fab 4 era overrated?

I should hope not cause you have no respect for boxers or posters you don't like or agree with, which only serves to illustrate your poor debating skills.

Whether you like Duran, or hate him, he was definately the smaller of the four, of that there's no doubt.

 

One would think that would be obvious to most posters, but apparently not.

 

I see your point.
And about Leonard's loss to Norris. Was he champion at 154 when he lost to Norris in 1991? No.. Was Duran champ when he lost to Leonard or Hearns? Yes. Did Duran fight recently at 154 when he fought Hearns and Benitez? yes. Did Leonard? No.

If we go by age, Duran lost to Hearns at 32, what age was Hearns when he beat Virgil Hill? 32, a weight he only fought at 3 times.

 

He also beat the man that beat all of them.

 

:hi:

 

Heavy Hands is without peer in the debating department. He is without equal.

 

don´t be a troll and i will answer to you with my argument gladly

 

which is why I dont go by age, especially when a fighter has as few bouts as Leonard. Leonard's loss to norris wasnt at all like Duran's loss to Leonard for the reason that Leonard simply didnt have enough bouts to wear out. and besides that, Leonard's couple of added pounds to 147 doesnt rate with what Duran did, jumping two weight classes. Leonard had already campaigned and even fought for the 154 lb championship earlier in his career

Leonard was probably at his best weight fighting Norris in 1991 and should have been able to beat him. Leonard's game was speed and carrying that extra weight at 160 just slowed him down and looked very well muscled and conditioned. So against Norris he really has no excuses.

Had we been fortunate enough to have Norris come along at an earlier time, Leonard's loss wouldve likewise come much sooner

I like Floyd tho. Notice how he just keeps winning and winning, even at at an advanced age? There's really no one like him. Even after an extended layoff, he can pick up right where he left off and win with ridiculous ease

 

Further proof of why you are a great poster, my friend:good 4 of the greatest fighters ever fought each other. Hell, in this era, it's hard to get the 2 current best in each weightclass to fight each other.

 

Yes. And all anyone has to do is look at the tales of the tape of the fights with Duran and the other members of the Fab 4 (and let's throw in Benitez, too, for good measure) to see that he was clearly smaller than the others. The tape doesn't lie.

 

I see your point about Floyd, and he is a good fighter and skilled. But the thing about Floyd I don't like much is that Floyd has not put his 100 percent into his fighting, so at 36 he is fresher than everyone else because he has not taken on the top challenges which really push a fighter mentally and physically. Why do you think Ray was burned out in 1982 after Duran,Benitez and Hearns?
If Floyd fought Hagler,Hearns,Leonard,Benitez,Duran he would not be in that shape now I guarantee it regardless of wins or losses. Those types of fighters always push you and you have to fight the right fights and be smart to win. I am not that impressed with the way fighters like Hopkins and Mayweather handpick and manuever. Look at Miguel Cotto, not as good as Mayweather or Hopkins, but he fights anyone they put in front of him and he is worn out now. He has to be. If you fight the best you get worn out. That is why age is not that important. If a guy is fresh at 36, then you know he had avoided the big fights. And anyway, how would we know how fresh Floyd is if he fights Guerrero level fighters. He has to step up and fight the top guys like Canelo. I think he can win, but he has to fight him and it might be tough.

 

1. detched retina
2. Your argument is useless. Cotto made a career out of getting his ass beaten (Torres, Pac, Margo). Floyd's resume is deeper than Cotto's. The difference is that Floyd is better than the guys he fights and is 1000% better defensively. I would like to see Floyd fight Canelo, but I'm well aware that Canelo has a thin resume and if Floyd gets another easy win, it'll get downplayed just like an endless list of Floyd's other victories.

 

Ray wasnt burned out in 82. What he did is just the START of a career, not a career in itself

let him fight Pryor, Curry, two logical opponents

and fighting a shell doesnt pack the same punch with me as it does for you. I saw Hagler in sparring two weeks before the fight (I know, who gives a ****)
and that's how I know Ray's seemingly incredible win was not so incredible after all. Floyd wouldve done it. Norris wouldve done it. hearns wouldve done it. Roy Jones, hell yeah. Hagler was a stiff and I'm not going to give Sugar credit for it. there is NO WAY IN HELL Sugar wouldve been upright in a actual straight up match with Hagler.

There is no BUTS about it, Ray is inferior to Floyd. Floyd can continue on with his career while Leonard & his fans are left looking for excuses why he couldnt win a round from Norris

"If a guy is fresh at 36 you know he avoided the big fights"

That's hardly a persuasive argument. Archie Moore? Monzon? Tiger? Hopkins?

you're getting there but u still have a ways to go

 

Cotto fought better fighters when they were prime than Floyd and showed more courage. That is not clear? What make Floyd's resume deeper? Fighting whom? Castillo? Manfredy? Look I agree Floyd is one of the best fighters out there, which is why I wonder about his confidence and why he has to handpick guys like Guerrero. I thinking is he fights Berto next. Or Mallignaggi if he beats Broner. He would never fight Broner.

 

Ray is inferior to Floyd? Not if you look at opposition. I never said Hagler was fighting great in 1987. He was inactive and didn't want to box anymore (really after Hearns). Yet I do still think Hagler could fight and was a decent fighter in 1987, Ray did study him well and fought him at the right time. But that was Hagler's fault to fight Ray at that time and to come in right handed. Hagler's best fight was Hearns. Hearns made a mistake there of getting Hagler mad. Yes I stand by that statement about Floyd and being fresh. A guy is 36 and fresh he avoided a tough career. He should be worn out after a long career, and saying he is incredible when he fights Guerrero and avoided Pacman for years is giving him too much credit. Far too much. He should have fought Manny and he didn't. That right there eliminates him from being incredible.