Rank the "FOUR KINGS".

[Combat Talk Radio]

I don't care what criteria you use. Just rank them in your opinion.

For me, based on skill I saw with these guys:

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

This is the eye test, not fight resume. From a skill perspective.

And you might wonder why I have Hearns at #1; it's because of the four, Hearns seemed to show the most diversity and adaptation as he got more fights under his belt. At the time he fought Leonard and Hagler, especially Hagler, he hadn't addressed his fundamental flaws. But Hearns seemed to get better and better as he got older and made adjustments in areas where he was flawed.

Duran is #2 over Leonard because while Duran often looked like a wild brawler, the guy was as skilled as they come. All the little sneaky body shots out of nowhere, his head movement was underrated too. It took a lanky Hearns to really take him out and even a prime Pazienza struggled with a way past prime Duran.

Leonard is #3 because while Leonard was a skilled, talented fighter, he suffered the same fate as Roy Jones in that he heavily relied on speed and reaction time to get him through fights. While brilliant at welter, he was a pale shadow of himself at middleweight, and a declining Macho walked through him.

Hagler is to date one of my favorite fighters - skilled, quality, composed. But I have him the lowest for one reason: he only ever beat Hearns decisively. Hagler/Duran was disputed, Leonard/Hagler was disputed (but he lost).

[Prince Madison]

i think its hard to seperate skill and resume, as to accurately determine someones skill youve got to see them winning fights against good opponents so the two are intrinsically linked. if i was to rank all 4 i would say 1)leonard, 2)duran, 3)hagler, 4)hearns. All 4 of them were absolutely tremendous fighters so ranking hearns 4th is no disservice to him

[THEFRESHBRAWLER]

Leonard
Hagler
Hearns
Duran


Duran is definitely last because he went 1-4 against the other 3. And according to boxingscene definition of prime SRL wasn’t in his prime when Duran beat him.

There’s no way you can put him ahead of any of them anyway. He’s greatly over rated in my opinion. Don’t forget that same Macho beat Duran too when Hector was close to 40 and Duran had already lost to two c level fighters Robbie Sims and Kirkland Laing way before he lost to Vinny. Also if we’re counting Macho win over Ray Leonard then we’d have to take into consideration Pat Lawlor ko win over Duran. It’s just no way you can rank him ahead of any of the 3. Great fighter a bit over rated if you ask me.

[Combat Talk Radio]

i think its hard to seperate skill and resume, as to accurately determine someones skill youve got to see them winning fights against good opponents so the two are intrinsically linked.

Tim Bradley is one of the most skilled fighters of the last generation. His resume is garbage.

Darnell Boone and Randall Bailey are basic fighters. They have top tier resumes in comparison to guys like Amir Khan.

So no, I can't equate skill and resume. Should, but it doesn't pan out that way all the time.

Leonard
Hagler
Hearns
Duran


Duran is definitely last because he went 1-4 against the other 3. And according to boxingscene definition of prime SRL wasn’t in his prime when Duran beat him.

There’s no way you can put him ahead of any of them anyway. He’s greatly over rated in my opinion. Don’t forget that same Macho beat Duran too when Hector was close to 40 and Duran had already lost to two c level fighters Robbie Sims and Kirkland Laing way before he lost to Vinny. Also if we’re counting Macho win over Ray Leonard then we’d have to take into consideration Pat Lawlor ko win over Duran. It’s just no way you can rank him ahead of any of the 3. Great fighter a bit over rated if you ask me.

Duran arguably beat Camacho in the first fight and was washed the second fight. There was no disputing Camacho's win over Leonard - Camacho sparked and retired him, Duran saw the final bell both fights. There's no comparison.

Duran/Sims was close, Duran/Laing was close. Those guys had to put in work for those wins against a not-prime Duran. Pat Lawlor beat a 40-year old Duran with nerve damage, then got schooled by a damn near 50 year old Duran in the rematch.

See it's easy to go against losses, until you analyze the losses and the aftermath.

