Who was the best; Leonard, Hearns, Hagler or Duran?

[WelshDevilRob]

Haglers only real weakness though it is more of a strength is that he'd get dragged into a War. Hopkins isn't the type of fighter to goto War with Hagler. Also, Hagler was alot slicker and quicker in his earlier title reign and has underated boxing skills as people focus on his toughness.

 

Bernard Hopkins is not on a par with any of the above, hes behind the likes of Roy Jones and James Toney in his own era.

[donlevy]

Hagler wasn't as effective as the aggressor as he was a counter puncher.If you watch Hagler's greatest performances,they're all against guys who brought the fight to him and gave him openings to pick them apart - like he did against Hamsho and Sibson.

 

 

Leonard and Duran took Hagler's greatest,most comfortable style away from him and forced him into a role that he didn't flourish as well in.

[Johnny Walker]

Hagler wasn't as effective as the aggressor as he was a counter puncher.If you watch Hagler's greatest performances,they're all against guys who brought the fight to him and gave him openings to pick them apart - like he did against Hamsho and Sibson.

 

 

Leonard and Duran took Hagler's greatest,most comfortable style away from him and forced him into a role that he didn't flourish as well in.

 

You are correct. Hagler was a smooth, fluid counter-puncher at his best, 1980-1983. But that wasn't why Leonard and Duran did so well with him. That was secondary to why they did so well with him. The truth is, Hagler's weak point, IMO, was that that the right type of confident fighter could screw with his head in the lead-up to a bout, and correctly done....get into his head, causing Marvin to approach the matter differently, albeit in a less effective way. Both Leonard, and to a lesser extent, Duran, managed to do this. For BOTH of those bouts, Marvin stepped out of character, and I believe a master at screwing with an opponent's mind, such as Bernard Hopkins, would do most well with Hagler under the correct circumstances.

 

I know my assertion won't be popular and even considered blasphemy to some that are idolaters......but I'd bet the farm on it.

[Wheelchair]

Leonard really did con Hagler out of the fight. Marvin was trying to prove he could box as smoothly as Leonard, when in reality, he needed to be trying to take his head off. Marvin's weird dance at the end of their fight was way out of character, and showed how messed-up his head was.

[Greb]

Just like he rarely got a break on the scorecards (nearly all the blemishes on his record are controversial), Hagler also tends to be held to a higher standard than many fighters, ie anything short of a brutal Hearns-type KO is seen as weakness.

 

To me, it was Hagler's own tactical errors before and during the fight which ultimately cost him against Leonard. In addition to granting Leonard all his ring/glove/rounds requirements, Hagler boxing orthodox for the first four rounds has to be one of the dumbest strategies ever, allowing Leonard to steal the early rounds and settle into the fight. But even so, it was still one of the most hotly debated decisions ever, in Hagler's final fight after a long tough career, and Leonard still wouldn't go near the rematch.

 

As for Duran, I thought Hagler won at least 10 rounds of this fight, despite the strange scoring which had Duran ahead after 12. Okay Duran wasn't blasted out and fought very well, but at no point did he look like winning and IMO was a clear loser. How much weakness can there really be in winning a clear cut decision?

[donlevy]

To me, it was Hagler's own tactical errors

 

 

 

Which is a weakness.You just acknowledged him fighting one of the "dumbest strategies ever",and you don't think that was a weakness? Seems like a weakness to me.Certainly not the act of an intelligent fighter.

[Greb]

To me, it was Hagler's own tactical errors

 

 

 

Which is a weakness.You just acknowledged him fighting one of the "dumbest strategies ever",and you don't think that was a weakness? Seems like a weakness to me.Certainly not the act of an intelligent fighter.

 

Yes a bad strategy, as opposed to some inherent weakness. He was hardly the first boxer to lose because of a poor fight plan.

 

For all Hagler's supposed weaknesses and mental fragility, it's strange that the only guys who could put a blemish on his record (other than the first Monroe fight which I believe he deserved to lose) did so in controversial fashion, and all except the last one were KO'd in rematches.

[donlevy]

For all Hagler's supposed weaknesses and mental fragility, it's strange that the only guys who could put a blemish on his record (other than the first Monroe fight which I believe he deserved to lose) did so in controversial fashion, and all except the last one were KO'd in rematches.

 

 

 

Because as is the case with physical talents,there is alot more to boxing than ring smarts.Duran was able to compete with Hagler based on ring smarts;Leonard was able to beat Hagler based on physical talent and ring smarts.

