Ranking the Fab Four - Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Leonard...

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

Think Benitez, Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Lalonde and Kalule just does it............Think also people don't give Ray enough credit for coming back after three years and fighting at 160 and upsetting a 32 year old legend in Hagler..............Remarkable when you think about it !!..........Controversial or not !!

Duran in fairness is way ahead of Hagler.................Just think despite ruling over a ordinary lightweight division that his top wins aren't in the same league....Beaten Marv he'd definitely have been top..

Hagler ruled for seven years but again a pretty ordinary division and his draw with Vito and loss to Leonard count him out of a Top 2 finish..

Poor old Tommy unfortunately is remembered for what he didn't do rather than what he did..........The Hill win is criminally underrated just as Holy's win against tyson is ...

All great fighters but that's where I have them..

Swap Duran and Leonard for me.

Hearns could of topped this list for me if he had of been a bit more tatical and had a better chin.

If's and buts aside I think he should come last.

Leonard and Duran probably interchangeable at the top (I tend to side with Leonard these days but there's not much in it) with Hagler third and Tommy fourth. The Leonard-Duran debate could go on forever without getting anything close to a unanimous view.

Hagler just doesn't have the wins of those two and you could argue he was perhaps a little lacking in ambition compared to them as well (contentious point). Pretty obvious what keeps Hearns at the bottom of the pile; never a clear number one at any weight he won titles at and though he scored the most dominant win in any of the nine fights they put on between themselves against Duran, that was probably the safest best of all nine in which one guy clearly had just about everything going in his favour in terms of time, size, styles etc.

Yeah not much between Duran and Leonard. Leonard maybe has better wins over all but I am siding with Duran because of his longevity and his domination at lightweight.

1. Duran. I give it to him for his lightweight reign, moving up and beating Leonard and winning titles at light middle and middleweight.

2. Leonard. As much as I'd like to put Leonard last, I can't. Excellent fighter but one I can't rate as highly as others do on an all time list. Career to 'spotty' for me.

3. Hagler. My favourite of the four. For me, great middleweight reign. Now I keep hearing that he fought stiffs, but I remember the aura that he had as a fighter. Me and my school mates talked about Hagler at school. I wonder how many school kids talk about GGG these days? Also he gets stick for not moving up in weight. But maybe if there had been an average fighter like Lalonde available, and Hagler could have got the fight made at a catchweight, then Hagler might have moved up too.

4. Hearns. The most exciting fighter of the four. He was a favourite of mine but just not as much as Hagler.

Funny thing about Duran KO scored the Barkley fight 113-116....I had it to Barkley by three also and yet he kicked Leonard's backside by one point and no one regards that as contentious.......

Gets a free ride for looking like a bum against Hearns also..

Gets too much credit for Leonard............We saw what happened when Leonard boxed like when Benitez and Hearns boxed him.........

Duran struggled to beat quality..

No way number 1 for me.

Deserves every bit of credit he gets for beating Leonard in Montreal, Truss. All-time great versus all-time great, except one of them was bigger, younger and faster - and it was the smaller, older and slower guy who won against the odds. What happened in the rematch doesn't take away from what Duran achieved that night.

I wouldn't class the Montreal fight as contentious, really. Leonard fought courageously and showed flashes of his genius, and it was a high-quality, competitive bout - but Duran won it clearly enough in my opinion. I've not really seen anyone off the top of my head argue that Leonard won it or was unlucky to lose his title, so for me it's not that comparable to the Duran-Barkley fight. In that case, yep, there are people who think that Barkley won, though I'm not one of them and I'm confident in saying that just as many people would give it to Duran, perhaps even more. Not a robbery by any means.

Yes it does...............It shows him for what he was.....the bully who didn't like it up him...

No mas was shameful..........

Might as well laud Griffin to the SKy for Jones 1.......and Vito for Hagler 1..

Chris - you silly sod - I'd have thought youd have seen through this rather transparent thread - its just another Duran bashing exercise because some people reckon the best Duran beats Mayweather. So like the person who contrives a long winded anecdote to set up a rather lame joke Truss has missed dissing Duran and set up this thread, knowing that very few 606ers look past a Four Kings topic.

I'm so transparent...

