Who was the greatest of the "Four Kings"?

[p4p1]

Alp, why does Leonard losing to Hearns and Duran not factor into your h2h choice?
Hearns went 1-1 with Leonard. KO'd Duran and lost to Hagler. But are you sure if they're both at their best Leonard beats Hearns?
Each guy fought the three other, only 1 of them lost once.

First , he he did not lose to Hearns. It was a draw.
But yes, the loss to Duran and the draw with Hearns does factor in. You have to weigh wins against the losses and the draws.
Duran and Hearns of course lost to Leonard. Hagler lost to Leonard as well. It all counts. You do have to factor in stages of career; which is why I don't count the 3rd Leonard-Duran fight.

Yes Hagler only lost once to one of the others. However, he only won 2, while Leonard won three. Plus, you have to factor in that Duran was past it by the time he fought Hagler and still gave him a tough fight. I don't really give Hagler a ton of credit for that win. That doesn't compare to Leonard beating Duran back in 1980.

And of course we have to look at fights outside of their fights against each other. Hearns and Leonard each beat Benitez. Neither Hagler or Duran has a win that is close to that.

And Duran lost to DeJesus nd Benitez, Hearns lost to Barkley 2x, Hagler had losses and subpar performances as well.
That has to count against them.
Leonard's other losses were when he was clearly past it. ((Duran had a ton of losses that don't count as well. )
The bottom line is that Leonard had better wins and less relevant losses/subpar performances than the rest of three. It is pretty clear.

Hearns - 66 fights
Duran - 119 fights
Hagler - 67 fights
Leonard - 40 fights
I wonder why others have more poor performances or losses than Leonard?

C'mon Alp you can't seriously say it was a draw against Hearns. Not even Leonard thinks he won that. Yes official results matter but when they are so egregious you can make a judgement call and say Leonard definitely lost that fight. Do you think Hearns had hit his prime yet? He was 22 so it's unlikely he had but he gave an ATG in Leonard in his prime one hell of scare.

Haglers only non-controversial loss was against Munroe when he was 21. Munroe was pretty good and Hagler quite young. Does a pre prime loss against a top guy really matter that much? He then didn't lose for another 11 years in 36 fights.

Dejesus was a world champion a pretty good fighter, while Duran was 21, still not in his prime and bad performance given how often he fought and his age is pretty meaningless. He stopped Dejesus 2x in return matches. Duran lost against Benitiez but honestly who cares? First of all Bentiez was amazing when he was on and the fight was at 154lbs, 20lbs over Durans best weight. From Duran's debut in 1968 until the start of 1982 he lost to Dejesus and Leonard during a 14 career period.

I agree that Hagler doesn't deserve a lot of credit for beating Duran and the 1980 version was certainly not only better but closer to his best weight. However Hagler DIDN'T LOSE to Duran. Leonard did, in the middle of his prime. Benitez was never in a position to fight Hagler, that's not Haglers fault. Benitez is one of the most talented fighters to have existed and if not for his circumstances may have been able to go on and be greater than all of the fab 4. He was what 22 when he won his 3rd lineal title. There isn't exact a lot of those guys around to fight.

How did you score the Leonard vs Hagler fight?

[Seamus]

Dejesus was a world champion a pretty good fighter, while Duran was 21, still not in his prime and bad performance given how often he fought and his age is pretty meaningless. WHAT ??? DeJesus was not a champion at the time he beat Duran and had fought a pair of 10 rounders in just under 2 months. Fight was so meaningless Duran bloodied his hands in the locker room punching things in a rage.

Duran lost against Benitez but honestly who cares? Duran fans who don't want to admit he got a boxing lesson from Benitez probably say they don't care.

One could also say, who honestly cares that alot of people thought Edwin Viruet deserved the decision against Duran in their first bout in 75. It was just a meaningless exhibition. Of course The Hands Of Stone sure didn't act like a guy who knew he won when he got the UD. And the loud chorus of boos didn't help.

[Ambling Alp II]

I agree with you completely Seamus.
That is the way it is with Duran; there is always an excuse. The DeJesus and Benitez fights absolutley count.

As for some other points made by pfp1:

-Yes I seriously think the draw in the Hearns fight was fair. Leonard landed more punches and had Hearns in trouble more than he was in trouble. If people want to cry about the officiating, take a look at the first "knockdown", I t was not legitimate. Hearns hit him in the back of the head. Take that knockdown away and that is a big difference. You could even score the round for Leonard. the referee could have even deducted a point from Hearns. It could have gone from a 10-8 round for Hearns to a 10-8 round for Leonard! At the very least, it could have been a 10-9 round for Hearns. And people would not automatically say that Hearns got screwed because he scored two knockdowns.

- Hagler only had one non-controversial loss? Just because a decision is "controversial" doesn't mean it was bad. It just means that people are crying about it.
The Leonard fight is controversial. It shouldn't be. Leonard won clearly. Hagler did almost nothing in the first four rounds except for stand around looking mean. Leonard was clearly up 40-36 after four. After that, the fight was about even. i have it 116-112. I can live with 115-113. There is no way in the world that Hagler deserved that decision.

