Hearns, Hagler, Leonard or Duran?

[Lunny]

Who is your favourite of this era? Not necessarily the best but your favourite and why.

For me it's Hearns awesome style and I like the fact he started off as a 6'1'' Welter and finished (or has he...) as a Cruiser winning belts all the way. Absolute legend. A class act.

Feel free to say a different boxer but try and keep it within the group of fighters fighting around Welter/middleweight at that time.

[Flea Man]

Favourite is Halger, closely followed by Duran, then Hearns.

Duran was the best for me though.

[Rebel-INS]

Hearns, Hagler, Duran, Leonard in that order.

[Lunny]

Hearns, Hagler, Duran, Leonard in that order.
Same order I have them. What are your reasons? The pure excitement of their fighting styles?

On another note: How the funk do you put an avatar up?!!!

[Holmes' Jab]

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

[jaffay]

My favourite is Duran - for his agressivnes in the ring and skills

[WhataRock]

Duran...he is my favourite fighter. In his prime he epitomizes what a fighter should be IMO.

[DINAMITA]

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

[teeto]

Duran for me, obviously

[Dave's Top Ten]

Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Leonard

Duran is the best of the bunch!

[Jaws]

He may not be the best (his infighting and durability is questionable at times) but Hearns is my favorite.

He was unique, had an incredible gift for punching power, and is a class act.

[sam1222]

duran, leonard, hagler, hearns. for me duran was by far the best, he had everything i look for in a fighter. and as the man said himself, 'there's only one legend- thats me'.

[MrMarvel]

Duran is my favorite fight because of the combination of master boxing excellence and firey determination (when he was motivated). He accomplished more than any of the others.

Hagler is next because he is in my opinion the best middleweight ever, the next best technician of the bunch, and a real exciting fighter.

Hearns is third because lightning strikes are exciting and because of his excellent orthodox form.

I don't like Ray Leonard.

[sugar71]

Tight race between Hearns & Leonard ,but I pick Hearns simply because he SEEMS to be more personable .

Hearns- A beast in the ring & true sportman outside
Leonard
Hagler







And way, way down the line Duran. I dislike like the guy so much that I normally re-watch him get destroyed by Hearns & Leonard make him quit during their fights. If he epitomizes what a Boxer should be I would never watch probably.

[Robbi]

Personal favs.

1. Duran.
2. Hagler/Hearns (can't split them).
3. Leonard.

Greatness.

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

[Bokaj]

I really like them all as fighters, probably in the order: Leonard, Duran/Hearns, Hagler.

The only one who I've got any strong personal feeling for or against is Duran, whom I don't like at all. I probably like Hearns best as a person, becasue of the way he conducted himself. I'm neutral towards Leonard, but like him as a commentator. The only feeling I have towards Hagler is that his animosity against Leonard is a bit childish. He embarasses himself a bit by letting his dislike for Leonard show itself so clearly when he comments on Leonard-Hagler II.

[Godfather]

Duran is my favourite fighter ever

Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Leonard

[biglads]

When I was watching as a youngster in the 80's it was Leonard. Now I look at Hearns most fondly of the 4.

Wilfred Benitez also deserves a shout when we're talking about this era.

[Bing]

Duran
Hagler
Hearns
Leonard

[Doppleganger]

Hearns

Hagler














Leonard
Duran

[stevebhoy87]

Duran, then leonard, i have hearns and hagler about level

[MrMarvel]

How do you figure Leonard is greater than Hagler? Duran didn't beat Hagler. Neither did Hearns.


Personal favs.

1. Duran.
2. Hagler/Hearns (can't split them).
3. Leonard.

Greatness.

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

[KCD]

My personal favourite is Roberto Duran.

The epitomy of a fighter.

[GPater11093]

my faves out of the four are ( i like them all though)

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

in terms of greatness

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

other fighters at that time i liked

Benitez, Honeyghan, Curry, McCallum,

[menemsha43]

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

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

[the cobra]

Duran's the greatest of the group, and he's my favorite as well.

[Lunny]

When I was watching as a youngster in the 80's it was Leonard. Now I look at Hearns most fondly of the 4.

Wilfred Benitez also deserves a shout when we're talking about this era.
Benitez definitly deserves a shout.

He never recovered from the Hearns fight though did he? That seems to be where his career ended.

Cuevas was also good, not in the same league but still good.

[redrooster]

Hagler because he was the best.

Hearns is close second. When he reached his peak in 1984, he appeared to be very much Hagler's equal at Marvin's peak. His KO of Shuler is his most awesome performance.

Cuevas the awesome bonebreaker replaces pacifist legend Benitez. He would have massacred ordinary Palomino at welter.