Anyway cheers Shah...Now off you go.

ShahenshahG wrote:Chris - you silly sod - I'd have thought youd have seen through this rather transparent thread - its just another Duran bashing exercise because some people reckon the best Duran beats Mayweather. So like the person who contrives a long winded anecdote to set up a rather lame joke Truss has missed dissing Duran and set up this thread, knowing that very few 606ers look past a Four Kings topic.

Your v2 IQ is off the charts I have to say, Shah. I needed you to spell it out to me, but now I see!!

88Chris05 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Chris - you silly sod - I'd have thought youd have seen through this rather transparent thread - its just another Duran bashing exercise because some people reckon the best Duran beats Mayweather. So like the person who contrives a long winded anecdote to set up a rather lame joke Truss has missed dissing Duran and set up this thread, knowing that very few 606ers look past a Four Kings topic.

Your v2 IQ is off the charts I have to say, Shah. I needed you to spell it out to me, but now I see!!

You always were a dumb b**tard.

Atila wrote:1. Duran. I give it to him for his lightweight reign, moving up and beating Leonard and winning titles at light middle and middleweight.

2. Leonard. As much as I'd like to put Leonard last, I can't. Excellent fighter but one I can't rate as highly as others do on an all time list. Career to 'spotty' for me.

3. Hagler. My favourite of the four. For me, great middleweight reign. Now I keep hearing that he fought stiffs, but I remember the aura that he had as a fighter. Me and my school mates talked about Hagler at school. I wonder how many school kids talk about GGG these days? Also he gets stick for not moving up in weight. But maybe if there had been an average fighter like Lalonde available, and Hagler could have got the fight made at a catchweight, then Hagler might have moved up too.

4. Hearns. The most exciting fighter of the four. He was a favourite of mine but just not as much as Hagler.

This is what I'm looking for.......

Way off but he's not a timewaster..

88Chris05 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Chris - you silly sod - I'd have thought youd have seen through this rather transparent thread - its just another Duran bashing exercise because some people reckon the best Duran beats Mayweather. So like the person who contrives a long winded anecdote to set up a rather lame joke Truss has missed dissing Duran and set up this thread, knowing that very few 606ers look past a Four Kings topic.

Your v2 IQ is off the charts I have to say, Shah. I needed you to spell it out to me, but now I see!!

To be fair I didn't clock on till he said funny thing about Duran. Its like he was sitting there slobbering and waiting for the first mention of Barkley and three posts in and no sign of it he loses his nut and goes in like a rabid dog.

Still working security Shah ??

Still at least your working....

Rabid dog

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Still working security Shah ??

Still at least your working....

Rabid dog

Yes my friend, my father in law judged me a capable man and left me to earn my own way.

ShahenshahG wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Still working security Shah ??

Still at least your working....

Rabid dog

Yes my friend, my father in law judged me a capable man and left me to earn my own way.

Good comeback..........

Time to end my mock outrage...

You are right of course..............I was waiting for the first person to laud Duran so I could tuck in......

Problem is when you get older...Subtlety does go out of the window...

Hope your well.......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Still working security Shah ??

Still at least your working....

Rabid dog

Yes my friend, my father in law judged me a capable man and left me to earn my own way.

Good comeback..........

Time to end my mock outrage...

You are right of course..............I was waiting for the first person to laud Duran so I could tuck in......

Problem is when you get older...Subtlety does go out of the window...

Hope your well.......

Not bad actually, running a couple of businesses with family so quite busy. What about yourself?

Surviving Mate....

Rare foray to the boxing boards shah. Still just the one ankle biter? The milkyboy kid has a partner in crime now... so the nappy cycle and sleepless nights continue!

Oh, and re the topic, I rank them probably the same as everyone else, with leonard and duran fairly interchangeable

milkyboy wrote:Rare foray to the boxing boards shah. Still just the one ankle biter? The milkyboy kid has a partner in crime now... so the nappy cycle and sleepless nights continue!

Oh, and re the topic, I rank them probably the same as everyone else, with leonard and duran fairly interchangeable

Yeah probably planning for another next year, Running some business with my wife and her cousins during the day and security during the night, Too busy to pop in save occasionally and whenever an opportunity to insult the culture cup people is presented. Congrats on the new addition to the family and best of luck when she wants a third. Back to work.

