How Do You Rank Duran/Hagler/Leonard/Hearns

[#1Assassin]

Duran
Hagler
Hearns
Leonard

[MJ223]

Duran was already past-prime when he beat Leonard. In fact, he was past-prime before he left lightweight. He moved up from lightweight and beat a top 3 welterweight (all-time).

That's the best victory any of them have.

I would say even before his victory over Ray Leonard, he had a better resume than Hagler or Hearns. Look at his lightweight resume, not only is it stacked, he fought 6 more times than Hagler or Hearns would ever fight (twice as many as Leonard), before he moved up to fight Leonard.

You should learn more about Duran before you try to rank him.

Umm no........ Hagler for Ray not only rivals that but it surpasses it imo

[Capaedia]

Umm no........ Hagler for Ray not only rivals that but it surpasses it imo

Ray Leonard was in his absolute prime. He was in the middle of one of the greatest runs in WW history, he went on with it immediately after,

Hagler was not prime. He was at the very end of his own great run. He never fought again.

Duran beat Leonard clearly.

Leonard did not beat Hagler clearly.

Two great victories, but I rank Duran's victory higher

[JOM'S]

in terms of my favoritism i go leonard, hearns, duran, hagler vs each other leonard, hagler, hearns, duran ....

[MJ223]

Ray Leonard was in his absolute prime. He was in the middle of one of the greatest runs in WW history, he went on with it immediately after,

Hagler was not prime. He was at the very end of his own great run. He never fought again.

Duran beat Leonard clearly.

Leonard did not beat Hagler clearly.

Two great victories, but I rank Duran's victory higher

Unofficial AP scorecard: 144-141 Duran
Unofficial New York Times scorecard: 144-142 Leonard

Associated Press: 117-112 Hagler
Baltimore Sun: 7-5 in rounds Leonard
Boston Globe: 117-111 Leonard
Boston Herald 116-113 Leonard
Chicago Sun-Times: 115-114 Hagler
Chicago Tribune: 7-5 in rounds Hagler
HBO, Harold Lederman: 115-113 Leonard
Houston Chronicle: 115-114 Leonard
KO Magazine: 118-111 Leonard
New York Daily News: 117-111 Leonard
New York Post: 114-114
New York Times: 114-114
Newsday: 115-114 Hagler
Oakland Tribune: 117-112 Leonard
The Ring magazine: 115-113 Leonard
San Jose Mercury-News: 116-115 Hagler
Washington Post: 114-114

These are the scorecards I could find for both fights from the press/media.... Draw from it what you will but both fights were close..... Both have dissenting cards so this clearly you continue to speak of.?.?.? Obviously not everyone agrees with you

[Optimistic]

Leonard
Duran
Hearns
Hagler

[MJ223]

Ray Leonard was in his absolute prime. He was in the middle of one of the greatest runs in WW history, he went on with it immediately after,

Hagler was not prime. He was at the very end of his own great run. He never fought again.

Duran beat Leonard clearly.

Leonard did not beat Hagler clearly.

Two great victories, but I rank Duran's victory higher

Neither was Leonard..... He not only came back and won a major title he came back at a higher weight to do it.... Before Duran the feat he accomplished had been accomplished already.... How many can say they did what Leonard did before or after (come back at a higher weight after retirement to win a title)???

[Capaedia]

These are the scorecards I could find for both fights from the press/media.... Draw from it what you will but both fights were close..... Both have dissenting cards so this clearly you continue to speak of.?.?.? Obviously not everyone agrees with you[/B]

A fight can be close but have a clear winner.

Duran was the clear winner of the first Leonard fight, you could give the fight to Leonard by being generous. Otherwise, you are probably going to give the fight to the more active and defensively responsible fighter which was Duran.

Leonard was the winner of the Hagler fight. But you don't have to be generous to either fighter to give them the win.

I've explained this before, there is a reason the expression 'close but clear win' exists. It is for situations like Leonard-Duran I and Frazier-Ali I.

You can lose all 12 rounds and it can still be a close fight if there is very little separation between the winner and loser in each round. This isn't going to be represented by scorecards for obvious reason. Look at Jones-Hopkins I, that was much closer than you'd think by looking at the scorecards.

[JOM'S]

Unofficial AP scorecard: 144-141 Duran
Unofficial New York Times scorecard: 144-142 Leonard

Associated Press: 117-112 Hagler
Baltimore Sun: 7-5 in rounds Leonard
Boston Globe: 117-111 Leonard
Boston Herald 116-113 Leonard
Chicago Sun-Times: 115-114 Hagler
Chicago Tribune: 7-5 in rounds Hagler
HBO, Harold Lederman: 115-113 Leonard
Houston Chronicle: 115-114 Leonard
KO Magazine: 118-111 Leonard
New York Daily News: 117-111 Leonard
New York Post: 114-114
New York Times: 114-114
Newsday: 115-114 Hagler
Oakland Tribune: 117-112 Leonard
The Ring magazine: 115-113 Leonard
San Jose Mercury-News: 116-115 Hagler
Washington Post: 114-114

These are the scorecards I could find for both fights from the press/media.... Draw from it what you will but both fights were close..... Both have dissenting cards so this clearly you continue to speak of.?.?.? Obviously not everyone agrees with you

that's the thing with comparing two close fights and you favor one fighter, in your eyes it is clear victory but the other not ...

[MJ223]

A fight can be close but have a clear winner.

Duran was the clear winner of the first Leonard fight, you could give the fight to Leonard by being generous. Otherwise, you are probably going to give the fight to the more active and defensively responsible fighter which was Duran.

Leonard was the winner of the Hagler fight. But you don't have to be generous to either fighter to give them the win.

I've explained this before, there is a reason the expression 'close but clear win' exists. It is for situations like Leonard-Duran I and Frazier-Ali I.

You can lose all 12 rounds and it can still be a close fight if there is very little separation between the winner and loser in each round. This isn't going to be represented by scorecards for obvious reason. Look at Jones-Hopkins I, that was much closer than you'd think by looking at the scorecards.

Fair enough..... Do you have a rebuttal to my other post???