Who was the greatest fighter out of the fabulous 4?

Leonard's been asked about this that many times that each time there's something extra added. In a few years time there'll probably be some story that he bugged Duran's apartment and recorded Roberto saying "I'm such a fat arse right now, the only way Leonard will ever beat me is if we fight at the end of November", while Spanish vocal duo Baccara smothered him in jalapeno cheese sauce, and took turns sitting on his face while he gave it his best version of "Yes Sir, I Can Boogie" between breaths.

A rematch 5 months later was nothing unusual back then. In the very same year Sanchez-Lopez rematched 4 months later; Minter-Antoufermo 3 months later, so it's nothing to do with Leonard is Duran spent a few months partying. Yes, his camp did try to get the fight put back a 'few weeks' but nothing more (and no real difference to what De Jesus' camp wanted in their rematch in 1974).

Ray deserves great credit for this win irrespective of Duran's ballooned weight and subsequent problems... although in a superstar fight, i do actually think winning the 1st one is the better one more often than not (as the motivation is exactly the same for both in fight 1).

 

But if we are discussing who is the best of the 4 then it only makes sense to evaluate them at their bests. You can call it excuses all you want, but Duran didn't fight like the fighter we saw 5 months before, or anytime before for that matter. His movement was sluggish, his work rate was low. He was inviting Leonard to run circles around him. If Leonard also says it probably had to do something with Duran's conditioning, then I am inclined to believe it.

I give Ray credit for the win, but reasonable credit. To say SRL beat the best version of Duran that night would be an outright lie.

 

I voted for Duran earlier as i think he's greater, but as Addie mentioned that doesn't mean he's 'better.' That to me is a tough call, it's thisclose.

I give credit to Leonard because of how he approached it, with the requisite professionalism and dedication. Not his fault the new champion didn't.

That's as maybe but to say Duran beat the best version of De Jesus in their rematch is also an outright lie.

 

I rate Dejesus very highly, so I have no problem believing that. They also had a 3rd fight later on to settle matters anyway and it wasn't a farce like SRL vs Duran 3.

 

Just to add, I also think that it is close between them. But my boxing logic says that if h2h is 50/50 between a smaller fighter and a bigger fighter, the smaller fighter is likely the better one, if only on account of the natural disadvantages he has to neutralize to make it even.

 

This. Great post, Frankus!

 

Ray has proven himself to be such an unreliable narrator at this point that I would consider it prudent to take anything he says with a huge pinch of salt.

It's common practice for a hotly contested super fight like Montreal to result in an immediate rematch. A rematch took place and Duran was defeated. That's the end of the story as far as I'm concerned.

 

K
It was from his book and Ray generally has been extremely honest with his career in retrospective. It's very respectable, even if he won't give Hagler too much credit. There are other sources as well ofc.

 

In any case, I'm not going to diminish a victory over Duran 6 months removed from his greatest ever showing simply because Ray claims he knew the Panamanian wouldn't prepare adequately for it.

Fans trying to attribute blame to Leonard for Duran's alleged lack of discipline is absolutely wild by the way.

 

Leonard was the greatest in terms of actually "winning"...he factually beat the other 3 fighters, and also beat the very highly rated Bennitez. He is both extremely accomplished, passes the eye test, and is a h2h monster, yet he is consistently dogged and underrated.

In terms of "overall" resume/achievements, you can argue that he is beneath some of them. Hagler was very tough, consistent, and basically cleared out the middleweight division and is one of the best middleweights ever. Similarly, Duran had an insane run at lightweight and beat several highly rated historical boxers. Duran also won titles in multiple divisions. Hearns has the best longevity/sheer numbers due to winning so many titles. Hearns is also EXTREMELY difficult to outbox and arguably beat Leonard in the rematch, destroyed Hearns, but lost to Hagler.

So if we factor in everything: wins against each other, titles, the eye test, overall resume, etc, you could argue for either Leonard or Hagler. I can't see an argument for Duran who only managed 1 win against his peers, lost to all of them (even Benitez), won less titles than Hearns, and had worse longevity. The only thing Duran has over the others is title defenses so Duran should be last. Hearns is either #3 or #4 depending on your criteria. Personally, I would argue for Leonard being #1 if we're just discussing these 4.

 

Great post.

Worth noting also that Duran didn't just lose to Benitez, he was absolutely bossed and barely won more than 2-3 rounds. Another result we are expected to discount because Duran apparently didn't prepare.

Can you imagine if Leonard had lost a lopsided decision to Hearns and then claimed he didn't train properly? Not a single person would give it an ounce of credence and Ray would have been universally derided as a bad loser.

 

You're in a small minority in ranking Hagler p4p greater than Duran.

Hagler is a consensus top 4 MW of all time. Duran a consensus top 3 LW of all time.

Hagler was 60-3-2 at MW & 13-1 in lineal MW title fights during his 6.5-year reign. He didn't beat a single fighter that ranked in McGrain's excellent top 50 MWs of all time list, though he did beat Hearns who is an ATG at WW & LMW and Duran who is an ATG at LW. He lost to Bobby Watts, Willie Monroe (twice avenged) and SRL.