Sugar Ray Leonard is fourth. I really would have loved to seen more of him, 147, 154, it doesnt matter. My favorite fantasy match is seeing him and Tony Ayala Jr or Julian Jackson. Sadly, something happened to thwart them from materializing.

Duran is really a lightweight and a fighter that came along in an earlier generation so I dont include him with the other three.

Benitez I dont think nothing of him so to me he's not worth mentioning.

[Robbi]

How do you figure Leonard is greater than Hagler? Duran didn't beat Hagler. Neither did Hearns.

Leonard gets my vote over Hagler because he has the better wins and went out his depth by moving up in weight. I'm not holding it against Hagler for staying at his natural weight. It's more of a plus on Leonard's behalf rather than a negative mark against Hagler. Leonard beat Benitez, Hearns, and won the rematch against Duran. He never had the longevity at his prime weight that Hagler did, but his quality of wins is on par or perhaps better than Hagler's. He also beat Hagler after having one fight in five years. He was marked down for the graveyard before the first bell rang. And Leonard also went up against the much bigger Lalonde, who dwarfed him, and managed to stop him as well.

Just because Duran never beat Hagler when they fought each other, this means he wasn't greater? I think not. Duran's pure prime was at lightweight, and quite possibly up until he fought Leonard. He dominated his division for 7 years, has the best win out all the fights they had against each other when he beat a prime Leonard. He also moved up in weight to capture more titles. He was the only man to take Hagler the full course in all his sucessful title defenses. This losing effort shows me what a special fighter Duran was, even when past his prime. If the "No Mas" fiasco wasn't enough to convince Duran to retire, then getting flattened by Hearns' right hand in one of the most devastating knockouts in the history of the sport should have been the final nail in his coffin. But he solidered on and managed to win a title in a 4th weight division when he beat Barkley.

Duran was better than Hagler "pound for pound". Longevity at his prime weight, rebounding from serious career threatning defeats, fighting physically more imposing opponents, and having one of the best wins in boxing history on his C.V. Duran's career was a rollercoaster ride that had everything.

[redrooster]

Leonard gets my vote over Hagler because he has the better wins and went out his depth by moving up in weight. I'm not holding it against Hagler for staying at his natural weight. It's more of a plus on Leonard's behalf rather than a negative mark against Hagler. Leonard beat Benitez, Hearns, and won the rematch against Duran. He never had the longevity at his prime weight that Hagler did, but his quality of wins is on par or perhaps better than Hagler's. He also beat Hagler after having one fight in five years. He was marked down for the graveyard before the first bell rang. And Leonard also went up against the much bigger Lalonde, who dwarfed him, and managed to stop him as well.

Just because Duran never beat Hagler when they fought each other, this means he wasn't greater? I think not. Duran's pure prime was at lightweight, and quite possibly up until he fought Leonard. He dominated his division for 7 years, has the best win out all the fights they had against each other when he beat a prime Leonard. He also moved up in weight to capture more titles. He was the only man to take Hagler the full course in all his sucessful title defenses. This losing effort shows me what a special fighter Duran was, even when past his prime. If the "No Mas" fiasco wasn't enough to convince Duran to retire, then getting flattened by Hearns' right hand in one of the most devastating knockouts in the history of the sport should have been the final nail in his coffin. But he solidered on and managed to win a title in a 4th weight division when he beat Barkley.

Duran was better than Hagler "pound for pound". Longevity at his prime weight, rebounding from serious career threatning defeats, fighting physically more imposing opponents, and having one of the best wins in boxing history on his C.V. Duran's career was a rollercoaster ride that had everything.

I would agree with you Robbi if he had more wins over Pryor, Nunn, Norris, and Jackson. That would have sealed the deal with me.

[Robbi]

I would agree with you Robbi if he had more wins over Pryor, Nunn, Norris, and Jackson. That would have sealed the deal with me.

Hagler would have sealed the deal for me if he had stopped a natural lightweight in devastating fashion. Stopping a natural lightweight wouldn't have been anything to shout about actually, but it's better than being taken 15 rounds in your prime against one. Also fighting Hearns in a rematch rather than fight an inactive Leonard, who he thought was easy pickings, would have enhanced his standing. Hagler backed away from a Hearns rematch after he the gruelling fight with Mugabi. The public deserved the Hagler-Hearns rematch, but Hagler took the easier fight on paper with more dollar on offer. He wanted to retire and ride off into the sunset with a fat pay cheque and an easy knockout over the inactive and less dangerous Leonard. That came back to bite him on the ass.

