hagler/hearns/leonard/duran: who was truly the best?

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 08 Nov 2007, 10:27

I'd give Calzaghe a good chance of beating them.

That is a laugh.......

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 08 Nov 2007, 10:41

ringsider wrote:
I'd give Calzaghe a good chance of beating them.
That is a laugh.......

I don't think either Leonard or Hearns were that special at the weight. Both matched themselves very, very carefully at this stage of their careers (especially Leonard).

Hearns was losing fights to Barkley and hardly dominating the likes of Kinchen.

The biggest guy Leonard faced was LaLonde who was made to come down to some catch weight. All of Leonard's other fights above 160 were against guys who had moved up from lower weights.

I really can't see how a post 87 Leonard beats Calzaghe. Calzaghe would be too big and too fresh for Leonard.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 08 Nov 2007, 11:19

Calzaghe could not break an egg, nor does he have even a remnant of the boxing skills of any of them. So washed up or not any of those 4 fighters would kick the shit out of Calzaghe. Heck just look at his fight with Kessler. It was not so much a fight about the greatness of Calzaghe, but more of a how did Kessler ever get rated to be so good. Calzaghe is still only average at best. He slaps and is a jumper inner. No real boxing skills. He does not ever beat Leonard, Hearns, Duran, or Hagler. And Hagler who is the closest to Calzaghe in natural weight would crucify him. That is just the way it is....get use to it.

And Barkley would beat Calzaghe every time out too.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 08 Nov 2007, 11:37

ringsider wrote:He slaps and is a jumper inner.

Yeah, I think we all hate those "jumper inners".

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 08 Nov 2007, 11:45

ringsider wrote:Calzaghe could not break an egg, nor does he have even a remnant of the boxing skills of any of them. So washed up or not any of those 4 fighters would kick the shit out of Calzaghe. Heck just look at his fight with Kessler. It was not so much a fight about the greatness of Calzaghe, but more of a how did Kessler ever get rated to be so good. Calzaghe is still only average at best. He slaps and is a jumper inner. No real boxing skills. He does not ever beat Leonard, Hearns, Duran, or Hagler. And Hagler who is the closest to Calzaghe in natural weight would crucify him. That is just the way it is....get use to it.

And Barkley would beat Calzaghe every time out too.

I thought this was a left handed thing at first but if you're picking Hagler to win a fight then I guess there's more to it.

Seems like a bit of an outburst though, ringsider.

I wouldn't pick Calzaghe over Hagler for a start.

I don't think Duran at 168 would stand a chance against Calzaghe. Duran no longer had KO power and could no longer sustain an attack. He was an old fat man who survived because he had so much skill but he can't win this fight and even hyis biggest fans would say as much. Duran was so not a great fighter at 168 that Leonard even agreed to a rematch.

Barkley lost to Duran and Benn but beats Calzaghe? I don't see it at all.

My basic point isn't that Calzaghe is some kind of legend, simply that Leonard, Hearns and Duran were not that great by the time they got to 168. They were big names who attracted lots of money but they'd had their better days at lower weights.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 08 Nov 2007, 12:46

My basic point isn't that Calzaghe is some kind of legend, simply that Leonard, Hearns and Duran were not that great by the time they got to 168. They were big names who attracted lots of money but they'd had their better days at lower weights.

I agree, but they had boxing skills, something Calzaghe really doesn't have. As I have said Calzaghe is a slapper and a jumper inner. He can't set anything up. He punches while looking at the ring floor most of the time.

Leonard, Hearns, Hagler or Duran, even washed up and fat would out box him. Calzaghe sure doesn't have the power to hurt any of them, and he doesn't have the skills to out box those 4. That you can take to the bank.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 08 Nov 2007, 13:01

ringsider wrote:
My basic point isn't that Calzaghe is some kind of legend, simply that Leonard, Hearns and Duran were not that great by the time they got to 168. They were big names who attracted lots of money but they'd had their better days at lower weights.
I agree, but they had boxing skills, something Calzaghe really doesn't have. As I have said Calzaghe is a slapper and a jumper inner. He can't set anything up. He punches while looking at the ring floor most of the time.

Leonard, Hearns, Hagler or Duran, even washed up and fat would out box him. Calzaghe sure doesn't have the power to hurt any of them, and he doesn't have the skills to out box those 4. That you can take to the bank.