-I realize that Leonard had less fights than the rest of the four. I don't count Duran and Hearns losses/unimpressive performances when they were clearly past it. They still had more than Leonard.

-I realize that Hagler never fought Benitez. However you have to give credit to Hearns and Leonard for beating Benitez. Hagler could have helped his case by moving up in weight and beating one of the many good light heavyweights that were around at the time.

-Duran lost to DeJesus. That counts. I scored the Viruet fight that Seamus referred to as a draw. Many thought at the time that Viruet should have got the decision. This fight always gets swept under the rug. This would never have happened if it was Leoanrd.

-Hagler lost to Willie Monroe. lost to Bobby Watts. Draw with Seales. This counts.
Unimpressive against a Briscoe and Geraldo.
The Antuofermo fight- People whine that Hagler was robbed. How about Hagler's performance? He gave away rounds doing nothing. Antuofermo had no business going the distance and making it as close as it was.

-What is the worst you can say about Leonard performance when he was close to his prime? He lost a competitive fight to Duran is about as bad as it gets. Not exactly damning evidence that he was inconsistent.

[elmersalsa]

The great Roberto Duran was the greatest of the four kings.

Consider this.

1. When Duran became the World Lightweight Champion in 1972, the other 3 kings were not even pro fighters yet.

2. When Duran cleaned up the lightweight division in 1979, he was already champion for almost 7 years, already considered a legend and automatic hall of famer and the best fighter of the 70s decade bar none. Meanwhile, none of the other 3 kings were world champions yet.

3. Sugar Ray Leonard was ONLY PHENOMENAL in his first 5 years of professional boxing: 1977-82. After 1982, except with the fight with Marvelous, his career was a TOTAL JOKE. He only had 7 fights in the last 15 years? And he is better than Duran? Duran had 13 straight years (1967-80) with an unbeliavable record of 72-1, with 56KOs!

4. You cannot be a top 10 in in the all-time rankings when you only had 40 fights. There were guys that were more deserving like the greats Tony Canzoneri, Bob Fitzsimmons, Carlos Monzon and Archie Moore for example. How could Sugar Ray be better than those guys? And Sugar Ray only fought 7 times in the last 15 years of his career? That's ridicoulously biased! It got to be!

5. Duran kept fighting while the other 3 retired. They cannot match his longevity. Consider this. In 1972, Duran was lightweight king. In 1989, he is middleweight champion at age 37? What fighter has come back the way he did in the last 50 years? None!

You can call me a biased Duran fan, but the proof is in the pudding. Only to me, Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson and Sam Langford were more incredible than The Hands of Stone. Any other fighter? Duran trumps their achievements.

[p4p1]

-Yes I seriously think the draw in the Hearns fight was fair. Leonard landed more punches and had Hearns in trouble more than he was in trouble. If people want to cry about the officiating, take a look at the first "knockdown", I t was not legitimate. Hearns hit him in the back of the head. Take that knockdown away and that is a big difference. You could even score the round for Leonard. the referee could have even deducted a point from Hearns. It could have gone from a 10-8 round for Hearns to a 10-8 round for Leonard! At the very least, it could have been a 10-9 round for Hearns. And people would not automatically say that Hearns got screwed because he scored two knockdowns.

[Seamus]

Hearns was ready to go in the final round.

[elmersalsa]

Hearns was ready to go in the final round.

Tommy won outright. Again, the boxing politics that be gave him an injustice big time, Seamus!

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Leonard beat all of them so him

[elmersalsa]

Leonard beat all of them so him

In terms of the rivalry, yes. But in terms of p4p basis, it is Duran the best.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Leonard beat all of them so him

In terms of the rivalry, yes. But in terms of p4p basis, it is Duran the best.

Agreed

[Ambling Alp II]

Just because. After all, Duran beat more guys that nobody ever heard of.

[hhaehre]

Just because. After all, Duran beat more guys that nobody ever heard of.

He even defended his titles

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

You could argue leonard or duran in a p4p sense neither is wrong

Leonard was the best head to dead that isnt even an argument

Its great they all fought each other instead of now when we argue hypothetical matches that never happen

[elmersalsa]

You could argue leonard or duran in a p4p sense neither is wrong

Leonard was the best head to dead that isnt even an argument

Its great they all fought each other instead of now when we argue hypothetical matches that never happen

If someone says that SRL was better p4p fighter than Duran, I got to disagree.

The first 5 years, Sugar Ray was phenomenal. After 1982, his career was a TOTAL JOKE except the Marvelous fight.

Duran went 13 straight years of pure dominance (1967-80) with a record of 72-1, 56KOs!

Do the math.

[Ambling Alp II]

If a baseball players hits more homeruns in 5 years than another does in 13, the guy who played 5 was a better homerun hitter. How long a fighter fights is irrelevant.

