Would Canelo Alvarez, Danny Jacobs, and GGG be able to compete with the Fabulous 4 from the 80’s?

Like he destroyed Robbie Simms ? Duran was way past his best at 160 .. his highlights were going the distance against an over cautious Hagler and defeating a courageous but limited Barkley .. Canelo would be way too young, strong and fast at 160 .. at 147 a different story ..

 

I was talking about the 83 version of Duran.The simms fight happened a few years later.Add to that Simms was a very busy fighter unlike Canelo

 

Duran would trouble Canelo and GGG, but he likely loses to them both in bouts that are tighter than one would think.

 

Nope, resumes mean very little, boxing ability and styles matter. Do you believe Harry Greb beats all the other great middleweights? Does Randy Turpin beat RJJ at 160? Cuz he got the better resume. Does Owen Moran beat Salvador Sanchez? Moran got the better resume. Could Jack Britton or YC3 beat Tommy Hearns? Hearns' best win at 147 is Cuevas. Quite underwhelming. But h2h, Hearns is a beast at 147. Why is that? He fought one great welterweight and he lost. Why should I pick Hearns to beat Oscar De La Hoya at 147? Oscar beat Pernell Whittaker/Felix Trinidad. Pick one. Either way, it's a much better win than Cuevas.

What happens if a fighter was born in the wrong era and fought somewhat weak competition? Would you agree that Roberto Duran was arguably the greatest lightweight of all time? What are his best wins? Buchanan and Esteban. Joe Gans has a better resume. Carlos Ortiz has a better resume. Benny Leonard, Joe Brown, Ike Williams, Tony Canzoneri, Johnny Dundee, Sammy Angott, Beau Jack, Bob Montgomery, Barney Ross, Lou Ambers all got better resumes than Duran. How is Duran seen as this unstoppable force at 135?

How about Pernell Whittaker? What's his resume like at 135? I've heard people say that Pernell at 135 was one of the most unbeatable fighters ever. But he beat Roger Mayweather. He beat Azumah Nelson who has 1 win above 130 in his entire career. It was against a fighter with a record of 1-3. What a lightweight Nelson was. How is Whittaker rated so high at 135? His competition shouldn't even warrant him a spot in the top 20 at 135. And he shouldn't be favoured in fantasy fights against great lightweights with better resumes.

Why is Henry Armstrong rated as a top 3 welterweight by so many historians? What's his best win at welterweight? He beat Barney Ross in his last fight and went 1-2 against Zivic who wasn't an ATG. Who else did Henry beat at 147? If we're going by resume, I'd pick Robinson, Leonard, Napoles, Griffith, Britton, Walker, Lewis, McLarnin, Mayweather, Gavilan, Duran, Burley, Walker and a few others to beat Armstrong. They all have greater wins than Armstrong and Hearns.

How about Alexis Arguello at 126? He beat Ruben Olivares. Olivares wasn't a good featherweight. He lost to almost every decent featherweight he fought. Other than that, Arguello has decent wins over Hernandez, Riasco, Kobayashi. I can name a lot of fighters that have a better resume than Arguello. But we know how good Arguello was at 126. He fought whoever was there and beat them. Would you pick Freddie Miller or Battling Battalino to beat Arguello? Because they have better resumes than Arguello.

Eder Jofre, the golden bantam. Who did he beat again? Jose Medel is his best win lol. Olivares, Herman, Williams, Harada, Ortiz, Rose, Pal Moore got better resumes than Jofre. Jofre fought one great fighter at 118 and lost to him twice. Not only is he regarded as the greatest bantamweight of all time but he's also a h2h favourite at 118. Something to do with IQ or boxing ability. I don't know. His resume says otherwise. I'm sure you'd pick Joe Lynch to beat Jofre. Cuz, resume.

I can go on and on with this crap.

"GGG never faced a Hearns caliber before .. it's kinda of a rookie statement TBH …. and GGG doesn't have the resume Tommy does"

These are your words. A rookie statement lol. What's Hearns resume like at 160? Explain to me why picking GGG to starch Hearns at 160 is a rookie statement? What did Hearns do at 160 that makes him so competitive against GGG? He got starched by Hagler and Barkley. He has a total of 3 wins at 160- Roldan, DeWitt, Schuler. Sturdy competition indeed. GGG was a natural middleweight who made 19 title defences as a champion. His record is 19-1-1 in title fights at 160 with 18 KOs. He has faced punchers like Rubio, Lemieux, Stevens, Jacobs, Canelo and never tasted the canvas. He's one of the most durable middleweights of all time. GGG has exceptional power and a granite chin at 160. Thomas Hearns has decent power and a shaky chin at 160. GGG could do to Hearns what Hagler did.

