The fabulous four. Rate your favourites in order.

Whereas Robinson excelled in longevity, Ray excelled in resume. I think Ray's top 5 wins are worthy of any ATG, and although he didn't have the longest career, his ability and resume are more than enough for him to be considered the best welterweight since Robinson. Name one thing Ray didn't have in terms of ability?

 

Duran,Leonard,Hagler,Hearns....overall greatness from begining to end of career

 

Can't imagine who the fifth one was or even the fourth.

And you might as well throw out the third as well-the Benitez fight. Wilfred was not a worthy champion and lost it on his first defense.

Now you just have Duran and Hearns. Duran beat him. Then came in 40 pounds overweight and had to drop the weight quickly. The result: Duran loses. No surprise there.

Suddenly, the resume is not so impressive considering all the factors that led Duran to lose the rematch. (See Randy Gordon's no mas article)

Even Duran has to be at 100%, not 25%.

What is left but Tommy Hearns. A fledgling champion with all of 3 defenses as his experience. A mere four years as a pro with one notable win to speak of and one year as champion. Come on, Tommy didnt even know how to clinch-that's how inexperienced he was. So forget all the hype, what about reality?


Cuevas and Napoles were much more solid in terms of performance and accomplishments with many years as dominant champions. These men left trails of broken bodies and dreams of aspirations. Leonard with his one big win over skin and bones T. Hearns doesn't compare.

 

Roberto Duran - (My 2nd Favorite Boxer)
Sugar Ray Leonard
Tommy Hearns
Marvin Hagler

 

My number one is a toss up between Hearns and Leonard. I really liked Leonard's boxing ability and showmanship, while having a great appreciation for some of the exciting slug wars that Hearns partook in.

Hagler probably comes next, followed by Duran. I never particulary cared for Roberto that much. He had an attitude problem that didn't sit well with me, and his fighting style was not terribly appealing to my taste.

 

Duran. A hot-headed anti-hero who disdained anyone who challenged him -a sore loser? Duran was just as much a sore winner! But there's another side to him that does much to redeem him. He's a better friend to the poor than arguably any boxer who ever lived. He's broke now -primarily because he gave away thousands if not millions to Panamanians. Anyway, I love the guy. He's a throw back to the way things were in the golden era and he feared no one.

Hagler. He boxed out of Brockton which is practically down the street from Boston. Another throw-back who feared no man. I loved the way he respected the sport enough to train like a Mongolian Warlord and come in seemingly to the fraction at 159 1/4. That's committment.

Hearns. I am tempted to put him at #2, if only because he is kind, considerate, down-to-earth and humble. His interview at the end of Leoanrd II was a study in grace. And his ring persona was fearsome and great.

Leonard. Not the phony some argue (or pretend to argue). Highly intelligent, calculating, and charming. He did much for boxing and thank God he came along in the aftermath of Ali and pretty much carried the sport into the Tyson era. The best WW since Sugar Ray? Perhaps.

 

[And you might as well throw out the third as well-the Benitez fight. Wilfred was not a worthy champion and lost it on his first defense.]

Wilfred Benitez was not a worthy champion even though at the age of 17 he was outboxing the likes of Cervantes? The reality is, Benitez was always a world class operator only he was campaigning during the same era as Thomas Hearns and Sugar Ray Leonard, the two fighters who handed him his first 2 professional losses. Hearns couldn't stop a peak Benitez, but Leonard could. That is credit to Leonard's unreal finishing ability. I think considering Benitez's accomplishment as being the youngest champion in history, and going on to thoroughly outbox a Roberto Duran and brutally knocking out Maurice Hope, he is a good name to have on your resume regardless of how highly you rate him all-time.

[Now you just have Duran and Hearns. Duran beat him. Then came in 40 pounds overweight and had to drop the weight quickly. The result: Duran loses. No surprise there.]