Hagler could easily have stepped up to 175lbs with some help from Mackie Shilstone, who helped Spinks bulk up to heavyweight. Hopkins done this after his career was on the brink of being finished after his controversial decision losses to Taylor. He never went out of the sport a loser. He made a statement by regrouping and setting himself challenges.

[80s champs]

HEARNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The most exciting of the four!! If it wer'ent for his flaws (chin and stamina),could he have been the best of the four? To this day I really wish there was a Hagler Hearns 2. A more filled out Hearns with better legs and minus the broken hand would have been interesting,especially with Hagler beginning to fade at this time..

[redrooster]

Hagler would have sealed the deal for me if he had stopped a natural lightweight in devastating fashion. Stopping a natural lightweight wouldn't have been anything to shout about actually, but it's better than being taken 15 rounds in your prime against one. Also fighting Hearns in a rematch rather than fight an inactive Leonard, who he thought was easy pickings, would have enhanced his standing. Hagler backed away from a Hearns rematch after he the gruelling fight with Mugabi. The public deserved the Hagler-Hearns rematch, but Hagler took the easier fight on paper with more dollar on offer. He wanted to retire and ride off into the sunset with a fat pay cheque and an easy knockout over the inactive and less dangerous Leonard. That came back to bite him on the ass.

Hagler could easily have stepped up to 175lbs with some help from Mackie Shilstone, who helped Spinks bulk up to heavyweight. Hopkins done this after his career was on the brink of being finished after his controversial decision losses to Taylor. He never went out of the sport a loser. He made a statement by regrouping and setting himself challenges.

I dont question Leonard's greatness. I'm just saying I wanted to see more of him because some career moves appear suspcious.

I guess I'm just not as satisfied with those 3 wins. They're good wins but not great ones. I think great would have been a win over Norris at age 34. It would have proven alot I think. A win over Nunn in 89 would have been better. A win over McCallum at 160 would surely have impressed like the one kalambay had

As for Hagler, I dont see the honor in brutalizing a fat lightweight in Hearns like fashion. I wasnt impressed with his win either but a KO would have proved nothing IMO.

but the type of win you mentioned over Hearns actually meant something.

What can I say, Hagler had his hands full with Mugabi but I dont think he retired too soon as people in the media have said. Not his fault they werent following his career.

Do you consider the Mugabi fight a ripoff? Maybe John, the near equal of Tony Ayala Jr., age 26, 26-0 record (26 ko's) wasnt worth the public's money. Didnt see anyone complaining after the fight though. At the very least, I didnt see or hear anyone calling Hagler a chicken for taking that fight. And he already took out Hearns in 3.

Not 14 rounds, but 3 rounds so he cant be blamed for not taking the rematch. He didnt give Sibson a rematch either.

at any rate i dont have anything bad to say about hagler other than he gave a lackluster, unimpressive and baffling performance against Duran. He looked like he was holding back and pulling his punches and even slowing the pace intentionally.

With Leonard, if he wanted to be the best, then more is demanded of him. You can't be called the best and leave with a 36-3-1 record. No one would believe it.

No defenses at 154. none at 160. none at 168. I dont think that's coincidence either. And only 4 at 147. He should have been more like Cuevas, setting the record at 11 defenses. That is why i say Pipino was really the best.

If you want to be a real Sugar Ray then you have to be more like Roy Jones Jr. To me he will always be the real sugar ray of our generation and the fastest since a young fighter named Hector Camacho. I even used to call him the new sugar ray when I watched him dispatch Percy Harris. he took the best qualities of Ali and Robinson and blended them together to dominate a host of opponents at every division between 160and heavyweight. No tricks, no gimmicks, no phony layoffs.

[Robbi]

HEARNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The most exciting of the four!! If it wer'ent for his flaws (chin and stamina),could he have been the best of the four? To this day I really wish there was a Hagler Hearns 2. A more filled out Hearns with better legs and minus the broken hand would have been interesting,especially with Hagler beginning to fade at this time..

The boxing public wanted to see Hagler-Hearns II as well. But once Hagler looked into the mirror in the dressing room after his hard fought victory over Mugabi, he probably said to himself "Hearns was in lethal form tonight while I sat watching my monitor in the dressing room when he knocked out Schuler". That prompted Hagler to do a U-turn and give the lamest excuses he's ever given. He told the world he needed to rest and also thought of retiring.

When the inactive Leonard came along, he accepted the challenge. This was a natural welterweight who was dropped by a journeyman, Kevin Howard, as Hagler laughed from his ringside seat. Nobody have the smaller and less powerful Leonard a chance against the middleweight monster of the 80's. Hagler clearly went for the dollars and the easier fight.