I don't see it like that. Calzaghe throws a lot of leather and slaps or not Duran wouldn't be able to stop him and wouldn't be able to compete on basic output. He'd lose a decision to Calzaghe by just sheer workrate.

Leonard was nowhere near as washed up at 168 but his punch resistance deteriortaed alarmingly for someone considered to be iron chinned. Leonard had stopped throwing the combinations that made him such a formidable offensive fighter and he too could no longer fight for 3 mins of every round. Calzaghe has a good chin and I don't think Leonard has the power at 168 to take him out. It's a tougher fight but I'd favour Joe.

Hearns could take Calzaghe out as he comes in. Hearns still had that ability. He would wilt later on in a fight but he was usually ahead on points by that stage. Hearns probably has the best chance and thinking about it I might even favour him.

Barkley I just don't see winning. I'll accept Calzaghe's shortcomings but he's still better than Iran.

sly2kusa · Post by **sly2kusa** » 08 Nov 2007, 13:17

It's tough to sit here and "what if" guys from the 1980's who were all well under the 168 limit in their primes as to how they would fair against today's 168lb champs (who have been at that weight naturally for most if not all of their career(s)).

Personally - I do not believe that Joe or Mikkel were ever really tested by any opponents. Calzaghe is at the end of his career now, and wanting to money before he sails into the sunset - can't blame him. Why not.

But as for how any of those guys fairing against the superstars of the 1980's - it's all a bunch of BS because there is not way I would throw any of the guys (except for perhaps Hagler) in with Joe or even Mikkel.

Personally the discussions I rather see these 4 from yesterday discussed about are against the likes of De La Hoya, PBF, Hatton, Cotto, Mosley, Margarito, and even Williams. Possibly Juan Diaz and maybe even some of the current junior middles.

When you start looking into Middleweight and beyond - maybe Hearns and Hagler, but not Leonard and Duran. Ray made good at 160 against Duran, but Ray was not anything higher than a JM in all honesty. Duran as well - from 135 to maybe 154 tops. Tommy and Marvin definitely could be ranked in the higher weights, but not so much so that you could compare them at 168.

Point being is we'll never really know...

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 08 Nov 2007, 13:51

I don't see it like that.

Then make sure you are not driving.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 08 Nov 2007, 13:53

Decagon wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Leonard and Hearns were dangerous fighters at 160 and 168 but both could be dropped and hurt at the weight.
Not by a powder puff like Calzaghe. The Hearns that beat Andreis and Hill would probably beat Calzaghe. The Leonard who beat Hagler would probably beat Calzaghe.

Powered puff, ain't that the truth, and my whole point! Good call Decagon.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 09 Nov 2007, 02:53

P4P its probably Duran. But of the four way rivalry, Leonard had the best of it. Maybe if Hagler had been a little younger it would have been different in that regard.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 09 Nov 2007, 05:23

Decagon wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Leonard and Hearns were dangerous fighters at 160 and 168 but both could be dropped and hurt at the weight.
Not by a powder puff like Calzaghe. The Hearns that beat Andreis and Hill would probably beat Calzaghe. The Leonard who beat Hagler would probably beat Calzaghe.

Leonard would be in with a bigger man with bags of stamina and conditioning. Leonard was not taking on the top younger talent at that time. It would probably be a very close fight.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 10 Nov 2007, 15:43

Still interested in this Calazaghe versus past their peak stars of the 80s. Watched a few videos and certain now that those old greats really didn't have that much left. Remember we're talking post 87 v Calzaghe in prime.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 11 Nov 2007, 16:14

Decagon wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Leonard would be in with a bigger man with bags of stamina and conditioning. Leonard was not taking on the top younger talent at that time. It would probably be a very close fight.
Leonard would be looking to steal it all the way.

I think that's a fair line to take but Leonard would be fighting a younger, bigger man who, in many ways, employs similar tactics in terms of taking close rounds.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 11 Nov 2007, 19:43

wouter wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:
wouter wrote:Well, Duran didn't fight any of these fighters at his own weight; lightweight. Pound for pound, it's Duran.
Just what I was going to say, but you beat me to it.
Beat you to it by a good 5 years

Just what I was going to say...

Beat me to it by a good 5 days.

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 11 Nov 2007, 21:43

I'd say Hagler 1) he cleanly outboxed Duran, showing versatility, 2) he hammered Hearns, 3) I think he got fvcked in the Leonard fight. He should've beat all 3.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 12 Nov 2007, 03:05

Mattyp151 wrote:blah, blah, blah..... He should've........blah,blah,blah

Could've, would've.......

dagosd2000 · Post by **dagosd2000** » 16 Nov 2007, 21:27

Calzaghe got mentioned a lot,but the question concerns Duran,Hagler,Leonard,and Hearns.

