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).
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).
Comment