Hearns? Hagler? Duran? Benitez? SRL!!

MCENT... very good points, my man!!

Ice Man is absolutely right. Even though I am a Hagler fan and thought he won the fight anyways. Props to Ray Leonard for fighting " the best fight of his life" hands down. Personally, he should have retired afterwards since he didn't give Hagler a rematch...He didn't have any significant matches after that and got stopped by an old Hector Camacho of all peoples. here are my reasons why he gets props: 1) He didn't fight for 3 years at least, no tune-up at all, not even against a mandatory "gimme" (I don't like to use the word "BUM") fight. 2) He was handicapped (Detached retina surgery) 3) He boxed cleanly (he might have ran abit, but it looked good) 4) Hagler was still strong as a bull at age 35. 5) There were no clearcut advantages for Leonard other than the ring, which was about the size of a hockey rink. 6) A real exciting fight for 2 Legends, worth the money, unlike the fights we get today (i.e. Mayweather/De la Hoya)

If Ray had only pressed on that advantage, he could've had Hearns out in the seventh or eighth rounds. Maybe so..but Tommy was ALWAYS dangerous and Ray I am sure felt that Tommy wasnt cooked yet. He turned it on when he absolutely had to

Yea, I messed up on the Duran draw, sorry. Good catch! Also. the first Leonard-Hearns fight featured more than SRL refusing to engage. Watch it again. He almost broke Tommy in half with a left hook to the body in the sixth. If Ray had only pressed on that advantage, he could've had Hearns out in the seventh or eighth rounds.

Good post, but you list Duran as 1-4-1 against those guys. where does the draw come in, because to my knowledge Duran had no draws. Yea, I messed up on the Duran draw, sorry. Good catch! Also. the first Leonard-Hearns fight featured more than SRL refusing to engage. Watch it again. He almost broke Tommy in half with a left hook to the body in the sixth.

When looking back on a boxer and his greatness I think you can only compare any fighter to his peers and how he matched up with them. On that end, Sugar Ray Leonard came up in arguably one of the greatest eras ever in terms of quality of competition and he, unlike many others, matched up with virtually every top fighter of his time and the results of those meetings are indicative of a truly great fighter. Check it out: Who is the KING of the 1980's middleweights? There is debate as to who was the best of the FAB FOUR of Marvelous Marvin Hagler, "Sugar" Ray Leonard, Tommy "Hitman" Hearns and Roberto "Hands of Stone" Duran. We can even throw Wilfred "The Bible of Boxing" Benitez in there seeing how he fought three of the four, beat one of them and had close fights with the other two. Their records against each other, though, would seem to imply that the man of that group was Sugar Ray Leonard. They all had great overall careers with spots in Canastota assured but against each other, for what it's worth, they matched up like this: Hagler was 2-1 with 1 KO. Tommy was 2-2-1 with 1 KO. Benitez was 1-2 with 0 KO's. Duran was 1-4-1 with 0 KO's. And Sugar Ray Leonard was 5-1-1 with 3 KO's against these guys who were a combined 406-14-3 at the time he fought them. He also stopped the guys he drew with and lost to (Duran and Hearns). Food For Thought: How many times have you read about an upcoming fight and expected serious fireworks only to be disappointed? How many times has a promoter talked at length on a dais somewhere about the upcoming fight and he makes several comments about how great the fight would be? What an electric match up it would be? He gives it names like "The Brawl For it All" but when the fight actually happens you end up feeling you just got robbed for 49.99 worth of PPV money? Now, I am the type of guy that is all for good boxing, taking your time, picking your shots and being careful and if most fights were promoted that way it would be OK but nowadays there are so many guys that seem to do all this tough talking at press conferences and in online interviews but when the bell rings to start round one the reality of professional boxing seems to set in and they go back to being careful. Once in a while you will get Ward-Gatti or Corrales-Castillo but too often it is a thing where the guys that promise the best fights do not deliver. Maybe it is a style match up gone wrong or maybe one guy was not feeling well or maybe the stars just were not aligned right but I know myself that I sat through twelve rounds of Trinidad-DeLaHoya waiting for promised explosions and I am still waiting (Oscar boxed great for nine rounds, though, you gotta' give him that). Some of the most exciting sounding fights like that one and Taylor-Hopkins just never materialized and a big part of it was it seemed to me that the guys involved were not willing to take the risks needed to be great fighters and make serious statements. They rarely went for it all out for more than a few seconds at a time, you know? My point is this: You look back on fights like the first Leonard-Duran and both Leonard-Hearns fights and ESPECIALLY the Hagler-Hearns fight and you know you are watching two men that were willing to go all out to win at all costs. In anticipated great fights, they delivered great fights. Hearns and Hagler went at it in the way you really want to see the best in the world go at it. Tommy unjustly gets a bad rep for losing the two huge fight with Hagler and Sugar Ray but the fact is there is nobody in history who brought more fight with him to the ring, for better or worse, than Tommy Hearns and if you want to see a guy (two of them, actually) who at least attempts to do what he promises, then pop in a tape of Hagler-Hearns. Karma! Great post and very well said. What makes for great fights is the desire to be the best against the best and the will to overcome the fear of being beat by the best. Every fighter with great skills doesn't have that though and that I think can be a difference, especially in the example you mentioned. DLH Trinidad. DLH dared to be great by taking on Trinidad, but when it mattered most, he wasn't willing to risk it all and it cost him.

