Who was the most complete out of the Fab Four?

Hagler may be the most effective if you discount size. It is very difficult to see any featherweight, let alone a bantamweight go the distance against a prime 135 pound Roberto Duran though. That was basically the scenario when Duran moved up to fight Hagler.

 

I probably agree with the first two, but if Hagler was that effective he would have managed to beat Leonard and beat Duran more emphatically.

 

I agree that it is between Duran, Leonard and Marvin with Hearns comminr fourth.

Duran is far and away the best of the four, but I might have Leonard as the most complete, he had everything, could box or brawl, speed, power in both hand and carried it into the latter rounds, stamina, heart. The one thing that he lacked big time was durability, which Duran had in spades and Marvin too. It is hard to see Leonard being as good as he was if he was in either Haglers or Durans shoes, or if had to fight in a time when he did not have the control that he had.

I see the same thing in Floyd, if those two were more active their bodies would not stand up to the presure and would fold.

 

Great points there, Gesta.

 

what Duran lacks is wins over ATG fighters which other ATG fighters have. Ali beat Liston,Frazier,Foreman etc, Leonard -Duran,Hearns,Hagler,Benitez etc etc. Duran beat Leonard and then lost to him in the two following fights. If he was close to the most complete, that would have compensated for him moving up to welt and superwelt, which is where he fought as early as 1978 before Thomas Hearns, Wilfred Benitez and Sugar Ray Leonard fought at that weight. I truly believe that if he is as great and complete as some of you say, he should have beaten Hearns and Benitez at 154. And he did not. Leonard did beat them.. And he beat Hagler. Leonard was the most complete. The record speaks for it.

 

I know many picked Leonard. But I have always liked Hagler, and he was the scarriest of the bunch.

 

Duran is the most complete fighter I've ever seen. They are all extremely versatile.

 

If Leonard was as complete as you say, he would've beaten Terry Norris.

 

Leonard wasn't durable? What?

 

Agreed, who the **** said that??!?! EDIT: Gesta, a v.good poster. Would like to hear his opinions on this.

 

Thanks mate, your gods of war article was great.

 

He's referring to Leonard's inactivity as to why he wasn't as physically tough as Duran or Hagler.That Leonard somehow knew his own physical limitations and looked to preserve himself for as long as possible.


Df course,this is all speculation on his part,and there isn't any real evidence to support his theory.And,most importantly,Leonard was never destroyed inside of two rounds like Duran was,so using "El Quito" as a comparison is obviously a flawed one.

 

I think that boxers are a sort of product of their times, some are lucky, some are unlucky and some would have been great in any era.

Some boxer's bodies have huge miles/rounds/ wars etc in them and others have less, it just depends on where/how they get to expend those miles.

In the old times the boxers had to fight often and against goodish comp' and their bodies had to hold up to all the wear and tear that they went through. The newer guys fight a lot less often but against more or less top comp'.

Would Leonard or FLoyd been able to stand up to the wear and tear the old timers had to go through? Floyd's hands would have been shattered, along with guys like Fenech etc... and Leonard would not have been able to continue his brillance for to long. I think the era they are in suits them and their lay off's helped prolong their carriers.

Durable guys like Hopkins, Duran etc... would of still shined along side of the old timers and would of been able to fight every second week, were other guys need the long layoff that the boxers these days have to get their bodies back to full health.

Leonards candle burned very bright and burnt out quicker than some other boxers. He was losing to Hearns (huge puncher) and came back to get the KO but out of his prime he got KO'd by a former feather fisted featherweight in Comacho.

I would say that Leonard was the most complete out of the three (sorry Hearns) but could only sustain that high level for so long and benifeted by being around in the era he was in and could call some of the shots that he did.

 

Leonard's best attribute was his speed. Once that left him he really could not be at the top. Hearns kept on fighting longer than Leonard because he always stayed active and he had the power to make fights more even. Duran also. Duran had power and he held the weights well up to 168 pounds. But Ray in his prime had speed and a chin and inside power and a great left hook and decent right hand.

 

I found this picture of Hearns and Duran recently in England. I was surprised how the height difference between Hearns and Duran is not much at all.

This content is protected