[_Rexy_]

Duran should be commended. Although he went 1-3 he was the smallest of them all by far.


Also, Why is it the four kings? I always referred to it as the "Fabulous Five" with Wilfred Benitez added.

[_Rexy_]

Also, Duran boxed for five decades, and went from Bantamweight to Light Heavyweight. Christ, just saying that out loud is insane

[The plunger man]

1 Leonard
2 duran
3 hagler
4 hearns

Leonard beat all 3 of them 4 if you include benitez
Duran a close second because he was a lightweight and beat leonard one time and is considered the greatest lightweight of all time

[The plunger man]

I don't care what criteria you use. Just rank them in your opinion.

For me, based on skill I saw with these guys:

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

This is the eye test, not fight resume. From a skill perspective.

And you might wonder why I have Hearns at #1; it's because of the four, Hearns seemed to show the most diversity and adaptation as he got more fights under his belt. At the time he fought Leonard and Hagler, especially Hagler, he hadn't addressed his fundamental flaws. But Hearns seemed to get better and better as he got older and made adjustments in areas where he was flawed.

Duran is #2 over Leonard because while Duran often looked like a wild brawler, the guy was as skilled as they come. All the little sneaky body shots out of nowhere, his head movement was underrated too. It took a lanky Hearns to really take him out and even a prime Pazienza struggled with a way past prime Duran.

Leonard is #3 because while Leonard was a skilled, talented fighter, he suffered the same fate as Roy Jones in that he heavily relied on speed and reaction time to get him through fights. While brilliant at welter, he was a pale shadow of himself at middleweight, and a declining Macho walked through him.

Hagler is to date one of my favorite fighters - skilled, quality, composed. But I have him the lowest for one reason: he only ever beat Hearns decisively. Hagler/Duran was disputed, Leonard/Hagler was disputed (but he lost).

not one of those fighters was as skilled as leonard and when i say skilled complete.
Speed,power,IQ,heart,chin. When leonard lost to camacho he had been retired for 6 years was 38 and coming off being a coke addict.
Skill wise its leonard because he took hearns unbeaten record and no matter how yiu try and dice it leonard stopped him.
If hearns was more skilfful he would have beat leonard and hagler , barkley ect but he didnt.
Leonard no doubt was the number 1

[Combat Talk Radio]

not one of those fighters was as skilled as leonard and when i say skilled complete.
Speed,power,IQ,heart,chin. When leonard lost to camacho he had been retired for 6 years was 38 and coming off being a coke addict.
Skill wise its leonard because he took hearns unbeaten record and no matter how yiu try and dice it leonard stopped him.
If hearns was more skilfful he would have beat leonard and hagler , barkley ect but he didnt.
Leonard no doubt was the number 1

Again, it's fine to look at losses, but you need to analyze them.

Leonard arguably lost the rematch against Hearns. Because as I acknowledged, Hearns had flaws when he faced those guys the first time but improved his game significantly every time he rematched.

See I'm looking at the total package - are you getting better or are you regressing? I saw Leonard regressing even before the Norris fight and then he retired before we got a chance to see if he would get any better. Hagler was too bitter about the Leonard decision and we never got the chance to see if he'd get any better.

But Duran and Hearns both upped their game constantly and evolved as fighters. The Duran I saw in later years was a skillful tactician, far cry from the buzzsaw he used to be, but was giving all sorts of problems to guys. Hearns was slow and methodical, but still only needed one punch to change the fight around and was sparking dudes.

[Marchegiano]

leonard, hearns, hagler, duran for me.

To be honest I kind of feel like Hagler and Duran are overrated these days while Leonard and Hearns are minimized. I guess it's a sort of backlash because for years I would have said Leonard and Hearns are overrated and Hagler and Duran are minimalized.


Odd question, but this got me to thinking, all four of these guys are from the New World, the Americas. Who do y'all reckon are the best from the Old World in that era/area of weight divisions?