Who was the most complete fighter: Leonard, Duran, or Hagler?

The question is tho, could Duran be outboxed at 135? He definitely could be at 147 and above but what about at his peak weight? Hagler has the advantage of never moving up. SRL against top flight (or even decent strong ones) middleweights would have been able to be outslugged but it'd be a lot harder at 147.

Hagler at 175 would have lost some of his peak weight advantages as well.

I hope i make sense lol

 

it does not irk me at all. This is not about Hearns, but I admit I admire him. I think he is underrated. The guys he beat and outboxed or knocked out were legends. Hearns knocked out Duran in 2 rounds 5 years before Duran beat Barkley. Duran beating Barkley doesn't mean that much to me. It does not make up for Hearns knocking out Duran since Hearns knocked out Duran in 1984 when both were superfighters. Barkley on the other hand lost to Kalambay,Nunn,Benn in the same time Duran beat him. or same era.

 

Hi Pea, I would argue that Duran was NOT a great fighter by the time he fought Hearns at 154 in 1984.

Kirkland Laing and Wilfred Benitez both easily outpointed Duran in 1982.

Prime Duran finished in Montreal in 1980. All versions of Duran that fought afterwards were way inferior ones to the Duran from 1977-1980 when he was absolutely in his prime.

Cheers Mate.

 

Hi mate, yep me comprende

It would be extremely difficult to see the prime version of Duran who beat DeJesus in their rubber match being outboxed but mebbe a Pernell Whitaker, Carlos Ortiz or Benny Leonard type could pull it off. A big ask all the same though as Duran was such a specimen at 135.

Roberto could never catch up with Edwin Viruet at lightweight and I reckon that except for Leonard Duran had more dislike and anger towards the New York fighter than anyone else he fought in his entire career. It did show that Roberto always had some difficulties with a good cutie with a good chin ( as in reality do all fighters ).

Cheers Mate.

 

Duran and Hagler are pretty close. Duran excelled a little more at brawling while Hagler excelled a little more at boxing.

 

Hi again Pea, I believe its the simple fact that Barkley was SO MUCH BIGGER and younger than Duran and the fact that Iran had beaten Hearns that makes Duran's performance against him so special.

Duran was 37 and a half years old and had been pro for 21 years when he defeated Barkley. Barkley was 29 years old and a monster sized middleweight who eventually won a version of the 175 lb title and who even fought at heavyweight.

He had kayoed Hearns with one punch in his previous fight in the third round so people expected Duran to be absolutely murdered.

 

I see your point. The problem is Duran did not fight the level of the fab 4 at lightweight. So there is no way to know if he would have beaten those guys at 135. And at 147, he was still a young fighter then and was fighting at 154 as early as 1978. It is convienient to say Duran was washed up in 1980 when he started to lose to the top great fighters, but if we look at his career. Fighting all the way to 168 and into 2001 I am not sure we can conclude he was a washed up fighter 21 years before at 147.. If he was having weight problems for years.

 

I expected Duran to win just on the losses Barkley had. Had Hearns been a little more careful. he was going to get a TKO win between the 3rd or 4th round or in the 4th (in the first fight).. It was not going to last much longer, and Hearns was almost on autopilot beating Barkley. I know today people say he beat him in the rematch,, but in 1988 Hearns had the fight easily had he just fought more cautious. I never saw beating Hearns the big deal for Barkley in regards to Duran, because then we have to see Barkley other fights, which not that exceptional. Duran never could beat Hearns just on Hearns being much better than Barkley, regardless of style matchup. Speed jab reach. etc. As for Barkley. Olajide knocked him down. Barkley was seen as a monster maybe in that fight in Feb. 1989, yet prior to that he was seen as an ESPN fighter who lost to Sims. It is a matter of perspective. He was a natural middleweight, but he did have a style made for Duran.

 

Not this again. He beat SRL at 147 for gods sake.

 

Hearns is my favorite fighter but this is one seriously biased post. Don't expect barely anyone to believe you expected Duran to win.

 

you think I am going to change my opinion. Ray fought his fight as he said many times.

 

honestly. I would not expect anyone to believe me but I did. I knew Tommy took chances and was getting reckless waiting for the Hagler rematch and he went in there not taking Barkley seriously. But I knew Duran would take Barkley seriously. and the one thing is if you erase the Hearns win. Barkley went down against Olajide, who was not that big a puncher and he lost to Kalambay. so I knew Duran could beat him. He was an ESPN fighter just a year or two before and really look back to the 1980s and Barkley was not seen as that great. The Hearns fight elevated him but in reality he kept losing to the better fighters. And I like Barkley He had a great heart and underrated power. But I knew a motivated Duran with a guy who fights on the inside who was not that quick could be beaten by Duran. Duran was not fighting Hearns in a rematch or Nunn or Kalambay.. fast guys. He was fighting Barkley. who beat Hearns, but was beatable for Duran. And yes I thought Duran would win. I wish I had a way to prove that I thought this, but how can I almost 30 years later.

 

Hearns was the ultimate professional - no way he went in taking Barkley lightly.

I think it was Saad that said earlier he would have taken Hearns over Iran at an earlier time. I agree. Barkley beat him when they fought tho as much as it cut me to the bone.

 

I will say this.. and this is one thing. Hearns was great. But he could have been greater had he watched more boxing later in his career. I don't think he watched guys like Olajide or Barkley fight. I think he just went in there and took care of business and relied on his experience. In those later years. he was that good, but he should have studied Barkley more and taken him more seriously. I think he went in there respecting him, but I don't think he really saw Barkley as anything more than another Medal or Dewitt. I think Steward trained him and knew the other guys. Roldan had the reputation as knocking down Hagler and it was for Tommy's 4th title. But the Barkley fight was just a June fight and defense. i have seen videos of Hearns before he fought Maynard, who boxed enough on tv.. they asked Hearns, have you seen Maynard fight much, and he said no I don't know much about Maynard. It just told me , he really did not study boxing at times and just went in there against anyone in the later years. And yes Hearns is one of my favorite fighters. I think he is underrated. He was such a warrior I think he though he could beat anyone... And he left it to his manager to set up the fights and he fought. I never saw Tommy as a guy who in later years studied his opponents much.. Not the lesser guys.. I think he went in there and thought he would find a weakness during the fight. This has been one of my worst posts. I am rambling on and on... Sorry.

 

Honestly, there's no way a naturally 135 pound Leonard or Hagler goes the distance with a natural 160 pound Duran. Duran dwarfs both of them pound for pound