Duran was 36-1 at LW & 13-0 in lineal LW title fights during his 7-year reign. In De Jesus x 2 & Buchanan, he won 3 x fights against LWs that appear in McGrain's top 25 LWs of all time. He avenged his sole loss to De Jesus x 2.

It's close, I personally think Duran is a slightly greater LW than Hagler was MW. Our peers ranked Duran at #1 all time at LW & Hagler at #4 all time at MW in this thread - https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/top-35-all-time-reveal-boxing-survey-series.653021/ - though personally I rank them both at #3 in those respective divisions (note that p4p, our peers rated Duran #7, SRL #12, Hearns #25 & Hagler #26).

Where clear daylight appears between the two is Duran's work above LW, whereas Hagler only competed at MW.

Duran beat the consensus 2nd greatest WW of all time, at WW, in arguably boxing's greatest every victory, the excellent WW Carlos Palomino, LWM world titleist Davey Moore and MW titleist Iran Barkley, all in those fighters prime weight divisions.

Even the Hagler vs Duran fight does more to elevate Duran's p4p standing than it does Hagler's. I don't think the fight was quite as close as the judges did, with Duran ahead on 2 cards and even on the other after 13-rounds, but 9-6 on rounds seems to be the most common/average score, from what I've seen. Carlos Monzon showed what an ATG MW should do against ATG WW's in Jose Napoles and Emile Griffiths. An ATG LW losing a competitive to close(ish) decision to a top 4 ATG MW, at MW, is an absurd, absurd achievement.

 

I noticed in almost every Fab 4 discussion, even on other forums, people let their dislike of Leonard cloud their judgement. It's pretty fascinating. You're right, not 1 anti Leonard poster would give him excuses for not training, eating too much, broken hands, or any other excuse given to the other 3.

There are plenty of fighters I despise, but I put that aside when rating their careers.

The funny thing about Leonard is everyone calls him all kinds of names like weasel, liar, a coward, manipulator, etc. But Leonard was humble enough to admit to Hearns he lost their 2nd fight. He tried to make amends with Duran multiple times and Duran was the one who just kept repeating the same lame excuses (there was an interesting documentary on Netflix where they met to discuss their infamous 2nd fight). As for Hagler, sure the fight was close but people act like he bribed the judges or something lol. Leonard was far from a perfect human being, but he had a hell of a record, was a hell of a fighter, and doesn't seem to be nearly as bad as people make him out to be when you analyze the facts.

 

That's actually a good argument for Duran in terms of championship ability. Duran has title defenses, noteworthy historical opponents, and more divisions over Hagler. Sure you can argue Duran is above Hagler in the career/accomplishments categories.

P4P/h2h is a bit different tho. Hagler was an unstoppable force, a daunting boxer puncher who never went away because of his granite chin making him nearly immune to damage, a great jab, the ability to cut off the ring, pulverizing power, and the even more terrifying ability to switch stances. What Hagler lacks in speed and fancy technique, he makes up for with great fundamentals, balance, and timing combined with a fierce fighting spirit. He rules the mid range against the vast majority of fighters his size and can also Duke it out up close.

Duran is easily one of the best inside fighters of all time...no lower than top 3. He wasn't just a tough, rugged guy, he was a genius at outworking the opponent in the close quarters range. He was great with using leverage, angles, and weight transfer to frustrate and confuse people. Brutal body attacks, sneaky shots from the opponent's blind spots, and having a knack for keeping the opponent in a disadvantaged position so he could attack while they couldn't or had little weight behind their own blows. Duran's weaknesses included fast opponents,l with good footwork, tricky guys who wouldn't engage with him up close, and guys who could fight at long range with strong jabs. Duran was superb at his preferred range, but was a bit more limited outside of it.

Hagler was more well rounded than Duran imo and was more effective against a wider variety of styles. Hagler beat swarmers, sluggers, technicians, counter punchers, etc. He also beat Duran and that counts for something when evaluating overall ability/ranking between the two even if Duran was past his prime and above his best division.

 

Re the Benitez v Duran fight. I haven’t heard the claim that Duran didn’t train tbh - not to suggest such a claim wasn’t possibly circulated.

I’ve only watched the fight barely more than once - it was a lil bit boring imo.

At any rate, I recall the announcers stating before first bell that Duran did in fact train very hard - for some 12 weeks in isolation, unless I have that wrong.

During the fight, I also recall Duran periodically shaking his arms out as if they were going dead on him. Arguably, that could’ve all come down to the quality Benitez brought to the table (his excellent work to Roberto’s body took its toll) - but I guess in all possibility it still might’ve been an “off night” for Duran to some degree.

The fight shouldn’t be discounted altogether but as @Frankus already stated, the bulk of the evidence for Duran was already mostly in as at the fight vs Leonard in Montreal.

Continuing to fight more and more beyond prime, fighting beyond his best weight division with a ton of fights logging up behind him BUT still engaging the very best said divisions had to offer, I think lesser performances from Roberto were natural and to be expected, more the rule than the exception.

Post Montreal, Roberto still provided for some amazing performances here and there - again, against top opposition - and those performances were the cherry on top of an already legendary and incredibly successful career.

Great debate btw fellas. Very enjoyable read.