BoxRec

Posted: **05 Feb 2011, 00:28**

Goodnight, Irene wrote:What it's, "all about," is De La Hoya absolutely blowing Mosley out of the water (accomplishments) during the first-half of their career, as has been explained. Mosley has not roped in enough ground in the second-half of their careers to even it out. Maybe you should ask the other eleven out of thirteen people who voted the same way I did, to help flesh out the answer to your surprise. Notice that most in the thread agree with my selection. Notice you are (& will remain, in all likelihood) all but friendless in marking Hearns above Hagler.

You, "don't have a problem," with Hagler over Hearns? How reasonable of you

Don't tell me you wouldn't be all over someone if they made a case for Chavez ranking higher than Whitaker all-time, on the basis of career wins, titles won, longevity etc. You know you would, because you think of Chavez as I think of Duran --- over-rated.

I absolutely would, but again that is a pathetic analogy. It's off to ignore for you.

Posted: **05 Feb 2011, 00:37**

You take it to heart too much. Imagine if everyone whose opinion you sunk your teeth into Iggy'd you, Saad.

There's plenty of parallels to be found between the Hagler-Hearns - Whitaker-Chavez scenario, BTW...for those who're willing to see them. At least you are honest enough to concede you would be after someone for saying Chavez ranks ahead of Whitaker (even if you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge its relevance to Hagler-Hearns).

I'll see you on the other side of things, mate. Don't let it get to you in the meantime

Posted: **05 Feb 2011, 05:15**

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

Duran is perhaps the greatest lightweight ever.

Hagler took the hard road, involved in tons of hard bouts, never had anything handed to him. Had a fantastic chin. I think he is the best middleweight of all time.

Leonard was a brilliant fighter, easily the most cunning and ring smart out of the four . However, he didn't have many fights, had some hand picked opponents, was overrated due to his golden boy image, and was the recipient of some very dubious decisions.

Hearns is an absolute legend, best puncher out of the four. However his chin was very vulnerable.

I don't like ranking these fighters as there is hardly anything between them, there are only a few minute factors and attributes that separate them. I believe if they fought 100 times, you would always get different results.

Posted: **05 Feb 2011, 15:36**

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Duran
Leonard
Hearns
Hagler

They are all in my all time top 20-30

You would be the first onto someone if they placed Chavez above Whitaker all-time, yet your boy Hearns gets the nod over Hagler!? Good one!
That's an incredibly pathetic analogy. But I expect nothing less from you. I don't have a problem with hagler over Hearns. It's very close, Tommy has more signature wins over 6 weight classes and marvin destroyed him.

What's really is I just read you rate Oscar over Shane. What's that all about? You should change your name to Hypocritical Troll.

Posted: **05 Feb 2011, 16:22**

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

Posted: **05 Feb 2011, 16:26**

1. hagler and leonard
3. hearns
4. duran

Posted: **05 Feb 2011, 21:30**

Leonard
Duran
Hagler
Hearns

Posted: **06 Feb 2011, 06:32**

Jaywheel wrote:Music wise:
Lennon
McCartney
Harrison
Starr

Boxing wise:
Duran
Leonard
Hagler
Hearns

That is a good one.

I pick:
Duran
Leonard
Hagler
Hearns

Posted: **06 Feb 2011, 08:45**

I know it's been done but:

1. McCartney
2. Lennon
3. Harrison
4. Starr

As for the boxers:

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

Hearns is my favourite of the four and I only just put Leonard ahead of Hagler - his win over him really seals it. All four are clearly all-time greats and fantastic boxers. Had Hearns had a more solid chin and better stamina, he would have been the best of the bunch. Interesting that the guy who comes 4 on most lists completely destroyed the guy who comes 1 on most lists.

Posted: **06 Feb 2011, 12:29**

Scottrf wrote:Hearns lost to Hagler and Leonard, as well as Barkley (admittedly after outboxing him) why would you have him above Hagler who was a completely dominant Middleweight?

I missed this before. It isn't a Middleweight rating. Hearns has significant wins over 6 weight classes and fared better against common opponents. Like I said, Marvin destroyed him. If that weighs more in your mind, I can understand it. Tommy has higher caliber wins aside from that.

