Who has the best resume out of the Fab 4?

I dont agree that the Hill for Hearns win was better than the Leonard win for Duran,but the Hill win is better than all Durans other wins,even at lightweight which is vastly overblown.This is what cracks me up about you Duran flunkies,you all say he is rated higher than Leonard,Hagler and Hearns,because of his lightweight resume,but its clear he is talked about for beating SRL in Montreal for more than anything.Who did he beat at lightweight that was so great,Buchanan who is a very good fighter not a great not to mention he ducked Arguello at lightweight,the other 3 guys beat great fighters he didnt,he beat Leonard which was as a great a win in the history of boxing,but he quit in the 2nd fight,clearly because he could'nt win it somewhat tarnishes that 1st victory.This dude is so overrated it isnt funny,he is top 20 at best,lower teens,and thats being genorous.

 

Well IMO Marvin Hagler beat all the other three anyway which makes him top-of-the-4 anyway - in the meantime I'll have a skim through their resumes and see what I think and get back to you

 

you a Hagler fan? Not insinuating anything. Im a big Marciano fan and a big Hagler fan and have found they share the same fans

 

****.

 

you have a point, lora the explorer. But the last sentence of his is spot on

 

Erm?? Yeah I guess I'm pretty big on Hagler - but I loved all the fab 4 really - I always say one of my favourite fighters to watch was Tommy Hearns but also Duran was totally amazing fighter too and Leonard - I switch around all the time with this bunch - i respect Duran for having fought in 5 different decades 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's - that is something I just can't fathom :huh but yeah loved Marvin - out of interest how did you score Hagler-Leonard - i had Marvin winning by one round - that was a classic fight

 

@ Duran ducking Arguello. Not Ortiz, or Buchanan, but Arguello

 

Hagler still was a guy everyone was going up to fight and he had the weight advantage. Michael Spinks called out Hagler once and said "you are calling for Hearns and Leonard and Duran to fight you, but you will not come up and fight me? Why not?"

 

Yeah that's the only thing that is at the back of my mind regarding him - but then at the same time I guess they weren't just your average guys coming up in weight either - Hagler never struck me as a particularly big middleweight though? Do you think he could've moved up? I don't think he'd have been - think he was a bit on the lean side of middleweight but might be wrong? I probably wouldn't have imagined Hearns could've ever gone as high as he did either but he did? How do you see a Spinks Hagler fight playing out if Hagler had've taken him up on it?

 

Do I think Marvin could have moved up? Yeah I do. He was pretty big and had big legs and a 75 inch reach. He would have been a solid light heavy-some guys you think would not be able to go up in weight went up pretty high and didn't look too bad. I never though Chavez would look as good as he did moving up in weight or Manny. When they move up and get in shape most guys look ok. Surprising sometimes. Curry I never thought could go to 160 and he did decent with Nunn, but got stopped. Even Starling moved up but he looked small. I think Hagler would have looked big enough at 175 against Spinks. I think he was great no doubt. A dominant guy, but he feasted on legends (Hearns,Leonard,Duran) who were smaller and had to fight small by boxing and winning decisions. Only Hearns fought Hagler like he was the same size and that didn't work well for Tommy. He hurt Marvin and made a great fight, but Marvin's size won out. Spinks would have been a great test for Marvin.