I'll go with Hagler even though he lost to Leonard. Hagler beats Duran in a slow fight,destroys Hearns,and loses to Leonard more because he fought a dumb fight and Leonard had enough flash to surprise everyone at ringside including the judges. No one gave Ray much of a chance,but the longer the fight lasted the better he at least seemed to look. Hagler had slowed a little,but Ray had a long layoff. Who in the hell told Hagler to come out orthodox in the first two rounds? He's telling Ray right there he's concerned about him and has to come up with a trick. Hagler gave those two rounds to Leonard and gave Ray all the confidence he needed. It could have been called the other way around and there would have been the same amount of controversy. I can accept the decision.

Calzaghe is a good looking boy,but he hasn't fought the caliber of fighters like the above four mentioned.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 16 Nov 2007, 21:40

Leonard ended up with W's over them all. So in that regard him.

However for me I love to watch Hearns and his razor shapr punches.

Duran for his gritty trench fighting and complete dis regard for his opponent and at times the rules.

Hagler for his sheer will to be the best ever, he fought like he was always trying to prove himself to the whole world and say to them..."I am Marveolous"

Leonard for his cat like reflexes and his brilliant mini Ali skills, who at times even had shades of Jersey Joe in his performances.

Kym

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 19 Nov 2007, 06:00

The Hagler who snuffed Tommy was far and away the best. Look what Tommy did to Duran.

Duran was really a lightweight so we can't tell about him. Still, he did move two divisions up and laid a whipping on leonard hurting him 3 times in the fight. i didn't see any "iron chinned leonard".

Whoever said Leonard stayed away from young talent wasn't kidding. Look at the disaster that resulted when he did. Now I can see why he avoided fights for five years except for that near disaster in 1984 that caused him to quit.

I see it as Hagler at 1, Hearns second, leonard third. When you take into consideration that Duran actually beat him and Moore and washed up Cuevas then I suppose Duran could tie him at third.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 19 Nov 2007, 06:01

ringsider wrote:
Mattyp151 wrote:blah, blah, blah..... He should've........blah,blah,blah
Could've, would've.......

Look who's talking. could've would've.....Norris W 12 Leonard.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 19 Nov 2007, 10:06

Obviously Leonard was far past his best for that fight.
It's certainly not as bad as Hagler losing to Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe, Duran losing to DeJesus and Kirkland Laing and Hearns losing to Barkley twice.
Leonard only had the least losses in his prime.
Leonard had the best head to head record of the four.
For various BS reasons a lot of people on this forum hate Leonard, but he was the best of the four.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 19 Nov 2007, 11:25

He also had the least number of fights and intentionally ducked 3 fighters at a time they mattered, not at a time they didn't matter.

Alp, I've seen the Hagler-Watts fight. Have you? If not, how would you know how bad the loss was? If so, then how do you compare a close loss do Leonard's drubbing to a 3-1 underdog?

Yes, Leonard was a strong favorite to actually win so how could be far past his best? I'd say past his best but not the landslide you're describing based on his previous fight where he was dominant. There's no way Leonard should have lost the way he did to Norris. I don't think Ray does very well with live compeition and he lost to a much older fighter in Duran when he was only 23 . He ranks last of the 4.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 19 Nov 2007, 11:27

And opinions on leonard are not based on hate but based on performance or parts of them that others don't wish to acknowledge.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 19 Nov 2007, 12:16

-Please list who Leonard ducked and when he ducked them.

-Leonard was 34 and hadn't fought in 14 months when he fought Norris. What the oddsmakers thought is irrelevant. Odds on based on the public perception going into the fight.
When Hagler lost to Watts he was much closer to his prime and hadn't had a long layoff. Furhtermore, Watts wasn't as good as Norris. Hagler losing to Watts is much worse than Leonard losing to Norris.

When Leonard lost to Duran, he was 23 and Duran just turned 29. Duran was in his prime. It was a tough close fight. Leonard came back and won the rematch easily.

Calling Leonard the worst of the 4 is absolutely ridiculaus.

What performances in Leonard's prime were bad? The worst performance he had was losing a close fight to Roberto Duran. That is hardly embarrassing.