I think she hates pregnancy enough to settle for the two. I sure hope so. Good luck with yours if you're that busy.

When I first read the thread my instinct was Truss had got the order bang on correct. Whilst I still think that is the case my initial certainty is wavering a little over the top two.

Looking at their respective careers they are hard to split. Looking at their best divisions whilst Duran has the edge in longevity you have to ask does he have a win there over anyone as fearsome as Tommy Hearns, absolutely not, so I would argue there is not too much to pick between their main divisions.

Similarly when one looks at their stand out achievement, arguably for both it is skipping to the next classic division and beating an all time great, Leonard for Duran and Hagler for Ray. Both close but deserved wins and both equally as remarkable achievements, so not a lot to split them yet.

Where you can perhaps argue for Duran you can perhaps do so in his later career. Think Roberto has perhaps the better wins at an age and weight he has no business getting them in. However I would still be loath to put him in front, for whilst he has these high spots we also have to look at the low spots, at anywhere near his peak Ray basically has none whatsoever. Duran has losses to the likes of Laing and also the obliteration to the hands of Tommy. These for me are blips I just cannot imagine Ray ever befalling to. May be down to him being a bit of a favourite of mine, or me finding his style more aesthetically pleasing, but I have to give Ray the slight edge.

Good analysis Rowley but I'm a Duran man so I'm still siding with him.

seriously all four were fantastic fighters and it was a golden era for the lower/middleweights of boxing.

Whilst Hearns being the lowest rated, for me it's not the loses to Haglar or Leonard that count the most, it takes two to make a grat fight, and someone had to lose, and tommy deserves credit for what he did in those fights, but it's the losing twice to Barkely that does it for me, ok he may have been past his prime, or not at his best weight,but an ATG has no right losing to such a crude fighter. Yes the first fight had an element of fluke about it, but the second was terrible for a man that " no one ever out boxed."
Barkely was banged over by Benn, out pointed by an ancient Duran, outclassed by Toney. However you look at it, he was nowhere near Hearns class, but beat him twice. can't see that happening to any of the other three.

Good post. Hearns was a freak, especially at welter and light middle. He didn't always box to the plan though.

He is the most exciting out of the fab 4, as much for his vulnerability as well as devastating punch power and abilities

Hearns took some good shots off Hagler in the first round which does suggest had he tied Hagler up, established the jab and boxed he'd have had a good chance..

Poor old Tommy he was number 1 contender for 20 months before he got another shot..

Probably a record..

Tommy is one of the most exciting fighters ever. He was my dads favourite out of the 4

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

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

What separates the top two for me is there body of work, there's 27 years and 40lbs between Durans wins over Marcel and Castro which is quite staggering. His reign at Lightweight gets dismissed in some quarters because of a lack of quality but both De Jesus and Buchanan were top top boxers while Ishimatsu went on to be a more than competent world champion. The rest of his reign was over mainly regional and national champions but he ruled the division with hands of stone and he was a master of knocking men out late.

None of this however mentions his magnum opus that win over Leonard where he didn't hold a single physical advantage but instead imposed himself and fought the best inside fight you'll ever see, even went as far as mocking Leonard in the final round with some beautiful defensive work.

I pretty much agree with your placings Truss.Hagler was my favourite but I can't think of a really defining fight apart from his war with Mugabi.Duran had a long career and therefore some less than perfect results. Hearns did what he did best and his knockouts are legendry,deserved the nod when he had the rematch with Leonard,but I can go with Sugar Ray as #1.

Would you not say that Hearns was a defining fight for Hagler, Rapid? Granted, Tommy was at his best at Welter and Light-Middle, but as he showed against Roldan and Shuler he was still a monster puncher at 160, and his all-round boxing ability was still enough to usurp Hill as high as 175.

