Todays WW "Fab Four" vs The Original

How about we speculate this

Could / would any of the current fab four (let's call them fab 4 #3) be able to beat any of the original fab 4.

Margo v Hagler
Margo v Leonard
Margo v Duran
Margo v Hearns

etc.

I think 16-0 shutout for the 80's guys, thought this current crop is good. I don't see head to head matchups favoring them.

I think it goes the same for the second fab 4 (Trinidad, Hoya et al) v the 80's guys also.

 

Plz your modern day heros would get KO'd...Cotto and Margarito both. Margarito and Cotto both probably wouldnt even make the same day weight in...BUMS..

 

I may be a little hard-headed, but I can handle differing opinions, just not ones without any sound reasoning. There are many better posters than me in the Classic Section whose opinions differ from mine but whom I respect to the utmost degree and take their opinions into consideration because they have solid arguments for them.

This is nonsense. You're comparing the flabby, out of shape, unmotivated Duran post Leonard, going through his inconsistent phase to the Duran who faced Leonard in their first bout. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the vast differences between them.

Neither Quartey or Clottey can "bang with anyone". Quartey was being outfought by the likes of Crisanto Espana and Jose Luis Lopez, and Clottey hasn't proven himself for **** aside from hanging with Margarito. All of those fighters are levels below a prime Duran BTW, and if they're outfighting a superior fighter in Quartey(in comparison to Clottey) than how am I supposed to believe Clottey can hang with Duran on the inside? They don't have the style or versatility to do anything to Duran unless it's the out of shape Duran that faced Laing or the shot version that lost to Benitez.

I acknowledged this. His power is close, but his overall punching ability, as in accuracy, variety, speed, reach, timing, etc is not on Hearns's level, which means he's far less likely to land the clean punch. He's also a terrible ring general, whereas Hearns was the definition of a ring general. They're not comparable as fighters.

But why make the comparison in the first place considering Hearns wasn't a defensive fighter in the slightest?

He has an official L, nobody cares about that except the fan of the fighter who got the Decision. If De La Hoya had gotten the L you'd have called robbery.

Either way, we're completely getting off topic.

Not always, but I'd at least like to now how Oscar goes about winning a Decision over Hearns.

 

poor pw why do you want him beaten so badly but on another note i think some of those fights may be closer than you may think i mean duran may find a roadblock with DLH dont hang me for saying this but if it was a 12 rounder DLH im pretty sure could outbox him and may have given the tommy a run for his money i really ment to write a long thing but im getting exhausted sorry lol:dead :dead :dead

 

It's OK, don't waste your breath.

 

the fab four of the eighties was a once in a lifetime comming together of talent. they all provided each other a worthy opponent with which to prove the extent of their talent. i see only a prime dlh being able to compete with these guys on a consistent basis.

 

Duran was a great lightweight who found some opposition at welter when he stepped up. Hearns was stopped by Hagler when he stepped up, also by Barkley to be fair. That happens in almost every generation when the BEST FIGHT THE BEST. All it really means is that Duran, Leonard, Hearns and Hagler were the best of their generation. Nothing more.

To go on anything else is circular reasoning e.g. Duran was a great lightweight who struggled at welter so that means the welter division was also great. It certainly doesn't mean that.

If welters were fighting the best of the best in this generation, like the previous ones, they'd all be stars relative to their time and place. Cotto Margarito made a good move in that direction but from here on out the fights will have to be made in order to cement a comparison.

 

The only win any of this era's guys would pick up over any Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Hagler, etc. is over one of the bloated, out of shape, unmotivated versions of Duran post Leonard II.

 

You were just spouting a basic argument there, not answering why any of today's guys would beat the Fab 4 of the 70's and 80's.

Analyze the matchups and then get back to me.

 

I agree and disagree. Someone posted that Oscar would have had a chance at beating Duran. I don't want to get into the Duran of Montreal, or the Duran that lost to Benitez or was starched by Hearns debate. Thought it does factor in.

I think the best chance of any fab 4, gen 2 or 3 fighter to win a match v original, may be Prime Oscar v Duran.

But not the Duran of Montreal.

 

:cheers Let's squash this...
(Agree to Dissgree)

belive it or not, But you are one of my fav poster's.
(You never back down....I respect that)

 

My argument isn't over who would win head to head as I'm positive each one of those guys would hold their own against the 80s group. My argument is over the perception of that era versus this era.

You go on circular reasoning. Just like for example Ike Quartey compared to Clottey. Quartey had more power but he also got hit more. While they have a comparison to be made, not one package is going to be a guarantee.

To be the best doesn't require a particular build. Being the best just means that whatever build you brought to the table was the most effective of the bunch. If all you bring is a titanium chin and relentless pressure like Margarito, and that beats all the boxer styles, then so be it. That makes you the best.

 

I don't agree, I think Oscar (the best overall of the bunch in his prime) only matches up well/has a chance, is with the bad version of Duran (Benitez, Leonard 2 etc).

Against the Lw Duran heavier Duran, SRL 1, Moore, Barclay, he loses.

 

The Duran of the Palomino fight would've been just as effective against Oscar. Basically any version of Duran pre Leonard II was consistent(aside from the version who occasionally got lazy in non-title bouts at LW, which he payed for in his first bout with Dejesus, a great fighter in his own right). The version directly afterward(Laing and Benitez mainly) was at his worst due to the depression caused from the Leonard fight. He eventually found his groove in later fights, but was also largely inconsistent for the rest of his career, mainly due to motivation, age and weight problems.

But Duran at his best was unquestionably better than any WW around today or in recent times, and that's not even going into his LW career. I've seen a lot of boxing, but at his peak he's in contention for best fighter I've ever seen on film.