Duran Leonard Hearns Hagler

[wpink1]

i dont make excuses for ray vs Lalond, in fact I think what he did vs Lalond was a travesty to ask him to come in at a lower weight. However, he did stop lalond....I always said up to around age 34, which does vary among fighters, like was worn out after 32. However, Duran was only 32 when he fought hearns.

Your right he was not at his most effective weight. I never said he was. However Mosley was not vs forrest, nor mayweather vs dlh, nor leonard vs lalond, nor jones vs tarver, etc dlh vs sturm & hopkins. However all we ever hear is "duran was past his prime (age 32) past his peak weight., and hmmmm Roy was overrated no chin, see what happened to him vs tarver" he was 35, and not at his most effective weight either....

[sid89]

The Best

1st=leonord+hagler+hearns+duran.
All Had Skill,style,speed And Abilityto Box With Both Hands.a Credit To The Sport.one And All.

[slicksouthpaw16]

Wpink, I definitely see what you are saying although there is a few things that i should point out. At the time that Leonard fought Lalonde, he was at a stage in his career where he could pick and choose opponents that he can feel confident of beating, very similar to the what Benard Hopkins and Floyd Mayweather are doing now. Leonard looked good of course, but you have not really heard of Lalond before or after his fight with Leonard. He was a decent name that Ray could invite to fight for the vacant super middleweight belt. Kind of misleading. Duran fought better opposition when he was at the higher weights and he definitely took the bigger risks.

Different fighters fade at different times in their career's than other fighters do. Check out all of the lightweight fights that Duran had and the wars that he had down there with De Jesus, Bucannan ect. Those kinds of fights can take their toll. Not only that but Duran was also coming up many weight classes. Take a look at Fernando Vargas. At this moment, he does have 27 fights and he was already past his peak when he had 21 fights. He is only 29 years old and was fadded when he was only 23 years old. His war with Trinidad completely broke him. Was he still a good fighter when he fought with Oscar, Javier Castillejo, Mosley ect? Yes, but that doesn't take away the fact that he was past his prime. Its the same situation here. Duran left his peak at lightweight but was still a very good fighter at the higher weights.

[hemichromis]

That statment justifies what I have always said about duran fans...Sure he fought bigger fighters since he moved up from Lightweight no one is discrediting that. My point is what about every other fighter that moved up,,,and did so much more successfully thsat Duran did... How is it that you all say well duran moved up at age 29 and he lost so we only measure him by his career at lightweight where he had padded resume at best, and was not undefeated....and we will only measue his successes when he moves up, we will discredit his losses as for Duran only they do not matter because he was 29 and not at his prime weight...

When on the other hand..

Mosley Mayweather, Dlh, Leonard, Jones, Whitacker, etc....the list goes on and on..alll moved up and fought bigger people too, Many did so more successfully and was undefreated at their original weight (roy, Mayweather, Mosley).. Jones beat two fighters much better at middleweigh than anyone duran fought at light weight, he also dominated (not just fought at a higher weight class) at super middle, and light heavy...then went on to win a Heavy weight title.... No losses (true beating in the ring) until he was much older than duran was before he took a loss... Also, Roy fought many many many champions and beat them, his resume was not padded with 0-3, 10-11 fighters as Durans was......

Facts...

he moved up in most possibly the best middleweight era ever! think about the people who beat him, most are very highly rated.

we are not comparing duran with jones, who i would say is the most impressive boxer i have seen.

[Kilrain]

Tough choice.

Over all I'd say Duran, because he was genuinely a lightweight, the single best lightweight ever I think, terrorized that division, and yet he still beat Leonard at his best weight (147) and nearly beat Hagler at middleweight (Haglers a middleweight legend).

[wpink1]

Good points Hemichromis and slicksouthpaw.....I have actually figured what you all have said into my positon.

1. Leonard was garbage when he came back. He fought hagler and beat him, but haglers style was handpicked for leonard. Had they fought in 82 leonard would have had more stamina, beater timing, more speed, etc.... Hagler was used to fighting stationary come forward fighters who came at him, this enabled Hagler to used his best skills, takeing a punch and countering with awesome force (Mugabi, Hearns)/. Your smaller more mobile, or fighters that gave the slightest movment and did not lead gave hagler problems, Duran, Antefermo, Leonard. Hagler fought duran in 83 and barely beat him cause duran did not lead, taking away hagler greatest strenght, and duran is a good boxer with good head movement. So Leonard beating Hagler IMO was going to happen unless he got ko'd. Hagler is lucky it was as close as it was. Leonard was up 4-0 til he came down off his bicycle and then hagler got to start landing shots, had Leonard had the same stamina and speed he had vs Duran in New Orleans, hagler would have had headaches trying to catch leonard.