It was the worst mistake he ever made. It might well have been a mistake either way. Fighting Hearns was something that sent shudders through his body. Hearns made the mistake of getting involved in a war, and was hampered with a broken right hand after the first round. A newly energized and refocused Hearns with a new gameplan wasn't something he would entertain. Too risky. Leonard was the one he wanted. No way could this inactive HBO commentator even last the distance with him. :good

[DRMULLEN]

Or duran?????

[DRMULLEN]

DURAN, WAS THE MAN WITH THE MASTER pLAN... lbflb he was far better than anyone..if he trainer proper from 119lbs to 160 he was incredible..he aint no OR

[Bokaj]

The boxing public wanted to see Hagler-Hearns II as well. But once Hagler looked into the mirror in the dressing room after his hard fought victory over Mugabi, he probably said to himself "Hearns was in lethal form tonight while I sat watching my monitor in the dressing room when he knocked out Schuler". That prompted Hagler to do a U-turn and give the lamest excuses he's ever given. He told the world he needed to rest and also thought of retiring.

When the inactive Leonard came along, he accepted the challenge. This was a natural welterweight who was dropped by a journeyman, Kevin Howard, as Hagler laughed from his ringside seat. Nobody have the smaller and less powerful Leonard a chance against the middleweight monster of the 80's. Hagler clearly went for the dollars and the easier fight.

It was the worst mistake he ever made. It might well have been a mistake either way. Fighting Hearns was something that sent shudders through his body. Hearns made the mistake of getting involved in a war, and was hampered with a broken right hand after the first round. A newly energized and refocused Hearns with a new gameplan wasn't something he would entertain. Too risky. Leonard was the one he wanted. No way could this inactive HBO commentator even last the distance with him. :good

It's strange how seldom these aspects of Hagler's career is mentioned. He failed to take on McCallum and Curry, and to give Hearns a rematch. Instead he went for the payday (who wouldn't though) and when that didn't go as planned Leonard gets stick for "luring" Hagler and tricking the judges.

Many other ATGs would be eaten alive for things that are not even mentioned when it comes to Hagler: 1. He failed to fight perhapst the best natural MWs of the mid 80's. 2. His best wins are over a natural WW and a 33-year old natural LW, and he didn't rematch any of them. 3. He lost to a natural WW coming off a looong lay-off.


Jones or Leonard would have been ripped over such marks on their resumes, but when it comes to Hagler it's rarely mentioned.

[BritInvasion]

When I grow up I want to be Roberto Duran.
He's a fuckin animal. He's a loon. He's a boxer. He's a fighter. He's funny. He's menacing. He wants to kill Leonard. He wants to kill anyone who reminds him of Leonard. He wants to kill. He was born to kill. He's a fuckin geezer.

The Marvellous One for a long time has been one my all time favourite fighters, love the guy and he would have to be second, though I've been watching Thoms Hearns more lately. I still will Hearns on to beat SRL, but the bastard dvd never changes!

I do not care for Ray Leonard. I agree with a lot of Red Rooster's arguments against the saccharine one even.

[enquirer]

In terms of excitement:
1)Duran/Hearns.
3)Leonard.
4)Hagler.

All of them were pretty exciting though.

In terms of p4p greatness:

1) Duran.



2)Leonard.
3) Hearns.
4) Hagler.

[JohnThomas1]

Faves
Hearns
Leonard
Duran
Hagler

P4P Greatness

Duran
Leonard
Hearns
Hagler

[GPater11093]

Faves
Hearns
Leonard
Duran
Hagler

P4P Greatness

Duran
Leonard
Hearns
Hagler

you rank Hearns over Hgaler i have it the other way round myself.

[JohnThomas1]

you rank Hearns over Hgaler i have it the other way round myself.

Most go your way, but i like Hearns. It just depends on ones personal criteria etc.

[GPater11093]

Most go your way, but i like Hearns. It just depends on ones personal criteria etc.

i think it depends how high you rank Hagler as a middleweight if hes top 1 or 2 hes normally ahead of Hearns. They both achieved alot so it is close but i edge towards Hagler as i think he is the best MW ever.

[Robbi]

It's strange how seldom these aspects of Hagler's career is mentioned. He failed to take on McCallum and Curry, and to give Hearns a rematch. Instead he went for the payday (who wouldn't though) and when that didn't go as planned Leonard gets stick for "luring" Hagler and tricking the judges.

Many other ATGs would be eaten alive for things that are not even mentioned when it comes to Hagler: 1. He failed to fight perhapst the best natural MWs of the mid 80's. 2. His best wins are over a natural WW and a 33-year old natural LW, and he didn't rematch any of them. 3. He lost to a natural WW coming off a looong lay-off.