 

 

Perhaps there's nothing Hagler could have done to prevented Leonard from outboxing him for the first third of a fight.He should have,however realized that fighting out of an orthodox stance was getting him nowhere and tried to adapt much earlier in the fight.

 

 

Even though he was robbed of a decision,Hagler allowed Vito Antuermo back into a fight in which he was soundly outboxing him.He started fighting Antuermo's fight and made some of the rounds competitive enough that two judges had an excuse to give Antufermo rounds that he didn't deserve.

[Greb]

Because as is the case with physical talents,there is alot more to boxing than ring smarts.Duran was able to compete with Hagler based on ring smarts;Leonard was able to beat Hagler based on physical talent and ring smarts.

 

Perhaps there's nothing Hagler could have done to prevented Leonard from outboxing him for the first third of a fight.He should have,however realized that fighting out of an orthodox stance was getting him nowhere and tried to adapt much earlier in the fight.

 

Even though he was robbed of a decision,Hagler allowed Vito Antuermo back into a fight in which he was soundly outboxing him.He started fighting Antuermo's fight and made some of the rounds competitive enough that two judges had an excuse to give Antufermo rounds that he didn't deserve.

 

Duran was competitive and still lost. In your own words he was robbed against Antuofermo in spite of taking his foot off the gas. Leonard arguably lost too and it was close regardless. If Hagler had attacked Leonard from the outset like he did with Hearns there's a good chance Leonard wouldn't have made it past the first four rounds anyway. At the very least fighting southpaw (something Leonard was concerned about) would have made it harder for Ray.

 

Sure you can name fights he made mistakes in. Yet against Hearns he used the correct tactics, fighting the only way he was going to beat Tommy, even if that meant abandoning his usual style. Hagler made a tactical error against Leonard and it cost him. I don't see that as some major flaw. Tactical errors can still be rectified in rematches and Hagler usually won those by KO.

[RAZZ-MCFC]

everyone here seems to be forgetting that Sugar Ray was well past his prime when he fought Hagler though

 

Hagler was a lot closer to his prime than Ray was

[Johnny Walker]

Leonard really did con Hagler out of the fight. Marvin was trying to prove he could box as smoothly as Leonard, when in reality, he needed to be trying to take his head off. Marvin's weird dance at the end of their fight was way out of character, and showed how messed-up his head was.

 

Bingo!

[Johnny Walker]

Haglers only real weakness though it is more of a strength is that he'd get dragged into a War. Hopkins isn't the type of fighter to goto War with Hagler. Also, Hagler was alot slicker and quicker in his earlier title reign and has underated boxing skills as people focus on his toughness.

 

Bernard Hopkins is not on a par with any of the above, hes behind the likes of Roy Jones and James Toney in his own era.

 

Not necessarily. He didn't sit out a key portion of his career the way Ray Leonard did, under very questionable pretenses, nor did he avoid....or ignore key opposition as many feel RJJ did, or show up for work under conditioned as James Toney did several times. He was less flash and groove than both those cats, but he cleaned the middleweight plate, left no questions in his province and went on to scale bigger mountains.....at an age where only the special, most shrewdest fighters find a way to survive.

[donlevy]

Duran was competitive and still lost. In your own words he was robbed against Antuofermo in spite of taking his foot off the gas. Leonard arguably lost too and it was close regardless. If Hagler had attacked Leonard from the outset like he did with Hearns there's a good chance Leonard wouldn't have made it past the first four rounds anyway. At the very least fighting southpaw (something Leonard was concerned about) would have made it harder for Ray.

 

 

 

 

 

If a fighter doesn't want to engage you head on,there's nothing you can do about it.Hagler jumping on Leonard wasn't going to work the way it did against Hearns because very few other fighters would have reacted the same way Hearns did when Hagler pounced on him.

 

 

The point about the Antufermo fight was that he was in clear control and still made the later rounds close and competitive enough for the judges to see.You dont fight another mans fight when your fight has proven so dominant over the course of the fight.That's just common sense.

[Greb]

Duran was competitive and still lost. In your own words he was robbed against Antuofermo in spite of taking his foot off the gas. Leonard arguably lost too and it was close regardless. If Hagler had attacked Leonard from the outset like he did with Hearns there's a good chance Leonard wouldn't have made it past the first four rounds anyway. At the very least fighting southpaw (something Leonard was concerned about) would have made it harder for Ray.

