Who was the most complete out of the Fab Four?

I wouldn't really say Hearns had incredible difficulties going toe-to-toe .. he had trouble with it against Hagler, who was 2 divisions north of Hearns' best weight class, and maybe the greatest MW of all time with an ATG chin to boot.

It's important to keep in mind that we never saw Hagler go up from 160, so we don't know how he would have fared against bigger fighters.

 

Please:shit:...

Just like MOST Duran Nuthuggers, U Afford Him EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE Benefit of the Doubt..."Drained" Against this Guy,"Unmotivated" vs. THAT Guy..."Too Small" For this Guy..."Too Old" for that Guy..."Uninterested" When he Gets the Living Shit Beaten Out of Him...To Hear YOU & Other Duran Lovers Tell it, "The REAL" Duran NEVER Lost a Fight, which is THE most ABSURD Boxing Messageboard Stance EVER...

If U REALLY Wanna have a Duran-Leonard I, Round by Round Debate, REED'll GLADLY Oblige...That was a CLOSE Fight, but Of Course, Being the Duran NUTHUGGER that U R, U Can't See it as Anything OTHER than a Fight that Duran Virtually DOMINATED...Make No Mistake, Duran STARTED STRONG, but by the 6th-7th Round, the Bout Leveled Off Into a POCKET Slugfest w/Leonard GIVING just as Good as he Received...

To JUSTIFY Duran's QUIT Job in the RE is Comical...U CAN'T Place Duran on a PEDASTAL As Some Ultimate Fighting Machine, then EXCUSE him for QUITTING...Even if Leonard "Ran", there were ROPES in the Ring (Not to Mention a "Dead" Spot Near the CENTER of the Ring)...The "Ultimate Fighting Machine" Would CUT the Ring Off, WEAR the 'Runner' Down to the Body or SOMETHING, Instead of QUITTING @ the Midpoint of a 15 Rounder...

No Matter HOW U Slice it, Marvin Hagler was MUCH More EQUIPPED for a Fight (@ the Time) than Ray Leonard was...3 1/2 Years of DOWNTIME Doesn't Help a Guy's Career...Didn't Help Ali or Tyson & It Damn Sure DIDN'T Help Ray Leonard Either...Hagler BLEW the 1st 4 Rounds, so Unless U're REALLY Telling REED that Hagler Won Virtually ALL of the Remaining 8 (he Didn't), There's NOfuckingWAY Hagler Beat Leonard...

Last Time REED Checked, JM Marquez STILL had a Belt @ 135...Brandon Rios Does as Well...U're Telling REED that Ray Lampkin "Easily" Beats Marquez &/or Rios???...That's Duran NUTHUGGERY by PROXY, Homey...



REED:shit:

 

Marquez is THE champ at 135 & no chance does Lampkin easily account for him.

 

What does 'complete' mean? If you mean 'best', then it's a lightweight Duran, by a slim margin over all 3, who all ruled too.

 

Everything after No Mass is essentially past-prime postscript, equivalent to Ali after Zaire, Charles after Wallcott 3, Louis post comeback, Pep post crash etc, Jones post-Ruiz, etc. A few good wins, a few losses, basically all to be taken with a large grain of salt & diminished relevance. Argument about the merit of 'excuses' comes AFTER that more central point.

IMO, his lightweight reign plus besting Leonard at Leonard's prime weight and 2 weights north of his own puts him right in ANY conversation of all time greats, even if he might come later in the conversation for you than me.

(I'll refrain from getting into 'No Mass' discussions, other to say that fight is every inch the blot on Leonard's copy as Duran's as boxing's.:shit:)

 

I don't think that is important at all... it doesn't make another guy "better"

Different bodies react different ways to added weight

Hagler was a short and compact middleweight, he fought there his whole career... Thomas was extremely tall and whippet lean, the kind of body you can throw weight on far more easily

Furthermore, Hearns won titles at 175, he wasn't an Oscar De La Hoya totally out of his element at 160 or higher.

Hearns had trouble even in fights he won convincingly, like Roldan... he was hurt several times there and only his punch and Roldan's wholesale lack of defense saved the day for him.... he had to call on everything in the book to keep James Kinchen off of him... again, both of those fights took place at 160, two divisions SOUTH of a division where Tommy won two titles

If you could get inside on Tommy (and FEW could, I'm not denying that, we are talking about the fab four here) you could do some serious business, he was vulnerable there... Not true of Leonard or Hagler, and certainly not true of Duran

 

:hammert: ^

 

Nothing, I mean NOTHING, infuriates me more than the "such-and-such guy won titles above this wieght class so therefore, he's better than this other guy who fought in the same weightclass but never moved up...

