Cheers mate, and i understand totally where you come from. I would be, after all, in the minority i think.
I remember seeing a news article after the Hagler Hearns war which summed up the quality of both fighters at the time. Hagler may or may not be the better fighter,but he is the better Middleweight"
Robbi misunderstands me. I think it's because he didn't read my earlier comment. I rank Duran ahead of Hagler. Eight years at lightweight, 12 successful title defenses, only one twice-avenged loss in a non-title bout to a terrific fighter in DeJesus, spectacularly dominating two excellent welterweights in Palomino and Leonard, brutal beatdowns of Cuevas and Moore, an extraordinary performance against the best middleweight in history, and winning the WBC middleweight title against Barkley put Duran over Hagler and considerably above Hearns and Leonard. I have Duran third on my all-time list. Only Robinson and Armstrong are greater. Duran's two big legacy downsides are his lackluster performance against Benitez (he should have been up for this big fight) and his crushing defeat to Hearns (styles do make fights sometimes). My point about Leonard is comparative. He lost to Duran. But he more than lost to Duran. Duran hurt him and put him against the ropes for most of the 15 round contest. Let's be blunt about it: Duran overwhelmed Leonard. Duran could be expected to put in the kind of performance he did against Hagler because he is a master boxer and had by that point grown into a middleweight. Remember, Duran would go on to beat Barkley, even knocking the big man down. But Duran, despite his best efforts, did lose his fight with Hagler. You will likely want to bring up Leonard's rematch with Duran and the rubbermatch, but I am not impressed. Both the rematch between Duran and Leonard were essentially non-events, even if you blame Duran for both of them (and I do). And before you tell me that Leonard fought the wrong fight in the first fight, I need to tell you that I'm not buying that excuse. Duran whipped his ass. Bottomline: Hagler's experience with Duran is more impressive, since Hagler beat Duran in the best comparative moment. Leonard beat Hearns, but, as we all know, Leonard lost the first five rounds (or at least four of the first five), was set back on his heels briefly at the close of round 6, lost round 7, worked his way back into the fight and was in control (9, 10, 11, 12) before his lack of stamina betrayed him. How people rank Leonard so highly after Duran I and Hearns I has always baffled me. He was exposed as much less than somebody deserving of the praise he regularly receives. Then, as if the evidence weren't clear enough, in the rematch with Hearns, Hearns dropped Leonard twice and outpointed him. In both fights, Leonard couldn't figure Hearns out. Do I really need to say it? Hagler walked through Hearns. Had Hearns hit Leonard with the shots he hit Hagler with, Leonard would be a human bobblehead. Hearns exploded in the first round. Hagler took it all and by the end of the first round had the fight in hand. Hagler not only proved he was better than Leonard by clearly beating Duran and blowing away Hearns, but he also defeated Leonard when they met, despite Hagler's diminished skills and poor timing, and despite the fact that Leonard put in a great performance. I have watched that fight so many times, giving those who think Leonard won the benefit of the doubt, sitting down with them and asking them to tell me what they are seeing that makes them believe Leonard won. I have no question in my mind that Hagler deserved the decision. So at the end of the day, Leonard is ranked fourth because he lost to Duran, lost to Hearns, and lost to Hagler in the most definitive moments. Yes, he beat Duran twice after that, but consider the circumstances in the second and the pathetic character of the third. And, yes, he beat Hearns, but from the facts that he lost most of the rounds, looking completely confused, and won because of factors not under his control, the significance of the win is greatly reduced - especially when we see Hagler blow Hearns away. I have heard the arguments and excuses in favor of Leonard. "He made Duran quit." "He came from behind to beat Hearns, demonstrating his courage." "The boxer became the brawler." "He fought the wrong fight against Duran." But these are the cliches of fans who want to convince themselves of something. I believe this attitude hurts Leonard's legacy. If his fans would appraise his career honestly, then those who compare the reality to the image would not discount Leonard's accomplishments (remember, he did convincingly defeat Benitez). Because, honestly, he falls short of undeserved praise. He wasn't as great as his fans make him out to be. Go ahead and call me a "hater." I'm just being honest. And I will admit that I don't like Leonard as a person. But then I don't like a lot of my favorite boxers personally (Holmes and Whitaker come to mind).
Hearns,Leonard,Hagler,Duran. Hearns was the most exciting and made the most impact win or loss on everyones record. Leonard beat all of them. Duran lost to all of them. and Hagler fought them all because he wanted smaller challengers rather than bigger.
on greatness I go with more Leonard,Hearns,Hagler. Duran I think was overrated. I do not want to rate Duran with them since it is tough to do. It has to be rated on his lightweight reign. He lost to them all. I never will understand Duran's greatness if you look at numbers. The greatest fighter to be overrated. Yeah Duran moved up in weight, but you know what? Hearns whole career after 1981 was after his original weight. Duran gets excuses bigtime. He still lost to them all. If he were so great he would have found a way to beat Hearns or Benitez or Hagler. And he beat Ray and then Ray outclasses him once he adjusts and fights his style.
This is the overrating of Duran. He lost to them all but he is the greatest. Rather ridiculous. I know what you will say, he was washed up in 1980 when he fought Leonard in the rematch when he was still in his 20's. Then he was washed up when he lost to Benitez and Hearns, but yet somehow great because he beat Moore at the same time and won a title. His lightweight reign still does not make him ATG top 10.
I agree. Overwhelming another fighter is knocking out that fighter He didn't stop Leonard. Leonard then did the big overwhelming by making Duran quit before Duran was knocked out in the rematch.
Duran was acually a decade and a few divisions lighter than the other fighters perfect weight. I remember Duran coming up as a lightweight and saw him smash usually durable Been Huetas in 1...He partied heavy after a fight but when he was in shape he was top2 lighweight of all -time I got him as 1 with Benny Leonard 2nd but that can go either way. Duran was a lightweight and did not have the frame or height to move up but he did and did well vs Leonard, and Hagler,Davey Moore,Cuevas and Barkley....he misjudge Hearns range and that lean back defence was faulty vs Hearns long range and power but Duran was not close to prime in this fight nor his perfect weight or division......Duran was best LB 4 LB in the 70's better than Ali and anyone else....leonard,HEARNS,HAGLER,MONZON AND Chavez later.....Duran at 135 had power,skill,boxing smarts and ability and killer instinct....for me he was the best fighter lb4lb from the 60's. to today..SRL was #2 and Hagler,Calzage and Hearns ,Chavez and Jones somewhere behind him
In terms of resume and p4p greatness i dont think there is any doubt that Roberto is tops by some margin.... Head to head against the fab four he encounters big disadvantages in that he is the oldest (especially in terms of number of fights and years fighting before he partook in the 'fab four' round robin) and is the one fighting way over his natural weight. Pause for a second and imagine hagler v spinks or holy,hearns v foster or moore,and ray leonard v monzon or charles,because these are rough equivalents of what a natural 135er in duran had to face against leonard,hearns and hagler.