Jones/Nunn/Hopkins/Toney vs Hagler/Hearns/Leonard/Duran

Which group has the greater aggregation of talent?

 

The latter clearly

 

@ "clearly"

 

alvarez/lara/trout/kirkland

 

No.

Alvarez/Maidana/Judah/Berto

 

Are we talking about each at their optimal weight?

If so, the second group EASILY.

Lightweight Duran and welterweight Leonard are ARGUABLY the two best/most talented fighters that ever lived.

Of course, in the first group you got Roy, who's easily the best of the first group. But Roy alone can't offset that Duran/Leonard combo.

 

some multi division champs there. pretty impressive resumes among the foursome

 

It's not even debatable

 

Jones equals Leonard and Hopkins equals Hagler, but Nunn isn't Hearns by any means, he was more flash than substance. The latter group also takes the battle of the weakest links

 

at Hopkins equals Hagler

 

Duran is arguably the most talented of the later group if we're talking P4P. Leonard is the only one who has a case over him. P4P Duran was definitely more talented than Hagler and Hearns.

 

No about it. Hagler's resume is probably better but not by much and Hopkins was at least as good all-around boxer. Just because he has fought on this era doesn't make him a bum

 

Ehhh, I have no big complaints there. Hopkins and Hagler had comparable talent.

 

Hagler was better at almost every thing and his opposition was way better

 

Hagler's opposition was better but Hopkins dominated his even more clearly. Young Hopkins is faster than Hagler [many forget how fast he actually was 20 years ago) and his footwork is one of the best ever (not talking about dancing).

 

I think Hagler's two clear advantages over Hopkins are that he was a better puncher and had a better chin.

 

He also never stunk the joint out.

 

Hagler has the best chin of all time but to call it an advantage over Hopkins is misleading since Hopkins' chin was made of solid steel. Hagler's chin was just made of adamantium. Both had great chins. Also if Hagler had an edge in power it was only marginal. Hagler's power is overrated. He never once hurt tiny Duran who hearns wiped out and his stoppage of Hearns was more to do with Hearns' getting tired than Hagler's power. Mugabi wasn't exactly steel chinned and he survived 11 rounds with Hagler.

Anyway....if those are Hagler's advantages over Hopkins, those are the only ones. Hopkins beats him in practically every other category.

Jones had more talent than everyone in the fabulous four, including Duran and Leonard. Leonard is close...but Jones edges him (one punch power). Hopkins matches Hagler at the very least. Hearns was very talented but he had a slight chin ad stamina issue which MUST be factored in. Therefore objectively speaking you can't rank him above Toney in talent....since toney was smart, elusive, powerful and had a great chin and stamina. That leaves Duran. Well....Duran does have fireballs coming out of his eyes and lighting bolts coming out of his "arse"....but aside from that he would invariably be outboxed by slick black boxers (Leonard, Benitez, Hearns, Lang) and Nunn was bloody slick and exceedingly talented.

It's ludicrous for Cdogg and other guys to just dismiss the 90s four so easily.

not objective whatsoever!

Good thing The Sly One is around to keep people in check.

 

The guy with more talent usually gathers the better resume

 

Sly, are you HONESTLY suggesting that Michael Nunn was P4P more talented than Duran?

If so, please just ban yourself.

 

Nunn wasn't on the level of Leonard, Hearns, and Benitez.

 

No I'm not.

Just saying that although Nunn is the weak link of the 90s foursome, he's not as far behind those 80s guys as y'all would like to suggest. In terms of a relay, Nunn would have the slowest split time...but it's still fast enough to allow the others to win the race.

 

Nunn is just way too much behind the other guys for the first group to win.

 

Except in the most important fight of his life. I know I'm in the minority in here, but Hagler laying an egg against Leonard should absolutely count against him. Sure he was strating to decline, but this wasn't a prime Leonard either. He was very very dissapointing in this fight, seems to be happy enough to do just enough to complain about the decision. And I say this as a Hagler fan.

 

Exactly. Hagler power is very overrated, and HOpkins power is underrated, since everyone rebember the geriatric Hopkins. In his prime, he was hitting much harder than in the latter years.

 

why is Nunn included with Hopkins/Jones/Toney...cos he fought one of them? :scratcher:

 

You've already been called out on your Duran hating bullshit. The man DOMINATED a division for damn near a decade, yet you still insist he was inconsistent.

Nunn had a 2-year prime where he was an elite fighter. That's it. He looked spectacular in three fighs - Tate, Roldan, and Kalambay. After that, he became the VERY definition of inconsistent.

Duran's one of the most talented fighters who ever lived, whether you like to admit it or not. He was virtually the perfect fighting machine in the 70s. Handspeed, foot quickness, power in both hands, superb balance, great chin, great defensive reflexes, full arsenal of punches, great boxing mind, and absolutely ENDLESS stamina.

It's unbelievable to me that you consistently praise a 2nd tier great like Sloppy Joe, yet consistently attempt to shit on one of the greatest fighters that ever lived.

 

I think Duran is a better fighter than "Sloppy Joe" and one of the greatest fighters ever. I don't actually tear him down...I exist to balance the ridiculous deifying of him, for he had limitations and the greatest fighter of all time doesn't get knocked the fuck out in 2 one sided rounds years before he is shot...and I also exist to balance the denigration of Calzaghe, Hopkins, Mayweather and other guys that deserve to be mentioned alongside the greats.