Jones or Leonard would have been ripped over such marks on their resumes, but when it comes to Hagler it's rarely mentioned.

Take my post with a pinch of salt. I was giving Rooster a dose of his own medicine. :good

[JohnThomas1]

i think it depends how high you rank Hagler as a middleweight if hes top 1 or 2 hes normally ahead of Hearns. They both achieved alot so it is close but i edge towards Hagler as i think he is the best MW ever.

I like Hearns for scaling the weights and quality wins without getting too in depth.

[GPater11093]

I like Hearns for scaling the weights and quality wins without getting too in depth.

understand completly

[JohnThomas1]

understand completly


Cheers mate, and i understand totally where you come from. I would be, after all, in the minority i think.

[GPater11093]

Cheers mate, and i understand totally where you come from. I would be, after all, in the minority i think.

well it just depends on critea as you say i do think most would pick hagler

[80s champs]

I remember seeing a news article after the Hagler Hearns war which summed up the quality of both fighters at the time. Hagler may or may not be the better fighter,but he is the better Middleweight"

[MrMarvel]

Robbi misunderstands me. I think it's because he didn't read my earlier comment.

I rank Duran ahead of Hagler. Eight years at lightweight, 12 successful title defenses, only one twice-avenged loss in a non-title bout to a terrific fighter in DeJesus, spectacularly dominating two excellent welterweights in Palomino and Leonard, brutal beatdowns of Cuevas and Moore, an extraordinary performance against the best middleweight in history, and winning the WBC middleweight title against Barkley put Duran over Hagler and considerably above Hearns and Leonard. I have Duran third on my all-time list. Only Robinson and Armstrong are greater. Duran's two big legacy downsides are his lackluster performance against Benitez (he should have been up for this big fight) and his crushing defeat to Hearns (styles do make fights sometimes).

My point about Leonard is comparative. He lost to Duran. But he more than lost to Duran. Duran hurt him and put him against the ropes for most of the 15 round contest. Let's be blunt about it: Duran overwhelmed Leonard. Duran could be expected to put in the kind of performance he did against Hagler because he is a master boxer and had by that point grown into a middleweight. Remember, Duran would go on to beat Barkley, even knocking the big man down. But Duran, despite his best efforts, did lose his fight with Hagler. You will likely want to bring up Leonard's rematch with Duran and the rubbermatch, but I am not impressed. Both the rematch between Duran and Leonard were essentially non-events, even if you blame Duran for both of them (and I do). And before you tell me that Leonard fought the wrong fight in the first fight, I need to tell you that I'm not buying that excuse. Duran whipped his ass. Bottomline: Hagler's experience with Duran is more impressive, since Hagler beat Duran in the best comparative moment.

Leonard beat Hearns, but, as we all know, Leonard lost the first five rounds (or at least four of the first five), was set back on his heels briefly at the close of round 6, lost round 7, worked his way back into the fight and was in control (9, 10, 11, 12) before his lack of stamina betrayed him. How people rank Leonard so highly after Duran I and Hearns I has always baffled me. He was exposed as much less than somebody deserving of the praise he regularly receives. Then, as if the evidence weren't clear enough, in the rematch with Hearns, Hearns dropped Leonard twice and outpointed him. In both fights, Leonard couldn't figure Hearns out. Do I really need to say it? Hagler walked through Hearns. Had Hearns hit Leonard with the shots he hit Hagler with, Leonard would be a human bobblehead. Hearns exploded in the first round. Hagler took it all and by the end of the first round had the fight in hand.

Hagler not only proved he was better than Leonard by clearly beating Duran and blowing away Hearns, but he also defeated Leonard when they met, despite Hagler's diminished skills and poor timing, and despite the fact that Leonard put in a great performance. I have watched that fight so many times, giving those who think Leonard won the benefit of the doubt, sitting down with them and asking them to tell me what they are seeing that makes them believe Leonard won. I have no question in my mind that Hagler deserved the decision.

So at the end of the day, Leonard is ranked fourth because he lost to Duran, lost to Hearns, and lost to Hagler in the most definitive moments. Yes, he beat Duran twice after that, but consider the circumstances in the second and the pathetic character of the third. And, yes, he beat Hearns, but from the facts that he lost most of the rounds, looking completely confused, and won because of factors not under his control, the significance of the win is greatly reduced - especially when we see Hagler blow Hearns away.