All were great fighters. ALL of them. But Hagler and Hearns are my favorites. I love SRL, but those two are my picks. But you really can't go wrong with ANY of those guys.

Good post, but you list Duran as 1-4-1 against those guys. where does the draw come in, because to my knowledge Duran had no draws.

Even though I'm a big Hagler fan, it would be disingenuous to not say going by head-to-head wins that Sugar Ray Leonard was the best.

Marvin was the best of the three, he really beat SRL. duran. he's the ONLY one to beat sugar.........and he was a lightweight.

You know???? (bump)

I have no problem whatsoever with SRL getting the decision over Hagler. I watched that fight in Massachusetts of all places and no one there, from what I recall, seemed to think Hagler won it. You can say Ray "ran" against Marvin or other guys but that doesnt mean LOSS, it just means lack of excitement. (although SRL-MMH was pretty exciting, all things considered). Also, I think a lot of people watched that fight more than once and every time they watch it you can see more and more how Marvin deserved the decision. That's crazy, though. You cannot go by what you see after seven views, only by what you see with one on eminuite of the round ending. And, at the end of the day, no matter who you thought won that fight, you HAVE TO give Sugar Ray Leonard HUGE credit for not only taking on MMH in his first fight back after three full years away, but he boxed beautifully and executed a plan that Marvin just couldnt deal with. People forget now, maybe they just have it in for Ray, but there were many many people who assumed Ray would get totally ANNIHALATED in that fight and when it didnt happen they look edfar and wide for any excuse they could get a hold of.

One thing I would disagree with you on Scully is the fights that were suppose to be fireworks but ended up as sparklers. Except for Trinidad-DLH , which was a departure from DLH's regular style and not easily anticipated and JT-Pavlik II which was hard pressed to match the first fights excitment.........the other fights were pretty predictable in terms of battles or chessmatches. JT-Hopkins was one of those, for all his talk everyone knows that Hopkins is a minimal risk defense first guy. When I buy his fights I'm not expecting fireworks and dont believe many do. Same goes for Bhop-Winky, PBF-Baldomir, PBF-DLH....etc. So when I buy those fights I buy them knowing for the most part what I'm probably going to get......although I still HOPE for fireworks I dont expect them.

Those were some great fights.

You gotta go by numbers and SRL dominated them all, in and outta the ring he could box beautifuly snort crack and stock pile millions of dollars in in the process, he,s commerically known and could probley star in a movie if he chose RIGHT NOW... But then you got the others Hearns, badass with a horse leg for a reach and a blistering right hand, the one id pick to help ko a nicca. But shit where is he now why havent i heard of him outside of his past life, because he's irrelvent?... So are the others?... SRL was a master of boxing like ya local judo teacher who could whoop everybody in town, thats what he did and thats what we remember him for!

Marvin was the best of the three, he really beat SRL.

foe me hagler is the best of the lot, but all are unreal, and we will not likely ever have an era like that again

My favorite was Leonard & Hitman Hearns

They were all great fighters. My favourites would be tommy hearns and marvin hagler.

Definitely some great MW's in the 80's..... I personally like to split the hair and give the nod to Hagler....mostly because he held the belt for the majority of the 80's (80-87)...but all of those guys were undoubtedly great, and as you said, none of them were "careful" about who they fought. They took on all comers, including each other, and gave us some memorable battles in the process. Good post Scull.:boxing: