than duran because the height , but he was built for the speed and his frame was longer than duran´s but not wider , duran had a robust thorax, leonard was more fragile.and roberto looked stronger than leonard, so the natural size is not a great problem here, hagler yes, he was clearly bigger than duran. i wil not spend my time with you anymore

 

I think the fact that Duran started as a bantam and made the featherweight and then lightweight limit for 10 years, pretty much by definition qualifies him as smaller than a guy who was a full blown welter a few fights into his career.

 

nice try, duran started his career at 17, he was not even a man at this time and he was not developed 100%, ali fought at 175 also at 18, but he was a natural hw at 22-25.

 

i think that duran would be a perfect natural 140 pounder, leonard was a natural 146? because he was taller? it was not a great diference when the shorter man was stronger

 

He made the lightweight limit or lower for ten years. That is not in dispute. Leonard was a full blown welterweight a few fights into his career. He was a naturally smaller man. Any argument to contrary is willful ignorance.

 

The fab 4 are absolutely revered for good reason.

4 of the greatest boxers in history all fighting each other. It's fantastic. Better than the Ross, canzoneri and mcclarnin rivalry.

All 4 make my top 25.

 

so now you don´t use the bull**** the he fought at bantam and featherwight?

 

It is a fact. I merely stated where he started and where he began. You are content to overlook the weight of evidence, that he held and defended a title for 7 years from a division in which none of the other three ever fought.

You seem to be really looking for some online sparring here rather than addressing the cold facts. That is fine. But I am not up for taking this particular thread of the conversation any further.