Hearns also beat Leonard, albeit past their primes. He dominated the majority of the rounds he faced Ray in.

Posted: **06 Feb 2011, 12:41**

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Scottrf wrote:Hearns lost to Hagler and Leonard, as well as Barkley (admittedly after outboxing him) why would you have him above Hagler who was a completely dominant Middleweight?
I missed this before. It isn't a Middleweight rating. Hearns has significant wins over 6 weight classes and fared better against common opponents. Like I said, Marvin destroyed him. If that weighs more in your mind, I can understand it. Tommy has higher caliber wins aside from that.

Hearns also beat Leonard, albeit past their primes. He dominated the majority of the rounds he faced Ray in.

Hearns - Duran, Benitez, Hill?
Hagler - Hearns, Antuofermo, Mugabi, Duran.

Plus Hagler only lost in close fights, Hearns was badly KOed in a few, I think too much emphasis is placed on weight jumping rather than who you are facing. Hearns did much better against Duran but Hagler has so much depth to his resume at Middleweight.

Posted: **06 Feb 2011, 12:55**

Scottrf wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Scottrf wrote:Hearns lost to Hagler and Leonard, as well as Barkley (admittedly after outboxing him) why would you have him above Hagler who was a completely dominant Middleweight?
I missed this before. It isn't a Middleweight rating. Hearns has significant wins over 6 weight classes and fared better against common opponents. Like I said, Marvin destroyed him. If that weighs more in your mind, I can understand it. Tommy has higher caliber wins aside from that.

Hearns also beat Leonard, albeit past their primes. He dominated the majority of the rounds he faced Ray in.
Hearns - Duran, Benitez, Hill?
Hagler - Hearns, Antuofermo, Mugabi, Duran.

Plus Hagler only lost in close fights, Hearns was badly KOed in a few, I think too much emphasis is placed on weight jumping rather than who you are facing. Hearns did much better against Duran but Hagler has so much depth to his resume at Middleweight.

Cuevas should be added. Like I said Hagler's greatest win is over Hearns. Nobody could possibly argue that hearns was a better Middleweight, no need to keep pointing it out. For my money, he was the greatest Middleweight who has ever lived.

Tommy beat Nate Miller at Cruiser in his 40's, that's a damn good win. As for Hagler only losing in close fights, nobody ever beat Hearns without a trip to the ER.

He was more impressive against Duran, Leonard & Geraldo. Roldan was close, but Tommy left him flat on his face. Manny is a God for his weight climbing. Tommy was a factor from 147-200 over 2 decades. They are both legends and it's way too close to take offense with a ranking either way. Acting like Hearns has nothing over Marvin is silly.

I rate Griffith as greater than Monzon too.

Posted: **06 Feb 2011, 13:00**

I wasn't acting like he has nothing on him, just struggling to see which wins would take him above. The Middleweight point is just because I feel people are looked upon more harshly for clearing up a division compared to getting one good win and moving up. If there is strength in your division then stay where you are. Manny is highly rated because he has beaten a lot of really good boxers, not just for jumping weights.

Posted: **06 Feb 2011, 13:06**

Scottrf wrote:I wasn't acting like he has nothing on him, just struggling to see which wins would take him above. The Middleweight point is just because I feel people are looked upon more harshly for clearing up a division compared to getting one good win and moving up. If there is strength in your division then stay where you are. Manny is highly rated because he has beaten a lot of really good boxers, not just for jumping weights.

The wins you listed beyond the head to head are clearly in hearns favor by a substantial margin. Hearns beat very good boxers too, that's the point. Cuevas, Benitez, Roldan, Kinchen, Andries & Hill were where his titles were won. Not a weak opponent among them.

There is no exact formula, Willie Pep was predominantly a Feather his whole career. The majority of the absolute greatest fighters, that weren't Heavyweights, fought in different divisions. I don't think putting Hearns slightly above anyone is judging them harshly. He was amazing.