I have heard the arguments and excuses in favor of Leonard. "He made Duran quit." "He came from behind to beat Hearns, demonstrating his courage." "The boxer became the brawler." "He fought the wrong fight against Duran." But these are the cliches of fans who want to convince themselves of something. I believe this attitude hurts Leonard's legacy. If his fans would appraise his career honestly, then those who compare the reality to the image would not discount Leonard's accomplishments (remember, he did convincingly defeat Benitez). Because, honestly, he falls short of undeserved praise. He wasn't as great as his fans make him out to be.

Go ahead and call me a "hater." I'm just being honest. And I will admit that I don't like Leonard as a person. But then I don't like a lot of my favorite boxers personally (Holmes and Whitaker come to mind).

[GPater11093]

i also feel like you and think hagler won but i can see how Leonard won

[MAG1965]

Hearns,Leonard,Hagler,Duran. Hearns was the most exciting and made the most impact win or loss on everyones record. Leonard beat all of them. Duran lost to all of them. and Hagler fought them all because he wanted smaller challengers rather than bigger.

[MAG1965]

Personal favs.

1. Duran.
2. Hagler/Hearns (can't split them).
3. Leonard.

Greatness.

1. Duran
2. Leonard
3. Hagler
4. Hearns
on greatness I go with more Leonard,Hearns,Hagler. Duran I think was overrated. I do not want to rate Duran with them since it is tough to do. It has to be rated on his lightweight reign. He lost to them all. I never will understand Duran's greatness if you look at numbers. The greatest fighter to be overrated. Yeah Duran moved up in weight, but you know what? Hearns whole career after 1981 was after his original weight. Duran gets excuses bigtime. He still lost to them all. If he were so great he would have found a way to beat Hearns or Benitez or Hagler. And he beat Ray and then Ray outclasses him once he adjusts and fights his style.

[MAG1965]

Duran's the greatest of the group, and he's my favorite as well.
This is the overrating of Duran. He lost to them all but he is the greatest. Rather ridiculous. I know what you will say, he was washed up in 1980 when he fought Leonard in the rematch when he was still in his 20's. Then he was washed up when he lost to Benitez and Hearns, but yet somehow great because he beat Moore at the same time and won a title. His lightweight reign still does not make him ATG top 10.

[JohnThomas1]

Duran overwhelmed Leonard.

Suuuuure he did :lol:

[MAG1965]

Suuuuure he did :lol:I agree. Overwhelming another fighter is knocking out that fighter He didn't stop Leonard. Leonard then did the big overwhelming by making Duran quit before Duran was knocked out in the rematch.

[Bummy Davis]

Duran was acually a decade and a few divisions lighter than the other fighters perfect weight. I remember Duran coming up as a lightweight and saw him smash usually durable Been Huetas in 1...He partied heavy after a fight but when he was in shape he was top2 lighweight of all -time I got him as 1 with Benny Leonard 2nd but that can go either way. Duran was a lightweight and did not have the frame or height to move up but he did and did well vs Leonard, and Hagler,Davey Moore,Cuevas and Barkley....he misjudge Hearns range and that lean back defence was faulty vs Hearns long range and power but Duran was not close to prime in this fight nor his perfect weight or division......Duran was best LB 4 LB in the 70's better than Ali and anyone else....leonard,HEARNS,HAGLER,MONZON AND Chavez later.....Duran at 135 had power,skill,boxing smarts and ability and killer instinct....for me he was the best fighter lb4lb from the 60's. to today..SRL was #2 and Hagler,Calzage and Hearns ,Chavez and Jones somewhere behind him

[enquirer]

In terms of resume and p4p greatness i dont think there is any doubt that Roberto is tops by some margin....
Head to head against the fab four he encounters big disadvantages in that he is the oldest (especially in terms of number of fights and years fighting before he partook in the 'fab four' round robin) and is the one fighting way over his natural weight.
Pause for a second and imagine hagler v spinks or holy,hearns v foster or moore,and ray leonard v monzon or charles,because these are rough equivalents of what a natural 135er in duran had to face against leonard,hearns and hagler.

[Bummy Davis]

In terms of resume and p4p greatness i dont think there is any doubt that Roberto is tops by some margin....
Head to head against the fab four he encounters big disadvantages in that he is the oldest (especially in terms of number of fights and years fighting before he partook in the 'fab four' round robin) and is the one fighting way over his natural weight.
Pause for a second and imagine hagler v spinks or holy,hearns v foster or moore,and ray leonard v monzon or charles,because these are rough equivalents of what a natural 135er in duran had to face against leonard,hearns and hagler.


well said

[Robbi]

Robbi misunderstands me. I think it's because he didn't read my earlier comment.

I missed your earlier post.

