Duran is probably the greatest of the fab four imo, due to his longevity and his wins above his best weight. Leonard is second. Best? Hard to say, especially since Leonard was inactive during what probably would have been his peak years. But Duran was truly a monster up to New Orleans. The man could do it all. But so could Leonard. So I don't know really.
Hearns didn't school him,the fact that Duran ate himself out of shape is entirely his own fault no one else's. Hearns is two years younger than Leonard and did not suffer with eye injuries.He also went on to win two versions of world titles.
How can Hearns be the favourite when Leonard knocked him out? Or don't you count that fight?:huh You're so biased its laughable.atsch
I can't believe people can get banned from this forum for fairly innocuous incidents, and yet they tolerate a pathological fukking liar like you.atsch Hagler. A SPLIT DECISION Duran. Having already LOST, was 2, 2, and 1 point up at the time Duran walked out of the rematch. Hearns. Leonard was behind ON ALL THREE cards at the time of stoppage. Benitez. 7, 2, and 4 points over 15 rounds. And you use the word " dominated " you moron. The problem is you are well aware of these FACTS, you just fabricate garbage to suit your agenda, because you are lying scum.
Oh please. Next you will be claiming Leonard was deserving of the draw in the rematch when he was fighting a Hearns that wasn't skeletal.
You can assume what you like it is of no consequence to me. I'll just let the facts ( weights for subsequent fights over the next 24 years ) and statistics speak for themselves. Meanwhile you just cling desperately to gossip, the he said, she said, kind of rubbish. What ever floats your boat.:yep
If you are up by 7, 4 and 2 points after 14 rounds that a dominant performance. Do the math. He koed Benitez in the 15th. Leonard beat Hagler. It does not matter if it were a unanimous or split decision. Leonard won. Hearns was koed by hagler. Leonard beat Duran 2 out of three. Watch the second fight and see who was being outclassed. A sign of all time greatness is having the fortitude to come back and win after being cut, hurt, and losing. Leonard came back to dominate and KO Hearns in fight one. Leonard as such exhibited ATG abilities in doing so. Leonard by far and away proved himself as the superior performer against these top level fighters. Leonard was the superior fighter.
Good point, Balder. Just looking at the number of wins is interesting. I always think of Leonard as the best of the four, but these simple stats you offer highlight the reality that Leonard was not really a career boxer. The other three were fully committed to boxing, fought hard and often, and didn't cherry pick at all. I'll have to re-think things. I do believe Hagler beat Leonard in a case of substance over style.
I see Duran knocking Jackson's glass out before Jackson gets an opportunity, but with that said, I see SRR knocking Duran out too, but it's SRR we're talking here aka GOAT. Duran was never going to beat Hearns. But it's Hearns, an exception - he can outbox any guy in history, yes even SRR (until SRR catches him and knocks him out). But this just emphasises how good SRL was. There's no other way SRL could have beaten Hearns that night rather than let Hearns get into a rhythm, get complacent and strike. SRL can crack, lets not get it twisted. SRL combines his ability to outbox his opponent, with his intelligence - that's what makes him special, that's what made him beat a GOAT in Duran and Hearns, and one of the GOAT defensive fighters, Benitez.
I agree. SRL had power, but not enough for Duran. In the first fight Duran really did a good job of cutting off the ring and Leonard thought he could bang his way out of the mess. But he couldn't, Duran was on him like a bee fly's to honey.
Were Hagler and Hearns ever the same fighters after their fight? It seemed like that fight took a lot out of them.