BoxRec

I know this may well have been done to death but this isn't so much a debate but more of a confirmation. Being 23 I'm not old enough to remember these rivalries. I've watched fights back online but you don't get the same sense of who was widely regarded as better than the rest as you do if you're around at the time and you're part of the whole media buzz. Is the order of the thread title a fair reflection of these legends? Or have I got it all wrong!?

danamba7 wrote:I know this may well have been done to death but this isn't so much a debate but more of a confirmation. Being 23 I'm not old enough to remember these rivalries. I've watched fights back online but you don't get the same sense of who was widely regarded as better than the rest as you do if you're around at the time and you're part of the whole media buzz. Is the order of the thread title a fair reflection of these legends? Or have I got it all wrong!?

Depends being they fought each other at various highs/lows of each others careers but Leonard is the only one who has the wins over everyone in the list controversial or not.

Do you mean h2h? If so, that's probably right. Leonard would definitely be #1 there.

If you mean all around greatness the most predominant order would be Duran/Leonard/Hearns/Hagler with some people swapping Leonard over Duran and Hagler over Hearns.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Do you mean h2h? If so, that's probably right. Leonard would definitely be #1 there.

If you mean all around greatness the most predominant order would be Duran/Leonard/Hearns/Hagler with some people swapping Leonard over Duran and Hagler over Hearns.

Its crazy to think that Hagler would be rated fourth out of any four boxers but probably correct!

The greatness of boxing lies in its unpredictability--- I mean, who would of thought the man who beat leonard and went the distance in a competitive fight with Hagler would of gotten bombed out by Hearns? And yet, Hearns could lose to both Hagler and Leonard? And Hagler be able to beat Duran and Hearns, but yet lose to Leonard? And Leonard, of course, managed wins over all of them.

The same kind of rivalry was with the 70s heavyweight division: Ali beat Frazier, Foreman and Norton--- Norton beat Ali, and lost to Foreman--- Foreman beat both Norton and Frazier--- the mind boggles. But that is boxing.

I'll always believe that Hearns would win a series against Leonard with both of them in their primes, but ray got it done when it mattered. Hearns doesn't get enough credit for the win in the rematch.

I agree with Saad.

And both Tommy and Ray don't get enough credit for the performances in which they lost to one another either. That might be an odd thing to say but both men put themselves in touching distance of victory when they had seemed all at sea.

The thing is with Duran he had an all-time great career before he moved up to 147.

Ezzard wrote:The thing is with Duran he had an all-time great career before he moved up to 147.

Yup, he was smaller than Floyd mixing it up with those dudes.

The great Roberto Duran was already an all time great when he first fought the great Sugar Ray Leonard. When Duran was champion, Sugar Ray was still an amateur. The great Marvin Hagler was a young contender and the great Thomas Hearns was not even in the picture until '79 or '80. Duran fought those guys in their weight classes and in his 30s. The only thing he had over those guys was experience.

But it was a great era in boxing. I just wish that Duran was younger and in his prime when he fought them after 1980.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'll always believe that Hearns would win a series against Leonard with both of them in their primes, but ray got it done when it mattered. Hearns doesn't get enough credit for the win in the rematch.

I thought it was a draw.
Did I see a different fight?

If you thought that was a legitimate draw, you definitely watched something other than the fight.

haven't seen it in a while, but as I seem to recall the most pertinent scoring factors were: 2 KD's for hearns. probably the last round where Hearns gets beaten pillar-to-post was a 10-8 too (edit: in favour of Leonard, that is).

and i would have really struggled to give Leonard more than 5 rounds that night.

shoulda been pretty comfortable for Hearns on that basis. i think giving Leonard a draw is more than generous

I scored it a draw. Like most people, I was generous and gave Hearns a 10-8 round for the 3rd round "knockdown".

Leonard had the most wins of the four guys against each other, even if you give Hearns a win for this fight. He had three (not counting the 3rd Duran fight), Hagler two, and Duran had one. Hearns would still only have two.

i would rate them as 1) duran the smallest of the group 2) leonard the most complete of the group 3) hagler no real weaknesses 4) hearns , actually my favourire fighter here and the most exciting but he did have a bit of a weakness around the chin.

Counter-puncher wrote:haven't seen it in a while, but as I seem to recall the most pertinent scoring factors were: 2 KD's for hearns. probably the last round where Hearns gets beaten pillar-to-post was a 10-8 too (edit: in favour of Leonard, that is).

and i would have really struggled to give Leonard more than 5 rounds that night.

shoulda been pretty comfortable for Hearns on that basis. i think giving Leonard a draw is more than generous

No way was the last round 10-8, Leonard definitely closed strong but Hearns opened the round with about 15 or 20 unanswered blows.

Ah ok. Obviously my strong memory of the round was hearns legs doing that thing they did and him holding on for dear life

my point was more to do with scoring i guess, even giving Leonard a 10-8 round i still couldn't score the fight a draw for him