[MAG1965]

Duran was acually a decade and a few divisions lighter than the other fighters perfect weight. I remember Duran coming up as a lightweight and saw him smash usually durable Been Huetas in 1...He partied heavy after a fight but when he was in shape he was top2 lighweight of all -time I got him as 1 with Benny Leonard 2nd but that can go either way. Duran was a lightweight and did not have the frame or height to move up but he did and did well vs Leonard, and Hagler,Davey Moore,Cuevas and Barkley....he misjudge Hearns range and that lean back defence was faulty vs Hearns long range and power but Duran was not close to prime in this fight nor his perfect weight or division......Duran was best LB 4 LB in the 70's better than Ali and anyone else....leonard,HEARNS,HAGLER,MONZON AND Chavez later.....Duran at 135 had power,skill,boxing smarts and ability and killer instinct....for me he was the best fighter lb4lb from the 60's. to today..SRL was #2 and Hagler,Calzage and Hearns ,Chavez and Jones somewhere behind him
Huertas is not Hearns or Hagler. That partying stuff is a good excuse. Duran was still in his 20s when he fought Leonard in the 1980s. Seems like when he lost his excuses were age, if that did not work it was partying. Yet he got credit for beating Moore, he lost bigtime to Benitez and Hearns. Duran at 135 never fought a Pernell Whitaker or a Chavez. Would have changed things. The fact is that the 4 greatest fighters he ever fought Hearns,Hagler,Leonard,Benitez he lost to. Duran's lightweight reign does not get him p4p best fighter since the 1960s.

[196osh]

Tommy Hearns.

[Mantequilla]

Huertas is not Hearns or Hagler. That partying stuff is a good excuse. Duran was still in his 20s when he fought Leonard in the 1980s. Seems like when he lost his excuses were age, if that did not work it was partying. Yet he got credit for beating Moore, he lost bigtime to Benitez and Hearns. Duran at 135 never fought a Pernell Whitaker or a Chavez. Would have changed things. The fact is that the 4 greatest fighters he ever fought Hearns,Hagler,Leonard,Benitez he lost to. Duran's lightweight reign does not get him p4p best fighter since the 1960s.

That's no more "the fact is" than saying Chavez barely got past Laporte and was in hard tough fights with guys like Lockridge and Ramirez around lightweight, so would likely be brutally dismantled by Duran.

I'm not one for focusing on partying excuses either.The fact he was so far above his best weight for most of those losses is the real key.Someone like Benitez was just a better junior middleweight, as was Hearns.

and why wouldn't he get some credit for beating Moore.Does the fact some can argue rightly or wrongly he wasn't at his best for some losses around this weightrange then preclude him from being given credit when he does beat world class fighters.

Think about it for a second and realise how ridiculous it is.Not that Duran doesn't have his fanboys..but c'mon.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Hearns
Hagler
Duran
Leonard

[the cobra]

Originally posted by MAG1965
This is the overrating of Duran. He lost to them all but he is the greatest. Rather ridiculous. I know what you will say, he was washed up in 1980 when he fought Leonard in the rematch when he was still in his 20's. Then he was washed up when he lost to Benitez and Hearns, but yet somehow great because he beat Moore at the same time and won a title. His lightweight reign still does not make him ATG top 10.
His overall career is more impressive than the Hagler's, Leonard's, or Tommy's. That's the reason why he rates higher.

Duran's career started a decade before Hearns or Leonard's, and about 5 or 6 years before Hagler's. His best weight was 12lbs below Leonard's best weight, 12-19lbs below Tommy's best weight, and 25lbs below Hagler's. By the time he fought Moore, Benitez, and Hearns he was already 15 years into his career, and about 20lbs above his best division.

By that same time - 15 years after their careers began - Roy Jones was getting flattened by Tarver and Johnson, Ray Leonard was getting outclassed by Norris, Arguello was getting stopped by Pryor, and Hagler was retired. Do you honestly think it's ridiculous to say he was past his prime by the time he was facing Hearns, Benitez, Moore, etc? That's why his wins around that time are impressive, because he was so clearly past his prime but was still able to pull of impressive wins.

He had a prime run of 72-1, twice avenging his lone loss, was the Lightweight champion for 7 years with 12 defenses and the Welterweight champion, wins over Ray Leonard, Ken Buchanan, Esteban DeJesus twice, Carlos Palomino, Ernesto Marcel, and very good conteders or former/future champions like Lampkin, Ishimatsu, Viruet, Kobayashi, Fernandez, Mamby, etc. I think Duran was still in his prime while at 147 when he quit against Leonard, so, after his amazing run from '68-'80, he quits, he has past his prime and above his best weight losses to probably the best 154lbs fighter ever, one to an ATG who visably fit better at the weight than he did, and a top 5 ATG Middleweight. He also has losses to the likes of Laing and Sims, again, an obvious sign that he was well past his prime. However, he still manages past his prime knockouts of Cuevas and Moore for the 154lbs title, a win over a solid fighter in Minchillo, and a win over Barkley to capture the Middleweight title 17 years after he won the Lightweight crown. Then there is the rest of his career in the 90's and up to 2001.

