"Four Kings" by George Kimball

Yeah thats the one

 

One of the best boxing books I've read.

 

Curiously enough I just read on another boxing related forum, that the US definition of 'journeyman' is slightly archaic and differs from the current (and more common) understanding of the term.
So on these grounds it would seem i've msunderstood Mr Kimball.
Oops.

 

Perhaps. I have my own minor quibble with "The Four Kings" -he takes for granted that Duran had already had over seventy fights, was past his best, and was considerably north of his natural division. When people talk about the Fab Four, it is important to note this.

Name another lightweight in history who could beat Ray Leonard and compete with Hagler, et al. past prime...

............there's only one.

 

Your views are commonly expressed by the boxing intelligensia. Allow me to explode it.

You say that Leonard and Hagler's willingness to stay in shape throughout their careers is something that diminishes Duran. I commend Leonard and Hagler for their devotion, but you are missing a rather giant factor here...

While it is true that Duran's eventually bad habits came to the fore and effected the quality of his performances, you neglect to point out plain facts. In the summer of 1980, Duran's record was 72-1. That's 73 fights. How many did Leonard have in his total career? A mere 40. Forty! Duran had 40 fights before he was 23 years old. Hagler had a total of 67 fights. When Duran was done he had 119 bouts. That's old school levels.

Hagler was active in 14 years, Leonard was active in 12 years. Duran was active in something like 32 years.

Duran had some bum fights to be sure -but be fair. They all happened after he'd been in the ring a dozen years already and most were when he was in middle age.

 

These are very good points about Duran. And in general, I think an argument why the Moore's, Pep's, Gavilan's, etc. should rate higher than the Leonard's and the Spink's of the modern era. It's much, much tougher to bring it to the table every time, hundreds of times versus 30 or 40 times.
Duran's greatness was cemented before he left the lightweight division. Duran's career after that was a roller coaster of highs and lows, great and poor performances. I value greatly his win over Leonard. I don't see a win in history that matches it. Beating Barkley? Not as much. That's been done before and since. He had another shot against Leonard around this time and really didn't show anything. Barkley was very limited. We've seen smaller, quicker, craftier guys move up and beat larger, plodding guys: Mickey Walker, Langford, Leonard himself, Pac. Against Hagler, I feel like he got in Hagler's head a bit, credit to him for that but don't think it's as close a fight as it's made out to be. Great accomplishment nonetheless.
The only problem I have with Duran's career is the feeling that he stole something from Leonard. Leonard took his ass whipping like a man in the first fight. Duran bailed out, robbed Leonard of his glory, and it's been an unending list of excuses ever since (mostly from his fans). Duran doesn't really need excuses. His record stands on it's own.

 

brilliant book !!

read this all the time , think i know it word for word now

favourite quote in the book

Leonard on Hearns

''They ought to lobotomize hearns to see if theres a brain in there''

 

TBH I hadn't noticed that the book skimped on that. To a boxing fan its obvious that Duran was over 30 for all of the Fab Four era and fighting outside his natural weight so allowances have to be made when judging him based on his performances H2H with Leonard, Hearns and Hagler.

I guess I'd already made those allowances and read the book without realising it doesn't explicitly make the same concessions to Durans situation itself.

Still, superb book esp. the little tangents it goes off on regarding the peripheral figures around at that time.

 

I agree -and make no excuse for his disgracing himself and his fans and the sport that lifted him out of the gutter.

One thing to think about, however. Lightweights are naturally small men. Duran's challenging MWs like he did is an accomplishment that stands alone in history as far as I know. Welterweights, particularly those with longer frames, can compete against larger men. Middleweights like Walker can as well -and Walker was a bull of a man who had the proportions of a larger man.

Duran? That's a small man in there trading shots with Hagler and Barkely.

 

it is superb. Perhaps he, like many, just doesn't recognize Duran as (-easily-) the best of the bunch because he's caught up on the records and Duran lost more than he won, even if he has the most incredible win of all four of them.

Perhaps it was just something he took for granted. Still, it's one of my favorite boxing books.

 

Well, reflecting on it a bit, it's a credit to Duran that he was so good that his effort against Hagler is somewhat taken for granted (by me at least). Hagler was blowing big Middleweights (Sibson, Scypion) away at that time. I'd also consider '83 the tail end of Hagler's prime. So yeah, point taken, that's one hell of an effort.

 

The bit I most remember from that book which was something I was unaware of, was Hearns putting his NABF belt in Shulers coffin after he had died in motorcycle accident not long after their bout

Classy guy

 

Got this and Hands of Stone for Christmas, ended up reading Hands of Stone first.

Can't wait to dig into this one.