Like my edit said while you were responding. I rate Griffith over Monzon as well. I wouldn't argue with someone that disagreed with that either. Ranking the greatest fighters of all time is extremely subjective. This isn't something outlandish like comparing Chavez to Whitaker where one guy is ahead in every category.

Posted: **06 Feb 2011, 13:08**

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Scottrf wrote:I wasn't acting like he has nothing on him, just struggling to see which wins would take him above. The Middleweight point is just because I feel people are looked upon more harshly for clearing up a division compared to getting one good win and moving up. If there is strength in your division then stay where you are. Manny is highly rated because he has beaten a lot of really good boxers, not just for jumping weights.
The wins you listed beyond the head to head are clearly in hearns favor by a substantial margin. Hearns beat very good boxers too, that's the point. Cuevas, Benitez, Roldan, Kinchen, Andries & Hill were where his titles were won. Not a weak opponent among them.

There is no exact formula, Willie Pep was predominantly a Feather his whole career. The majority of the absolute greatest fighters, that weren't Heavyweights, fought in different divisions. I don't think putting Hearns slightly above anyone is judging them harshly. He was amazing.

Like I my edit said while you were responding. I rate Griffith over Monzon as well. I wouldn't argue with someone that disagreed with that either. Ranking the greatest fighters of all time is extremely subjective. This isn't something outlandish like comparing Chavez to Whitaker where one guy is ahead in every category.

Of course it's well-known what an admirer & fan I am of Whitaker's, but get real...

Posted: **23 Feb 2011, 01:23**

Jaywheel wrote:Music wise:
Lennon
McCartney
Harrison
Starr

Boxing wise:
Duran
Leonard
Hagler
Hearns

Agree on both counts.

Posted: **23 Feb 2011, 01:47**

Duran
Leonard
Hagler
Hearns

Posted: **23 Feb 2011, 03:19**

jezzamundo wrote:1. McCartney
2. Lennon

no way.

Posted: **23 Feb 2011, 09:56**

man wrote:
jezzamundo wrote:1. McCartney
2. Lennon
no way.

Yeah what's that all about?

Posted: **23 Feb 2011, 13:54**

srl has to be a contender abilitywise for the g.o.a.t.

Posted: **24 Feb 2011, 08:00**

Jaywheel wrote:
man wrote:
jezzamundo wrote:1. McCartney
2. Lennon
no way.
Yeah what's that all about?

It depends on how you judge it. I'm a huge Beatles fan and Lennon for me was the better Beatle. But being the brainchild of Revolver, Sgt. Peppers and Abby Road, arguably their 3 best albums and overall 3 of the greatest albums of all time, McCartney may be the most important one.

Posted: **24 Feb 2011, 08:03**

hurlock wrote:srl has to be a contender abilitywise for the g.o.a.t.

Barry McGuigan thinks so. He picked him on a recent TV show.

Posted: **24 Feb 2011, 10:16**

theone wrote:
Jaywheel wrote:
man wrote: no way.
Yeah what's that all about?
It depends on how you judge it. I'm a huge Beatles fan and Lennon for me was the better Beatle. But being the brainchild of Revolver, Sgt. Peppers and Abby Road, arguably their 3 best albums and overall 3 of the greatest albums of all time, McCartney may be the most important one.

i think among musicians there is no doubt that music-wise
lennon has genius-status and mccartney is not seen like that.
lennon was simply more unique and extraordinary. just look
at what they all did after the beatles had ended. listen to this
seemingly simple and easy "so this is christmas" ... in my
book a true masterpiece of pop music. this is very, very good
music on top of great lyrics and although it is a cooperation
with yoko one, it is obviously a typical lennon piece.

lennon just transcended the genre of pop music while doing
pop music. his things are critical and dissonant while still
"working" perfectly well. hardly anybody who hums "so this
is christmas" these days recognizes that this is a highly political
song - actually it was written as a protest against the vietnam
war if i am not mistaken ...

Posted: **24 Feb 2011, 23:59**

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

Posted: **25 Feb 2011, 09:05**

Duran
Hearns
Leonard
Hagler

BoxRec

Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.

Re: Rank The Fab Four.