 

If a fighter doesn't want to engage you head on,there's nothing you can do about it.Hagler jumping on Leonard wasn't going to work the way it did against Hearns because very few other fighters would have reacted the same way Hearns did when Hagler pounced on him.

 

The point about the Antufermo fight was that he was in clear control and still made the later rounds close and competitive enough for the judges to see.You dont fight another mans fight when your fight has proven so dominant over the course of the fight.That's just common sense.

 

If a stronger, most powerful and psyched up fighter wants to jump on you then there's not much you can do about it. Hearns had no choice but to fight Hagler off him and pretty much emptied the tank after 2 rounds trying.

 

So he sat on his lead against Antuofermo thinking he'd done enough, which I think he had. It's a mistake loads of fighters have made, like De La Hoya against Trinidad or Walcott against Louis. If the Antuofermo fight had had competent/unbiased scoring then no one would bring it up anyway.

[donlevy]

Guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Greb]

I think we do. Good debating with you though.

[WelshDevilRob]

From my recollection of the Leonard vs Hagler fight - Marvin got frustrated cos Leonard wouldn't engage him. It was like he thought Leonard was supposed to trade with him - which is pretty naive tbh.

 

Both fighters for me had seen better days, I haven't read an opinion anywhere that claims one or both were at the top of their game. So, I think too much emphasis is put on the fight regardless of who won.

[WelshDevilRob]

Haglers only real weakness though it is more of a strength is that he'd get dragged into a War. Hopkins isn't the type of fighter to goto War with Hagler. Also, Hagler was alot slicker and quicker in his earlier title reign and has underated boxing skills as people focus on his toughness.

 

Bernard Hopkins is not on a par with any of the above, hes behind the likes of Roy Jones and James Toney in his own era.

 

Not necessarily. He didn't sit out a key portion of his career the way Ray Leonard did, under very questionable pretenses, nor did he avoid....or ignore key opposition as many feel RJJ did, or show up for work under conditioned as James Toney did several times. He was less flash and groove than both those cats, but he cleaned the middleweight plate, left no questions in his province and went on to scale bigger mountains.....at an age where only the special, most shrewdest fighters find a way to survive.

 

Ray had retina problems, I believe, and needed to stepdown for awhile. He certainly fought the best around when he was fighting - Hearns, Duran, Benitez. Those 3 names you would be very hard pressed to find on Hopkins Middleweight resume unless you rate the smaller men De La Hoya and Trinidad.

 

Rjj did ignore Darius M and he can't get away with that but at the same time Bernard turned down a substantial offer to challenge Joe Calzaghe and at first said Yes but then went back and Priced himself out.

Was Bernard just happy feasting on the pretty weak Middleweights rather than step up and take a challenge? A cynical view would point that he skipped SM altogether, while Joe C was there and only signed to fight Joe when there were limited paydays and options.

 

Joe Calzaghe often gets criticised for the weakness of his opponents during his title reign at Super Middleweight and I agree but I also believe Bernard Hopkins deserves the same criticism. I personally don't think either reign was that bad but to me they are similar.

 

But neither for me is in the league of a Leonard or Hagler.

[londoner]

I voted Thomas Hearns but i meant to vote Roberto Duran. Personally, i think Duran has the best record of them all. Leanord was a 2 weight World champion and not a 5 weight World champion as he is commonly thought of. He won the 154 title then moved back down without defending it, he won the 175 title in the SAME bout as winning the 168 title (WHAT???!!!) and he defended his 168 title twice (draw vs Hearns and win vs Duran). The least he weighed was 141 lbs and the most he weighed was 165 lbs against Donny Lalonde in winning the 168 and 175 titles.

 

Hagler was a great MW but i've spoken to a few people who find him overrated or that he fought smaller guys coming up the weights.

 

Duran is a Legend in anyone's minds. I'm not going to analyse his record. Too long.

 

Personally, i rank Duran the highest. But, my preferred to WATCH was without doubt Thomas Hearns. The guy was incredible. Most of my dream bouts between 147 up to around 160 contain him in them. Hearns vs ...... (fill the blank). You'd get a great fight.

[chaconfan]

Re: Who was the best; Leonard, Hearns, Hagler or Duran?

