bennie wrote:Leonard is the only one of the four to have beaten the other three of course. But, pound for pound, Duran was the best for me. His natural division was lightweight, where he was unbeatable as world champion. The other three were all licked as world champs in their best divisions.
Yes, but Duran did lose to De Jesus in a non-title fight when in his prime.
Its Leonard for me, then Hagler, then Duran, then Hearns.
I wouldnt say Duran was in his prime or in his best form when he was beaten by DeJesus. And besides, he convincingly beat DeJesus twice after that when it mattered, meaning when the title was on the line.
What Duran accomplished in the lightweight division he did coming out of a slum in Panama City and astonished the world by sole virtue of what he was able to do in the ring with his fists. Leonard in welterweight, on the other hand, did not accomplish half of what Duran did in his natural division, eventhough he had a huge marketing machine behind him before he had even fought his first professional bout.
It's been mentioned that Leonard's personality shouldn't influence our evaluation of him. But it has to. I think Broncano hit it on the head when he mentions the marketing push behind Leonard. Leonard's people could always get the right match at the right time because no one could turn down the money. They got Hearns to fight at 147, instead of a higher weight that would have been better for Hearns. And I think the clincher is Leonard's outright refusal to fight a prime Marvin Hagler. You can't rank Leonard #1 if he himself knew he couldn't beat Hagler. And Hagler is another guy who had to come up the hard way. Forty something fights before a title shot, and then a rip-off draw decision. Then he had to go to England and face Minter before the most hostile crowd I've ever seen. He still tore up Minter, but had to put on his title belt amid a shower of Guinness bottles. Could Leonard have withstood such adversity? Doubtful.
I think cracking on Leonard for fighting Hearns at 147 is grossly unfair ..Those guys had been on a collision course since early in thier pro careers the fight was a natural ..and lots of people thought Hearns would win..It wasn't like Hearns was some wimpy stickboy at welterweight ...actually I thought Thomas Hearns as he was coming up as welterweight was the most intimidating fighter I have ever seen ...and if you don't believe it just ask Pipino Cuevas..
so beating Hearns at 147 was a great accomplishment..
Hearns was not at his best at 147. C'mon, just look at his physique. His height could carry a lot more weight than 147. And in the fight, Hearns fragility proved to be the difference. And why the hell didn't Hearns get the decision in the rematch when he knocked Leonard down? The point is that Leonard got a pass all through his career because he was the money maker - it was in everyone's best interest to keep his career going. Why did he get a direct rematch with Duran when WBC rules prohibit such fights? Because money talks, and Leonard's whole career path was laid out for him, while the other three all had to fight their way out of the gutter to get anything. And the fact still remains: Leonard turned and ran when he had the opportunity laid out before him to fight Hagler. Bottom line: Leonard was an egotistical showboat who did not possess the guts of a Duran or Hagler. Leonard would only fight the big fights when he could rig it in his favor.
crooked nose wrote: Could Leonard have withstood such adversity? Doubtful.
Of course he could - he stood up to a rampaging Duran, you don't get much more adversity than that.
And he beat Hearns at 147 when it mattered. Tommy may have been eventualy been better at a higher weight, but he had huge advantages at 147: his height and hitting power for instance. What was Leonard supposed to do, say "No I'm not going to unify the titles because it's not fair on you Tommy"?
He thought twice about moving up to meet Hagler, yes, but Hagler would never move up in weight either, which is fair enough.
And Leonard's long break before getting in with Marvin evened things up a little too..
I agree that Leonard's most impressive performances were against Hearns and Hagler. But like I said, the way he was carefully pampered and the very careful decisions he made in his career, specially avoiding Hagler when they both were in their primes, around 1981-82, leads me to think that maybe Ray himself knew about some of his limitations, and the daunting task he was up to by facing a 1981-82 Hagler.
I have a Ring magazine that reports the Hagler-Duran fight were Ray says blatantly that depending on what he saw that night from Marvin, he would attempt a comeback (Much like Trinidad did at the Hopkins-Joppy last month). Apparently he liked what he saw because in December 83 he was back in the gym and fighting exhibitions, scheduling a comeback against Howard in 84.
The fading Howard put Ray on the seat of his trunks and it would be another 3 years before the Hagler-Leonard matchup would happen. By that time, Hagler had already looked unimpressive against the crude Juan Roldan and John Mugabi, who was basically just a banger and nothing more than that. The astonishing KO of Hearns was 2 years away. Even then Leonard insisted on having a larger ring and that the fight be scheduled to 12 instead of 15.
WE have to give it to him that after all those years in retirement he looked sharp and stuck to a gameplan that Marvin could never really figure out. Back then I thought Marvin had won, because all I saw were late flurries from Leonard, but after something like 100 views I am not so sure anymore. Let's just say it was a veru close fight, because I'm not willing to go back and watch it one more time. Angelo Dundee's awful yell of "flick the jab, champ!, flick the jab!" still wakes me up in cold sweats to this day.
Then of course there's Aaron Pryor, that's a name that could be easily added to the Fab 4, and who was also avoided by Leonard at all cost. Of course there's the story everyone knows about Pryor beating the hell out of Ray and dropping him in a sparring session.
So there are a some question marks on Leonard's career because of all of this.
Don't get me wrong, I believe Ray was as talented and skilled as they come. I never liked the guy much, but this doesn't mean I am blind to his unmistaken boxing ability. Where I'm getting at is that as a welterweight, in terms of career and overall historical significance in the division, I can't put him in the same level with names as Gavilan, Robinson, Henry Armstrong and even Emile Griffith and probably "Mantequilla" Napoles.
