Hearns,Leonard,Hagler,Duran(whosBetter)

Hearns was the best for me he could of beaten any body on his day, I mean he knocked out Duran which Leonard and Hagler had failed to do and only his chin let him down against Hagler, he was robbed against Leonard in the rematch, So if Hearns had a better chin(which shouldnt count toward boxing skill)he would of beaten best ever middle Hagler and if he wasnt robbed he would of avenged the defeat to Leonard, Hearns won championships at six different weights man better than the rest and even won golden gloves at lightweight and light welterweight thats eight diff weights,

Duran SRL Hagler Hearns Yes, I've got Duran over SRL for the first fight. Truthfully though, SRL was the smartest of them all, beating oponents who could have won but for great tactical decisions ie Ring size, glove weight, rematch timing (Duran) ring generalship too. Eh, not the most likeable but actually on reflection just for sheer educated boxing SRL should be top.

Hearns,Leonard,Hagler,Duran(whosBetter) Vote, Also in order what, whos #1,2, 3 , and 4 My order- 1.Hagler 2.Hearns 3.Duran 4.Leonard I voted Hearns just because I love his style. If I had to pick it would be SRL Hagler Hearns Duran

1. I picked Hagler because he dominated one weight division for so long and i think he should have gotten the decision over Leanord. 2. Duran was awsome but had his ups and downs.But when he was came ready to fight he was unstoppable. 3. Hearns because he was just as talanted as Leanord but not as ring savvy in there first fight. But still later in his career he made things happen at higher weight classes. He was the first fighter to get five championships at five different weight classes. 4. Leanord is last because i dont think he impacted boxing the same ways the other three did. Also he didnt give Duran an immediet rematch after there second fight. And to be frank as good as he was, he was too much of a clown.

At middleweight, Hagler. Overall, Duran with Leonard right behind him.

P4P, I see it in this order: Duran, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns. I hear a lot of people saying since boxer A beat boxer B, boxer A is better. Now, in some situations, that type of thinking would be true, but not in this case. Duran was a natural lightweight, Leonard/Hearns were at their best at 147, and Hagler easily spent his whole career at middleweight. Rating them based on their head-to-head matchups would be unfair. In a p4p sense, i rate Duran tops for his utter dominance of the lightweight division, beating some great opposition such as Buchanan and DeJesus--who would both be all-time great lightweights, if they didn't have the misfortune of campaigning at the same time as Duran. Actually, they already are all-time greats, but that's another topic. At 135, Duran was pretty much a perfect fighting machine. The fact that he could move up and hold his own with the rest of the heavier fab 4, beating them in Leonard's case, enhances the legend he wrote at lightweight. Leonard is next having beaten Hearns (in their lone bout at 147, both their best weight), a lesser version of Duran, and Hagler, in my opinion. Though his number of fights were limited compared to others, he made up for it by fighting the very best out there. And his skill was undeniable. 3rd would be Hagler, for his dominance of the middleweight division. Leonard is ahead of Hagler because of superior opposition and having won their matchup, despite being past his prime. Hearns was probably the most physically gifted of the four, with a huge reach/height, crushing power, blinding speed, and even the boxing ability to outbox Leonard for large portions of their fights. However, his chin was capable of being dented (though it wasn't as bad as people make it out to be) and he was too inconsistent to be ranked ahead of the previous three. Beautifully said.

P4P, I see it in this order: Duran, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns. I hear a lot of people saying since boxer A beat boxer B, boxer A is better. Now, in some situations, that type of thinking would be true, but not in this case. Duran was a natural lightweight, Leonard/Hearns were at their best at 147, and Hagler easily spent his whole career at middleweight. Rating them based on their head-to-head matchups would be unfair. In a p4p sense, i rate Duran tops for his utter dominance of the lightweight division, beating some great opposition such as Buchanan and DeJesus--who would both be all-time great lightweights, if they didn't have the misfortune of campaigning at the same time as Duran. Actually, they already are all-time greats, but that's another topic. At 135, Duran was pretty much a perfect fighting machine. The fact that he could move up and hold his own with the rest of the heavier fab 4, beating them in Leonard's case, enhances the legend he wrote at lightweight. Leonard is next having beaten Hearns (in their lone bout at 147, both their best weight), a lesser version of Duran, and Hagler, in my opinion. Though his number of fights were limited compared to others, he made up for it by fighting the very best out there. And his skill was undeniable. 3rd would be Hagler, for his dominance of the middleweight division. Leonard is ahead of Hagler because of superior opposition and having won their matchup, despite being past his prime. Hearns was probably the most physically gifted of the four, with a huge reach/height, crushing power, blinding speed, and even the boxing ability to outbox Leonard for large portions of their fights. However, his chin was capable of being dented (though it wasn't as bad as people make it out to be) and he was too inconsistent to be ranked ahead of the previous three.

Oh god this has been done before. Leonard. He beat them all. I agree, why is this bullshit even up here. Leonard beat em all, some of them twice. I think that makes him 'Top Dog'.

1. Duran 2. Leonard 3. Hagler 4. Hearns p4p he got it right

I refuse to vote but leonard beat them all at one time or another....I like Hagler because I am originally from the Boston area but they were all great overall. :cool:

]] ================= Hearns had a much longer, more competitive career. He lost the first fight, but ruined Leonard's career basically. Has a better title record. Never KOed by Camacho!

Duran Leanord Hagler Hearns Duran went up 2 weight classes beat srl, then at an advanced age goes up 2 more and is beating hagler after twelve rounds then beats and drops iran barkley, some hearns couldnt do in 2 fights, oh yea he's a lightweight, people talk like morales aint no real 135 fighter thats why he lost, duran going at it with with hagler and barkley at middleweight, little roberto duran top 5 fighter ever, rated higher then all them by ring magazine

Leonard - Had the most success and beat all of the others Hagler - He beat hearns and Duran and some say should have beat Ray! Duran - Beat Leonard, gave Hagler a great close fight Hearns - The most spetacular win, the KO of Duran but KO loses to the other two!

]] ============ For good reason. Leonard had a short career, only 40 fights. Duran was something like 72-1 when he fought Leonard the first time and whupped him bad. All have better title records than Leonard. Duran dominated the LW division, Hearns was the most multi division diversified, and Hagler dominated the middles. Duran Hagler Hearns Leonard how do you have hearns ahead of leonard??? just wondering

Hagler because I felt he beat all 3

leonard, duran, hagler, hearns

]] ============ For good reason. Leonard had a short career, only 40 fights. Duran was something like 72-1 when he fought Leonard the first time and whupped him bad. All have better title records than Leonard. Duran dominated the LW division, Hearns was the most multi division diversified, and Hagler dominated the middles. Duran Hagler Hearns Leonard

i dont like leonard, but i'd have to go with him... he was probably the more complete fighter out of the 4(speed, power, chin, stamina, etc)

hagler leonard duran hearns

Oh god this has been done before. Leonard. He beat them all. My thoughts exactly.