 

I voted Thomas Hearns but i meant to vote Roberto Duran. Personally, i think Duran has the best record of them all. Leanord was a 2 weight World champion and not a 5 weight World champion as he is commonly thought of. He won the 154 title then moved back down without defending it, he won the 175 title in the SAME bout as winning the 168 title (WHAT???!!!) and he defended his 168 title twice (draw vs Hearns and win vs Duran). The least he weighed was 141 lbs and the most he weighed was 165 lbs against Donny Lalonde in winning the 168 and 175 titles.

 

Hagler was a great MW but i've spoken to a few people who find him overrated or that he fought smaller guys coming up the weights.

 

Duran is a Legend in anyone's minds. I'm not going to analyse his record. Too long.

 

Personally, i rank Duran the highest. But, my preferred to WATCH was without doubt Thomas Hearns. The guy was incredible. Most of my dream bouts between 147 up to around 160 contain him in them. Hearns vs ...... (fill the blank). You'd get a great fight.

 

The blank would have Julian Jackson, if I had my way....which I never do.

[BoztheMadman]

Re: Who was the best; Leonard, Hearns, Hagler or Duran?

 

All were equally great in their own way, but Duran was the only natural lightweight to fight them all. And who won a world title from lightweight to middleweight. Leonard's lhw title was pure bs. Otherwise, I think I like Hearns best of them, style-wise. He was just a joy to watch. And still is.

[chaconfan]

Re: Who was the best; Leonard, Hearns, Hagler or Duran?

 

All were equally great in their own way, but Duran was the only natural lightweight to fight them all. And who won a world title from lightweight to middleweight. Leonard's lhw title was pure bs. Otherwise, I think I like Hearns best of them, style-wise. He was just a joy to watch. And still is.

T

They are ALL still a joy to watch, but I think Leonard was the most entertaining, and stylish.

[chaconfan]

Re: Who was the best; Leonard, Hearns, Hagler or Duran?

 

Hagler only fought 3 guys who were moving up in weight. He did not fight anyone bigger than himself, like the other three, so we don't fully know what he was capable of. I think we can safely assume that he would have added the super middle belt, but very much doubt he could beat Micheal Spinks for the light heavy one.

[chaconfan]

Re: Who was the best; Leonard, Hearns, Hagler or Duran?

 

Duran struggled with virtually every boxer he ever fought, even right up to the end of his career with guys like Pat Lawlor.

I read that he would not give Buchanan (another pure boxer) a rematch, despite the controversy in winning the title from him on a foul.

He excelled when standing and trading, and Barkley who Hearns could not beat, despite being considered way past his best.

He beat a peak Leonard, and did better against Hagler than Hearns did, but Hearns did better against Benitez.

Very hard to say who was better, but I think Hearns would almost always beat Duran. I say "almost" because if he came into the ring with the weak legs that he came into the Hagler fight with, he may lose.

[chaconfan]

Re: Who was the best; Leonard, Hearns, Hagler or Duran?

 

Good post. Those figures don't take other things into consideration, like the age at which the bouts took place. The size advantage/disadvantage.

The fact that Leonard was able to win two titles in one night, by fighting a guy with very limited mobility in his arm, and who had to not only lose the weight he would normally lose to make light heavy, but lose even more to make super middle.

Also Leonard was the only Olympic gold medalist, so for those that say he got preferential treatment, his achievement was always going to get him that. Added to that was the fact that he was very popular, and we all know that that will always get you bigger purses etc. He was not fed bums though and fought a guy who was 10-1 in his 2nd pro bout. Another who was 27-3 in his 4th, 54- 2 in his 20th and despite fighting in the Olympics as a light welter, he fought a tough middleweight in Geraldo in his 22nd. He was not given a title, he beat some very good contenders,like Mayweather Snr, Shields,Viruet, Ranzany, and Price.

Of the four other greats, he had to beat a better champ than the others did in the unbeaten Benitez. None of the other four won their first title against an unbeaten champ. Kalule was another unbeaten champ whom he defeated to win his 2nd title, and it should be noted that Hearns was also unbeaten when they fought in one of the best fights I have ever seen.

He is also the only one, with a win over all of the other 3, and lastly, he staged the greatest comeback in boxing history in coming out of retirement to face the seemingly unstoppable Hagler, after having been retired, having had eye surgery, having been knocked down by an unknown welterweight in his last fight, having almost being ko'd in sparring in the build up to the Hagler fight and having no warm up at all.