I agree though that Hagler was maybe a bit short on attractive options compared to the other three. Given that there was no Super-Middle weight class until towards the latter stages of Hagler's reign and the gap between Middle and Light-Heavy was then the biggest in boxing, I don't really blame Hagler for staying put at Middleweight and I suspect just about everyone else would have done the same in his situation, particularly as he never really struggled making 160.....But in Fab Four terms you're not judging him against just anybody, and to that end you could argue that Hagler's reluctance to move up at some stage in search of better challenges than Caveman Lee, Obelmejias and Scypion (appreciate they were mandatories in some cases, but you get my drift) could count against him in some ways here.

But as I said, I suspect most people in Hagler's situation and under those circumstances would have stuck with the Middleweight division, and I don't hold it against Marv that much.

Its interesting in some respects that we end up with marv at 3, who some think beat all the others.

Tommy, everybody's number 4, rolled duran, many people's number 1, like a drunk.... some might say.

Different natural weights etc, but even though the top two make many p4p ATG top 10's with a fair gap to hagler and hearns, its small margins.

Another fab 4

1. Pacquiao
2. JMM
3. Morales
4. Barrera

I would like to rate Morales and Barrera as even but decided against it. Morales just edges it for me.

Marquez imo had Pacquiaos number and imo should have 3 wins in the 4 fights. He won the 1st and 3rd and obviously knocked him out in the 4th. In fact there is a case he won all 4 but wont argue to much about the decison for the 2nd.

Manny tops the the list because after Floyd he has clearly been the best fighter of the last decade with some devastating wins.

Were do you rank these fighters?

AdamT wrote:Another fab 4

1. Pacquiao
2. JMM
3. Morales
4. Barrera

I would like to rate Morales and Barrera as even but decided against it. Morales just edges it for me.

Marquez imo had Pacquiaos number and imo should have 3 wins in the 4 fights. He won the 1st and 3rd and obviously knocked him out in the 4th. In fact there is a case he won all 4 but wont argue to much about the decison for the 2nd.

Manny tops the the list because after Floyd he has clearly been the best fighter of the last decade with some devastating wins.

Were do you rank these fighters?

Tricky, as three of them have been tarnished with PED allegations (Morales was flat out busted).

Based on what they've achieved I guess it would go:

1. Pac
2. Marquez
3. Barrera
4. Morales

With the last two difficult to split. Tough as a Barrera fan (I thought he licked Marquez).

I am more of a Morales fan but they are hard to split. Morales had a win over Pac but Barerra defeated Prince Nassem, huge win at the time.

Even though Manny did ko Barrera first time out, their rematch was a closer affair. Very hard to split the 2 fighters. Both guys have no love lost but it is hard to mention one without the other.

Think Manny definitely deserves the top spot. he holds victories over the other 3 and has the better overall resume with more titles won and bigger fights.

Haz also imo peds are rife in sport and wouldn't be too suprised if most top fighters use or have done since the 70s or 80s

Yes Chris, how could I forget the Hagler Hearns war. Short though the fight was,it was a blinder.

Leonard
Duran
Hagler
Hearns

As much as I can't stand the smug bollox SRL is number one for me at the minute although I could switch him and Duran on any given day. Their best wins are just a higher standard than Marv's, who is my favourite of the four.
Hagler cost himself against Leonard by trying to be too cerebral although I still feel he won it, and showed Duran too much respect in their fight.
Hearns is unlucky to be bottom of the list but I can't see an argument to have him above the others because of his losses, though he does have the Duran annihilation to fall back on.

1. Duran



2. SRL
3. Hagler

Do you believe the gap is that big between Ray and Roberto?

Durans my favorite fighter but he just nudges in front of Leonard because of lightweight dominance and overall longevity

Always surprises me when the majority rate Duran so much higher than Hearns, they fought once and it was quite comprehensive for Hearns. And how high Leonard's career rates so high when it was so short in comparison to his compatriot's.
Great fighters all though who gave a lot of pleasure to a lot of people.

Duran was a lightweight who dominated for years then beat a great welter, so he gets cut slack for his fights above those weights later in his career. Leonard's prime was short but look who he beat in it, including all the other 3 of the fab 4.

Small margins though,

milkyboy wrote:Duran was a lightweight who dominated for years then beat a great welter, so he gets cut slack for his fights above those weights later in his career. Leonard's prime was short but look who he beat in it, including all the other 3 of the fab 4.

Small margins though,

Duran got a silent beating against Leonard............