Duran Leonard Hearns Hagler

[Thread Stealer]

Hearns was above his weight but still a good fighter. At welter, Hearns punished fighters that attempted to get on the inside because they would be directly in range of his punches. I didn't see much skill at all from Hagler in that fight. He simply out lasted Hearns in a brawl. He didn't show any craftiness or boxing ability, he just went for broke and laid it all out there. I take nothing away from Hagler because he did a great job, but i didn't see any ''versatility'' there.

Pound for pound, Hearns was the better fighter. He also wasn't just an outside fight either. His left hook and straight right hand to the body was devastating. Thats why Hearns skill wise is over everyone on the list in my opinion. He could do it all and was the most effective at doing it.

I see what you are getting at though.

It showed Hagler's versatility that he was able to a brawl like that and win in impressive fashion. It showed that Hagler, who was traditionally a boxer-puncher and counterpuncher, could apply the pressure and overwhelm a terrific fighter and puncher in Hearns.

There's lots of ways to beat fighters. It shows versatility when you use different ways to beat different fighters. Hagler did that when he outboxed numerous guys and outslugged Hearns. Leonard did that as well when he outboxed numerous guys and beat Hearns by applying the pressure, when he couldn't outbox Hearns. Duran did that throughout his career. Early on he was more aggressive and balls-to-the-wall. In other fights, such as the Dejesus 3rd fight, he was more patient and boxed behind the jab before turning it up. Later in his career he had to tweak his game a little, you saw the skills he had that enabled him to succeed at a higher weight class at an older age.

All of the Fab 4 were very skilled.

[mcentepede]

I would rank them this way folks: Hagler, Leonard, Duran, Hearns
Hagler is probably the second best middleweight ever, going by the tapes I think Sugar Ray Robinson is the best overall fighter ever. Leonard is the best fighter of our generation as he looked good on t.v. But he looked bad in his last 2 fights and he got stopped by Camacho. At least Hagler went out controversially. Duran is arguably one of the most ferocious Latinos of all time and would have been tuff for anyone at lightweight to beat. Hearns had the power but not the chin.

[luke_ski]

1. Hagler
2. Hearns
3. Duran
4. Leonard

Hagler had the most success out of all of these fighters. Yes he lost to Leonard, but it was close, and if the fight had been 15 rounds instead of 12, we would have walked away with a win. He also had the good sense to quit while he was (somewhat) ahead, and spared us (unlike the other three) having to watch him fight into his 40s.

Hearns was just a monster in terms of power. He dispatched Duran the fastest out of all of these guys. I really wanted to see him pull through in the first Leonard fight, and I felt he was robbed in the rematch. And as for the Hagler fight, Hearns was in unfamiliar territory in terms of his weight, and wasn't prepared for Marvin Hagler's immediate onslaught. I don't like the "what ifs" people have about this fight. It tarnishes Hagler's win. Although, Hearns did give Marvin a decent couple rounds, and nobody can question either fighter.

I feel that Duran is an underrated boxer. Sure, he's a fighter, but I think he's a skilled boxer, and can go toe to toe with any of the three on the list. He outpointed Ray, and nearly took Hagler's titles. And although all three did deafeat him at various points, a solid win over Roberto Duran is something that very few people achieve.

I put Leonard last probably out of bias. I admit it. I just don't like the antics, the ****iness he exhibited against Duran and Hagler, I'm not a fan. And as for his comeback, sure there's the win over Hagler but after that what? A draw against Hearns (he barely earned that), and a win over and aging Duran. Losses to Terry Norris and Camacho probably lost him a few fans. Good thing he retired before further embarrassing himself.

[Scoooter]

1. Duran
2. Leonard
3. Hagler
4. Hearns

[Syntax Error]

Out of the 4, Leonard is the best, but in an overall P4P sense, Duran is way ahead of the other 3.

[wpink1]

I would rank them Sugar Ray Leonard, then Duran (very close second) then Hagler, then Hearns. Reason for Leonard being #1 well hmmmm who else beat the rest of the them. Leonard beat everyone on here, regardless of your views, biases etc...Stopped hearns during their peak years...lost a very very very close fight to Duran, then came back and humiliated him making him quit, and also beat duran much later in their careers, He moved up and after only 1 fight in 5 years he beat Hagler at middlweiht when he retired as a Welterweight champion...... There is also the great benitez Leonard stopped when he was undefeated as a 2 division champ...This benitez later beat duran, and had a close decision loss to hearns.

[Hearnsz]

Many people consider Thomas Hearns one of the best welter/middleweights of all time. Yet, in this poll he's rated last. That really shows what a great era of boxing that was

[StarshipTrooper]

I'm going to assume this is pound for pound since Hagler was strictly a Middleweight and the other three didn't fight in that division until they were past their best. So here goes:

Pound for pound

1. Duran
2. Hagler
3. Leonard
4. Hearns

Poet

[Panamaniac]

1. Duran
2. Leonard
3. Hagler
4. Hearns

Despite losing to each of the others (past his prime) and defeating only one of them, he is ranked in the top ten all-time p4p of most boxing historians and journalists. Why? Because unlike the others, Duran is legend.

[Hearnsz]

Yes when I ask you to rank them I mean p4p ofcourse. I just choose those 4 because they have all fought eachother and are known by even a boxing newbie.