Zab Judah won the world Welterweight title, he started out as a junior welterweight... Aaron Pryor fought at 140 his whole career... so ZAB>PRYOR? not on your life...

Last time I checked, Erik Morales won his first fight at 130 against Pacquiao... anybody fancy Morales' chances at 147 against Cotto?

 

I'm not saying Hearns is better or Hagler is worse.. I'm saying that we don't know how Hagler would have fared above 160 and that 147 was Hearns' best division. Duran won a title at 160, two divisions north of 147, but nobody is going to judge Duran's career based on what he did at 147 (unless it's Ugotabe Kidding).

 

That's not even remotely close to what I was saying.

 

I know, man, I was making a general observation

 

Oh aight.. in that case, I agree, I don't think fighters should be punished for not moving up in weight (especially in in the era of same day weigh-ins).

 

SUGAR RAY LEONARD

Destruction and Mayhem thinks the answer is obvious!!

 

'Complete' seems a pretty vague & divisive term.

Does it mean 'versatile?'. Or does it mean 'best'?

Lightweight Duran is better than welterweight Leonard for my money.

 

agreed

 

Lightweight Duran is the best of all the best versions of these fighters

 

You'd have to ask the original poster exactly what he meant. I take it as most complete in terms the usual individual attributes we rank fighters on such has power, speed, chin, boxing skills etc. in one fighter.

Versatilty to me when it comes to a fighter is an ability to combat different styles with different tactics. (of course you'd still have to have many of those physical attributes to do so at a high level)

 

I agree. He is also the most over-rated though.

 

But, if you are being honest with yourself and us, the "fab four" suggests the Duran who tossled with Hearns, Hagler and Leonard. In other words, the short fat uncivilized panamanian that fought above lightweight.

Destruction and Mayhem adds: Motherfucker!!

 

So, in order to maintain the idiotic position held by many on this forum that a guy nearing 30 with 72 fights and 12 professional years under his belt going into the first Leonard fight was as much in his prime as the other three guys to downgrade him out of spite, I need to ignore the decade of ridiculous dominance and all-time excellence that preceded it... yeah, understood...

while I am at it, I will ignore the 1970s period for Hagler where he proved himself over and over with no protection, no careful matchmaking against the toughest middlewieght contenders in the world while waiting for less deserving men to get a shot at the title he would hold for 7 years

Anything else I can do to downgrade Duran and Marvin so that Ray and Tommy can be elevated???

 

How can you say a guy who you agree is better than Leonard, Hearns, and Hagler at his best is "overrated?"

 

Because he is.

 

His lightweight reign is irrelevant when speaking about him in the context of the "Fab Four".

That's all the Destruction and Mayhem is saying!!

 

Why?

Is Hagler's 1970s resume also irrelevant?

 

Give me an example of him being overrated.

 

Hagler was a Middleweight in the 70s. Duran wasn't a lightweight in the context of the Fab 4.

Destruction and Mayhem asks: Is this so difficult to understand??

 

The thread title isn't "From 1980-1987, which fighter was the most complete?"

You want to exclude Duran's ACTUAL PRIME simply because you dislikem him as a fighter

 

Duran was a great fighter. I do not dislike him at all. When it comes to the fab four though...I see them as the four way rivalry of the 80s. In that context Leonard is the most complete...because he was the only one who managed to beat all of the others...and he was also the most complete in terms of abilities.

If it were a pound for pound discussion on each of the four fighters in their primes, perhaps Duran would be considered. Still Hearns would have beaten Duran on any playing field, IMO.

Destruction and Mayhem has Spoken!!

 

Calling him the best ever is overrating, even if he was the best of these four (which he isn't). To pick him to easily beat any lightweight ever is overrating. To say Pacquiao has no chance against him is overrating. To make an excuse every time he got whupped is overrating (as if he can't have lost). And so on.

There is nobody too good to be overrated. Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Usain Bolt and whoever can be overrated, anybody should realize that much

 

word.

Except it's impossible to overrate Usain Bolt! ::