On the other hand, I have no trouble putting Duran next to Benny Leonard or Ike Williams, and Hagler next to Greb, Monzon, Robinson, etc...
This is just my personal opinion of course, and an attempt to put things in perspective. Needless to say, growing up in the 80s, everytime Ray fought I was glued to the TV set...
Did Leonard stand up to a rampaging Duran in their first fight? Yes, in the first four rounds, and he nearly got chased out of the ring. The rest of the way he switched tactics and broke even with Duran, but the one-sided early rounds are what cost him the fight. So he made a tactical error that cost him his title. Any other fighter does that, it's end of the line and wait your turn for a rematch. But Ray and his folks and the money behind them get a direct rematch in a 22 foot ring as opposed to 18 in the first fight. I give more credit to the other three because they didn't have all those options. Do I think Leonard could have fought successfully in opponent's hometowns, like Hagler had to? No.
Well Leonard Hearns Duran and Hagler are all Professional Prizefighters ...That means that they are doing it for money...
If a man is risking his life to step into the ring ..then his managers should make the best deal possible for them....Trust me stepping in the ring with any of these guys would risking your life..even if you are a very good proessional fighter ...
For Leonard, the "best deal" often involved special perks - weight limits, special gloves, fewer rounds, larger ring. He could get all these things because he had Olympic gold and TV loved him. Am I saying that Leonard's people shouldn't have cut the best deal for him? No. The other three fighters all tried to get the best deal, too. But in their cases, that meant none of the special pampering Ray got. They had to take what was offered. In Hagler's case, that meant go to England and have bottles thrown at your head. In Duran's case, that meant accepting a paycheck one-eighth the size of Leonard's.
Leonard simply can't be ranked #1 because the playing field wasn't level.
No thats ridiculous..You're going to dock the guy cause he had good management?? .
Hagler was an established undisputed champion at the time he fought Leonard , a big star in the boxing world.who had been champ for many yearsad was .Regarded by many as the best P4P boxer in the word at the time ...
If Hagler got shafted on the concessions he had to make before the fight then it's his managers fault ..
maybe the Hagler guys got outmanuvered in the negotiations because they They thought they were picking on a guy who had been mostly retired for the last five years and it would be an easy fight ..
And then Leonard outmanuvered Hagler in the ring..
True enough. I think Hagler's people did underestimate Leonard. Also, Duran screwed up when he made concessions (ring size) for the rematch. But in 1982, when the match with Hagler was primed and ready to happen, Ray took a walk. He saw a formidable opponent before him and he blinked. He also tiptoed his way around Don Curry. Leonard worked it so that his comeback fights were staged only under conditions of his choice. Then, he also benefitted from his stardom - questionable decisions went his way. The stoppage of Howard was debatable. The draw in the Hearns rematch was ridiculous and of course the Hagler decision will always be controversial. Leonard's success goes beyond "good management." It's called ducking.
I agree with your points crooked nose, the Howard stoppage was very dodgey and the decision in the second Hearns fight was nothing short of outrageous.... as was Leonards faliure to grant Hearns a rematch afterwards... (plus making Hearns wait so long for the second fight!).
Don't get me wrong I still think Ray was a great fighter, but all his manouverings outside the ring, especially in the latter part of his career tends to leave a sour tast.... :x :x :x
leonard at his peak 79-82 was brilliant and for me goes down as the best of the 4 when u take it at peak for peak.
lets be fair about it the only reason leonard lost to duran in that 1st fight is because he thought he could beat him at his own game and couldn't but in the rematch boxed rings around duran before duran's surrender.
leonard-hearns proved leonard had substance over the style when people talk about fights that prove a fighters greatness this has to be it leonard was starring down the barrel of defeat and turned it around
Duran was the best @ lightweight.
Leonard was the best @ welterweight.
Hagler was the best @ middleweight.
Hearns was the best @ super-middleweight/ light-heavyweight.
Y'know, Keed, I think you settled this whole discussion. Makes a lotta sense. All were standout talents. Still, my sentiment is for Hagler. I give more credit to a guy who had nothing given to him. Pound for pound, I think Duran at 135 is best of the bunch. My beef with Leonard is mainly about his comeback game-playing. But he did have a lot of grit to go with the style.
The Keed wrote:Duran was the best @ lightweight.
Leonard was the best @ welterweight.
Hagler was the best @ middleweight.
Hearns was the best @ super-middleweight/ light-heavyweight.
bollocks wrote:I still can't get over how lucky we were to have had 4 great fighters around at the same time and have their careers cross paths
Yes you had four charismatic champions were legtimately great fighters .
..I think some of the guys who are around today will prove to be almost as good or in some cases maybe better...
but they are not big stars because they don'y get the same broad exposure ..
we must also remember that 25 years ago Boxing had much greater mainstream exposure you had guys who are now hall of famers fighting almost every weekend on free television..befoer the evil pay for view monster sucked the life from our favorite sport
It's true that was a golden age. Think of how many of the Fab 4's bouts we saw in the comfort of our living rooms on free TV (not even cable). Nearly every weekend you could see championship bouts or up-and-comers on one of the networks.
It's true that was a golden age. Think of how many of the Fab 4's bouts we saw in the comfort of our living rooms on free TV (not even cable). Nearly every weekend you could see championship bouts or up-and-comers on one of the networks.
leonard was starring down the barrel of defeat and turned it around 