Most of Duran's wins were against people nobody ever heard of. Biggest win besides was over Buchanan and DeJesus. Not as good as beating Benitez, Hearns and Hagler.

[elmersalsa]

If a baseball players hits more homeruns in 5 years than another does in 13, the guy who played 5 was a better homerun hitter. How long a fighter fights is irrelevant.

Most of Duran's wins were against people nobody ever heard of. Biggest win besides was over Buchanan and DeJesus. Not as good as beating Benitez, Hearns and Hagler.

Because you don't know a damn crap about South American fighters that is why.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Duran started smaller but leonard beat better fighters. I dont really think its some clear cut answer plus they were 1-1 against each other in their primes

Styles make fights as we know which is why hearns could drill duran like he did.

Elmer hates leonard and brings up inactivity but he beat hagler which is more impressive when you consider the inactivity plus its probably the biggest win

[cfang]

Duran is the greatest of the four kings. He was smaller and older than the others. His lightweight domination happened before he met the others and that puts him above.

Leonard was v lucky to get a draw with hearns and imo lucky to get the hagler decision. Put those scores right and he'd drop to be level with tommy. Id say hagler second then the other two but all are close.

[Ambling Alp II]

Oh yes Leonard was always lucky. If you are going to say that Leonard was lucky to get the decision against Hagler, then you can say Duran was lucky to get the decision against Leonard. Duran was lucky to get the decision against Viruet, a fight that is always conveniently ignored.

How about actually losing to DeJesus? Losing to Benitez. Those fights happened.

Duran moved up in weight. Big deal. How many guys who weigh 135 at 21 stay that weight for the rest of their career? Most guys in smaller weight classes move up. Leonard moved up. Hearns moved up. Benitez moved up. It's the rule, not the exception. Duran fans act like he is the only one.
Duran gradually moved up. He was used to the weight. he was fighting guys who were in the same weight class. Interesting that Duran was "smaller" than Leonard but when Leonard moved up to fight Hagler is not smaller than Hagler. Leonard was just "lucky".

It always boils down to crybaby excuses; same old story.

[BoxBuzz]

Leonard admits to being beaten by Hearns.......so perhaps we should allow such testimony.

[elmersalsa]

Oh yes Leonard was always lucky. If you are going to say that Leonard was lucky to get the decision against Hagler, then you can say Duran was lucky to get the decision against Leonard. Duran was lucky to get the decision against Viruet, a fight that is always conveniently ignored.

How about actually losing to DeJesus? Losing to Benitez. Those fights happened.

Duran moved up in weight. Big deal. How many guys who weigh 135 at 21 stay that weight for the rest of their career? Most guys in smaller weight classes move up. Leonard moved up. Hearns moved up. Benitez moved up. It's the rule, not the exception. Duran fans act like he is the only one.
Duran gradually moved up. He was used to the weight. he was fighting guys who were in the same weight class. Interesting that Duran was "smaller" than Leonard but when Leonard moved up to fight Hagler is not smaller than Hagler. Leonard was just "lucky".

It always boils down to crybaby excuses; same old story.

Say what? That Duran got lucky in beating Sugar Ray?

I gotta laugh hard.

Duran was the oldest of all 4. He fought them late in his career and still gave them a battle.

He was fat and slower than the other 3 above 147lbs.

He was the fighter of the decade the decade before. If retired by 1979, he would have still be considered a hall of famer and all-time great.

[elmersalsa]

Leonard admits to being beaten by Hearns.......so perhaps we should allow such testimony.

Sugar Ray's career was a TOTAL JOKE then

[Ambling Alp II]

Great deduction. Since his whole career was a joke, then we can't give Duran much credit for beating him.
What is Duran's biggest win? The legendary Ken Buchanan or the unbelievable Esteban DeJesus? Beating those guys makes you the best of all time.

[DrDuke]

Lol, Alpy's pro-Leonard rants seem to be about the same entertaining, as his pro-Ali and pro-Cleveland Williams ones.

[elmersalsa]

Great deduction. Since his whole career was a joke, then we can't give Duran much credit for beating him.
What is Duran's biggest win? The legendary Ken Buchanan or the unbelievable Esteban DeJesus? Beating those guys makes you the best of all time.

I am saying after 1982, Sugar Ray Leonard's career was a TOTAL JOKE. I am not saying his whole career, Alp. Some in here will agree.

Ken Buchanan and Esteban De Jesus were all-time great lightweight boxers. They were excellent fighters that were champions at 135lbs in all levels of competition. Plus, Buchanan is in the hall of fame.

De Jesus should be in. He is THE ONLY MAN, THE ONLY MAN to beat Duran in his prime, better than Leonard. Leonard had to use manipulations of ring size, seizing Duran's habits going up ballooning to 200lbs. De Jesus did not do that. He beat Duran plain and simple without excuses and controversy.