Hagler never fought a single great middleweight in his entire career. He starched Hearns though. Hagler struggled against a blown up lightweight. That's not a good look for one of the greatest middleweights of all time. You'll play it down by telling me how great Duran was and it's not a big deal. But it is. If that happened to the current middleweight champion, you'll go on about how terrible the fighters are today. Daniel Jacobs is a better fighter than any middleweight Hagler fought. Jacobs is also a better win than any of Hagler's wins (at middleweight, considering what Hagler's opponents did at 160). I would've mentioned Canelo but I don't wanna waste my time arguing over that decision. Anyways, let's judge Duran and Hearns at 160. What makes Duran a greater middleweight than Jacobs? He beat Barkley to win a title. Barkley was ranked the 5th best middleweight behind Kalambay, Nunn, Leonard and Duran. Jacobs also beat the 5th best middleweight to win a vacant title. Derevyanchenko was ranked behind GGG, Canelo, Jacobs, and Saunders. Derevyanchenko is a much more skilled fighter than Barkley ever was. Other than the Barkley, who else did Duran beat? No one. Jacobs also holds wins over top 10 middleweights like Ishe Smith (#9), Peter Quillin (#4, former champ), and Sulecki (#9). And Jacobs is a natural middleweight. Hearns beat one ranked middleweight contender- James Schuler (#2). That's all. Jacobs is a greater middleweight than Hearns and Duran.

Hagler also beat a washed up Bennie Briscoe. Antofuermo and Minter weren't that good, just tough fighters. Canelo beat Golovkin. That's a better win than any of Hagler's wins. Would you disagree? Resume resume resume. I might be new but I'm not stupid. Hearns would be competitive against great middleweights because of his skillset, not because of his resume at 160. Why are Golovkin or Canelo treated differently? Why do you question their resumes when 3 of the fab 4 were anything but great middleweights. As I said before, Golovkin can beat the fabulous 4 on his best day. Hearns resume at other weight classes isn't gonna save him. He wasn't durable enough to compete with GGG. Golovkin will walk him down and stop him.

 

Leonard fight was at 147. Benitez and Duran fights were at 154. Duran started his career at 126 and Benitez at 140.

GGG has never fought at 168 or 175. That's why he never stopped anyone at those weights. And Hagler didn't stop anyone at 168 or 175. But he KO'd Hearns. Didn't he? How did Hearns' resume at 147 and 154 help him against Hagler? If a fantasy fight is at a certain weight, we judge fighters by what they did at that weight. Hearns did nothing at 160. He did better at 175 because the competition wasn't that stiff. Andries was no great fighter. Hearns also lost to Barkey at 175. But that doesn't matter. We're talking about Hearns at 160. How does he beat Golovkin?

 

Randy Shields, Ray Leonard, Sutherland, Minchillo, DeWitt, Barkley, Kitchen, Olajade, Hill and of course Hagler all used a combination of skills to avoid Hearn's power .. Canelo at 160 - 168 , Hagler side, is as good as any of them at that weight .. I am no Canelo fan. I find him pathetically spoiled, pampered and favored. It revolts me much like how Chavez revolted me later in his career when he relished the bs smoke king blew up his ass .. that said, Canelo can fight. He is extremely strong, has a cast iron chin to go with speed and high skill .. Leonard was a top two all time welterweight. Duran a top five or higher lightweight and welter. Hearns excelled at 147 and 154 .. he was a champion at higher weights based on strategic match ups but was highly vulnerable based on his chin, punch resistance and stamina. At 160 or 168 Canelo would be too much .. The prime Hagler in my opinion would be too tough and would win in a war but it would be a war .. Canelo may be a spoiled ass but in the ring the man comes and brings it w talent ..

 

Duran has a better chance against GGG than Canelo since Canelo has some speed. Sims was a decent fighter. A tough guy who fought well at southpaw.

 

83 version of Duran would beat up Canelo on the inside all day. GGG is a better fighter that Canelo.He beat Canelo twice when he was slightly past prime.

 

Of course they could. Hearns had a limited and not too successful record at 160. Hagler could fight down to his competition. Duran was in far over his head, age and division wise. Leonard's record at 160 was 2-2-1. One win and the draw were a gift. The other win was over a geriatric Duran.

 

GGG never beat Canelo. The record books have Canelo ahead. And I think Duran of 1983 and 1984 beats GGG..