My point is, no other showing Leonard had since he retired did you see vintage Leonard. Being out of boxing for 5 years with only 1 fight robbed him of everything, and yet he still managed a controversial (wrong fully deserved) draw with hearns, beat Lalond and duran then the rude awakening hit when he attempted to fight a younger fighter who would take advantage of his lack of hand and foot speed, and bad techniques when he came back..Just look at ray vs Duran or hearns I, then look at him vs hagler, his technique was bad, his right hand was looping, his defense was horrible....Ray after retirment was GARBAGE.

Duran was at his most effective at Lightweight, and had he retired after beating leoanrd in Montreal, you all would have a solid point. However he did not. If we judge Erik Morales on his fights after he ws clearlky spent from the wars he had with pacquio and other great mexican warriors, if we judge Mosely on his efforts at losing to Winky, If we judge Jones on his loses to Tarver, then is it not simply and completley biased to Judge Duran only on what he did at Lightweight.

Also Duran did dominate the lightweight division as did hopkins. Duran level of opposition again is all time low at that divisison. Sure he had Buchanon, Marcil, Dejesus (who beat him 1 out of 3 fights), I have seen these fighters, they are good but not the caliber of a James Toney, or Hopkins or Hearns, Benetiez, Hagler, or Barrera, or Whitacker.... They were simply good fighters. I dont think beating them is equal to what leonard did in beating 4 top all time fighters. I just dont.

Finally, the last point. Duran did move up and fight better oppostion than most can dream of. However his record vs these fighters was 1-5 with a ko, all before the age of 34. That is not a quality statistic, and it is relevant when your compaing him to Jones who never lost til he was older.

[Hearnsz]

Wow Leonard has taken quite a leap in the poll since the last time I checked.
8 Votes above Hagler and only 1 vote under Duran.

I got the feeling Hearns is being a little underrated though.
His loss vs Hagler was a bit unlucky. He was winning the fight until he got caught with a single punch that made him walk with his back turned to Hagler which was a big mistake. I'm not saying Hearns would have won if that didn't happen but who knows, it could have been a draw as the first round was one too imo.

His loss vs Leonard was also a bit unlucky as he was winning the fight until round 13(?) when he got caught again with one single punch. I guess Hearns' weakness is maybe his chin...
But let's also not forget his draw against Leonard in the rematch and his 1st round KO victories in Cruiserweight.

And as for Duran I sometimes got the feeling he's a bit overrated. Sure he dominated the lightweight division but I looked at his resume and noticed he didn't fight too many other legends at lightweight. I'm not denying his impressive record ofcourse but imo he didn't won vs someone as good as Hagler in his own prime. Leonard on the other hand did manage to beat Halger.

[Panamaniac]

And as for Duran I sometimes got the feeling he's a bit overrated. Sure he dominated the lightweight division but I looked at his resume and noticed he didn't fight too many other legends at lightweight. I'm not denying his impressive record ofcourse but imo he didn't won vs someone as good as Hagler in his own prime. Leonard on the other hand did manage to beat Halger.

Despite all his shortcomings, Duran was an extremely popular figure, due mostly to his ring demeanor. Something rather remarkable caught my attention at "The Brawl in Motreal." Although Leonard was popular in his own right, the cheering crowd at the fight was overwhelmingly pro Duran.

Boxing fans tend to gravitate towards a fighter who climbs through the ring aprons for the sole purpose of fighting. Not clowning, not dancing, not cycling, just unleashing hands of stone upon his opponents. As a result of his sheer joy of fighting, Duran acquired that intangible "mystique" that eludes most fighters and makes legends of an elite few...

[mcentepede]

All these Guys are legends...I fear we will never see boxers like these again.

[wpink1]

Your right in montreal it was pro Duran. Duran was the heart and sole of boxing. Leonard was the incoming prince. That night was Durans night all the way around. No arguement from me. I do believe that night helped Leonard in the long run, as the 1st four rounds of the beating that duran put on him then the sustained back and forth action in that fight, toughened up Ray and caused him to develop more confidence in himself.