I really like them all as fighters, probably in the order: Leonard, Duran/Hearns, Hagler. The only one who I've got any strong personal feeling for or against is Duran, whom I don't like at all. I probably like Hearns best as a person, becasue of the way he conducted himself. I'm neutral towards Leonard, but like him as a commentator. The only feeling I have towards Hagler is that his animosity against Leonard is a bit childish. He embarasses himself a bit by letting his dislike for Leonard show itself so clearly when he comments on Leonard-Hagler II.
When I was watching as a youngster in the 80's it was Leonard. Now I look at Hearns most fondly of the 4. Wilfred Benitez also deserves a shout when we're talking about this era.
my faves out of the four are ( i like them all though) 1. Hagler 2. Duran 3. Leonard 4. Hearns in terms of greatness 1. Duran 2. Leonard 3. hagler 4. Hearns other fighters at that time i liked Benitez, Honeyghan, Curry, McCallum,
Benitez definitly deserves a shout. He never recovered from the Hearns fight though did he? That seems to be where his career ended. Cuevas was also good, not in the same league but still good.
Hagler because he was the best. Hearns is close second. When he reached his peak in 1984, he appeared to be very much Hagler's equal at Marvin's peak. His KO of Shuler is his most awesome performance. Cuevas the awesome bonebreaker replaces pacifist legend Benitez. He would have massacred ordinary Palomino at welter. Sugar Ray Leonard is fourth. I really would have loved to seen more of him, 147, 154, it doesnt matter. My favorite fantasy match is seeing him and Tony Ayala Jr or Julian Jackson. Sadly, something happened to thwart them from materializing. Duran is really a lightweight and a fighter that came along in an earlier generation so I dont include him with the other three. Benitez I dont think nothing of him so to me he's not worth mentioning.
Leonard gets my vote over Hagler because he has the better wins and went out his depth by moving up in weight. I'm not holding it against Hagler for staying at his natural weight. It's more of a plus on Leonard's behalf rather than a negative mark against Hagler. Leonard beat Benitez, Hearns, and won the rematch against Duran. He never had the longevity at his prime weight that Hagler did, but his quality of wins is on par or perhaps better than Hagler's. He also beat Hagler after having one fight in five years. He was marked down for the graveyard before the first bell rang. And Leonard also went up against the much bigger Lalonde, who dwarfed him, and managed to stop him as well. Just because Duran never beat Hagler when they fought each other, this means he wasn't greater? I think not. Duran's pure prime was at lightweight, and quite possibly up until he fought Leonard. He dominated his division for 7 years, has the best win out all the fights they had against each other when he beat a prime Leonard. He also moved up in weight to capture more titles. He was the only man to take Hagler the full course in all his sucessful title defenses. This losing effort shows me what a special fighter Duran was, even when past his prime. If the "No Mas" fiasco wasn't enough to convince Duran to retire, then getting flattened by Hearns' right hand in one of the most devastating knockouts in the history of the sport should have been the final nail in his coffin. But he solidered on and managed to win a title in a 4th weight division when he beat Barkley. Duran was better than Hagler "pound for pound". Longevity at his prime weight, rebounding from serious career threatning defeats, fighting physically more imposing opponents, and having one of the best wins in boxing history on his C.V. Duran's career was a rollercoaster ride that had everything.
I would agree with you Robbi if he had more wins over Pryor, Nunn, Norris, and Jackson. That would have sealed the deal with me.