What was Duran's excuse for losing to a Ray a second time? This is common practice in boxing, if a fighter loses there is always an excuse to back it up. I could easily say Ray went into the first bout with the wrong gameplan, and had he stayed on the outside and boxed from range he would humilated Duran like he did in the second and third meeting. When all is said and done, regardless of what excuses were brought up for whiever loss, Ray is 2-1 against a top 5 p4p all-time fighter. Credible to say the least.

[What is left but Tommy Hearns. A fledgling champion with all of 3 defenses as his experience. A mere four years as a pro with one notable win to speak of and one year as champion. Come on, Tommy didnt even know how to clinch-that's how inexperienced he was. So forget all the hype, what about reality?]

One notable win to speak of? Considering how highly you regard this win as evidenced in prior posts of yours, why is this all of a sudden relegated to being only "notable"? It's worth noting that Thomas Hearns didn't just defeat Cuevas, who hadn't tasted defeat in 4 years, he destroyed him. Tommy made 4 successful title defences winning them all by stoppage, until he himself was beat and stopped for the first time by fellow young fighter Ray Leonard. The manner in which Leonard won is also worthy of note, overcoming every possible style disadvantage imaginable. Hearns was far taller, had longer reach, was equal in speed, and was probably the biggest hitting welterweight around at that time. Both Leonard and Hearns would go on to solidify themselves as all-time greats.

Tommy never learned how to clinch, just like the majority of Steward's fighters. Reality is, Tommy is universally recognised as an all time great and therefore this is a huge name for Leonard.

[Cuevas and Napoles were much more solid in terms of performance and accomplishments with many years as dominant champions.]

I have no doubt that both Cuevas and Napoles were fantastic welterweight's, especially Napoles, only P4P lists are subjective depending on crieria. I rank Leonard as the greatest Welterweight since Robinson based not only on his wins, which are in reality unmatched in the division's history, but also his skillset. Leonard was a complete fighter. I'll ask you again, in terms of ability, what was Leonard lacking?

 

1. Marvin Hagler

My all-time favorite fighter. Mean, always in shape and ready to go. Never showed fear and never gave a sign of vulnerability throughout his career. Learned his craft at the school of hard knocks against tough Philly fighters. A true warrior.


2. Tommy Hearns

The most exciting of the bunch, he fought with poise and was a spectacular puncher. Honest and down to earth outside the ring.


3A-3B. Sugar Ray Leonard & Roberto Duran

Both are arguably Top 15 fighters ever. Both are complete strong packages in their respective prime weightclass. And... both are assholes outside the ring.

 

Duran
Hagler
Hearns
Leonard

 

1. Hearns
2. Duran
3. SRL
4. Hagler

 

Who's Cervantes?

You call that finishing ability-a left jab? This stoppage was worse than the first between Dokes and Weaver. Just diplorable. Another gift to leonard as in the two for one night with Lalonde and a prime example of why he is detested.

I'll give you that one. Leonard was absolute perfection moving side to side, hitting Roberto from angles. Duran really has no excuses this time other than being 38 years old.

Honestly, that wasn't one of Leonard's better showings. He had more problems with Tommy than Hagler had with Juan Roldan, a serious struggle.

Tommy does get my respect-even more than most others here give him. But at age 22 and 4 years professional, 1 years as fledgeling champion how can anyone call him one of the greats. Thomas fulfilled his potential years later-after Leonard, after Benitez, after Minchillo, Duran and right before Hagler.

That's two world titles and nine pounds later with 7 years pro experience. Face it, Tommy looked like a sick man with leonard-entirely too light. Not leonard's fault.

Had he known how to clinch he would not only outbox leonard but would have escaped with a clear decision. Like Terry Norris.

 

1. Hearns (favourite fighter of all time)
2. Hagler
3. Leonard
4. Duran

 

How can anyone not like any of these fighters? That to me is mindboggling.

Anyway, my rank in terms of who I like are:

1. Duran
2. Hagler
3. SRL
4. Hearns

Gotta admit I go back and forth between SRL and Hearns in terms of their rankings.