i know duran was the only one to beat leonard, but lost to both hagler and hearns, hagler lost to leonard but beat hearns and duran, hearns drew with leonard and got stopped by him and hagler, but he knocked duran the **** out, so who was the worst out of the 4?
Duran but then he was probably at his best as a lightweight so the others would have had an advantage as they were all naturally much bigger men.
Duran of course, but he was the only one removed from his prime, and is likely ranked higher than all of them on any ALL TIME list. But as far as the Fab 4, he was definitely the worst
Not a simple equation. Duran beat Barkley, who inturn brutally KOed Hearns. Barkley also beat Hearns ass in a rematch via decision. Leonard beat Benitez, who into turn easily beat Duran. Hearns beat Benitez. Hagler turned into an old man between the Mugabi fight and Leonard fight. Leonard was a great fighter, but a real POS as a person. He was possibly the best managed fighter in history. Immedaitely rematching a party hard Duran. Avoided Hearns for year after their first fight, waiting for Tommy to get old. Timed the Hagler match perfectly.
Leonard was the worst, all in all. Hagler in the 70s was unbelievable. Hearns at his best was unbelieveable. And Duran is Duran.
Duran was the best ATG and lb for lb but he was on his way down except for Montreal when he was peak at welter and fit. I think the best version of Duran beats them all even though his natural weight class may have been 135, he looked great in Leonard 1 as a welter The Hearns fight he got caught leaning back and did not expect Tommy's range or power but he did not get a chance to get rolling and was not at his best or fittest, I thought he lost to Hagler very close and gave the Marvelous one a scare and fits.
Some diverse opinions here. But that's probably a large part of what made them such a special group of fighters who fought such great battles against each other.