His resume is better than Hearns' or Hagler's, and given the quantity of good wins, better than Leonard's as well. He was a dominant champion like Hagler, and a multi-division champion like Leonard and Hearns. He has longevity over all of them, far and away. At his peak, virtually everone agrees that he was among the absolute best and most complete fighters in history. The vast majority of the boxing world are not wrong when they rate him as a top 10 ATG.

[MAG1965]

That's no more "the fact is" than saying Chavez barely got past Laporte and was in hard tough fights with guys like Lockridge and Ramirez around lightweight, so would likely be brutally dismantled by Duran.

I'm not one for focusing on partying excuses either.The fact he was so far above his best weight for most of those losses is the real key.Someone like Benitez was just a better junior middleweight, as was Hearns.

and why wouldn't he get some credit for beating Moore.Does the fact some can argue rightly or wrongly he wasn't at his best for some losses around this weightrange then preclude him from being given credit when he does beat world class fighters.

Think about it for a second and realise how ridiculous it is.Not that Duran doesn't have his fanboys..but c'mon.
Ramirez was carried by Chavez. That was very evident. Lockridge was a good fighter at 130. I do not think Duran would have dismantled Chavez. It would have been an excellent fight. I would favor Duran, but it would be good. No way would he have a win against Chavez which looked like the Lampkin fight for example.
Duran fans give him too many excuses. He was a great fighter for his lightweight reign and beating Ray, but he also could not take it up a level and beat the greatest fighters he ever fought. Duran fans can say it is because he was not at lightweight and ignore the fact that Hearns and Leonard and Benitez were a much higher level than Duran's lightweight defenses.
I think the Moore fight indicates a guy Duran could beat and did beat-Moore had 11 fights to that point. Yet he gets credit for that. But he loses to great fighters like Hearns and Benitez, and all of a sudden he did not train. So a guy fights the best fighters he is going to ever fight and he loses and the excuse is he does not train? How great a fighter is that who does not train when he fights great fighters? Part of being great is knowing who has the tools to beat you. Duran just could not compete with the elite above lightweight, regardless of the excuses.

[MAG1965]

His overall career is more impressive than the Hagler's, Leonard's, or Tommy's. That's the reason why he rates higher.

Duran's career started a decade before Hearns or Leonard's, and about 5 or 6 years before Hagler's. His best weight was 12lbs below Leonard's best weight, 12-19lbs below Tommy's best weight, and 25lbs below Hagler's. By the time he fought Moore, Benitez, and Hearns he was already 15 years into his career, and about 20lbs above his best division.

By that same time - 15 years after their careers began - Roy Jones was getting flattened by Tarver and Johnson, Ray Leonard was getting outclassed by Norris, Arguello was getting stopped by Pryor, and Hagler was retired. Do you honestly think it's ridiculous to say he was past his prime by the time he was facing Hearns, Benitez, Moore, etc? That's why his wins around that time are impressive, because he was so clearly past his prime but was still able to pull of impressive wins.

He had a prime run of 72-1, twice avenging his lone loss, was the Lightweight champion for 7 years with 12 defenses and the Welterweight champion, wins over Ray Leonard, Ken Buchanan, Esteban DeJesus twice, Carlos Palomino, Ernesto Marcel, and very good conteders or former/future champions like Lampkin, Ishimatsu, Viruet, Kobayashi, Fernandez, Mamby, etc. I think Duran was still in his prime while at 147 when he quit against Leonard, so, after his amazing run from '68-'80, he quits, he has past his prime and above his best weight losses to probably the best 154lbs fighter ever, one to an ATG who visably fit better at the weight than he did, and a top 5 ATG Middleweight. He also has losses to the likes of Laing and Sims, again, an obvious sign that he was well past his prime. However, he still manages past his prime knockouts of Cuevas and Moore for the 154lbs title, a win over a solid fighter in Minchillo, and a win over Barkley to capture the Middleweight title 17 years after he won the Lightweight crown. Then there is the rest of his career in the 90's and up to 2001.

His resume is better than Hearns' or Hagler's, and given the quantity of good wins, better than Leonard's as well. He was a dominant champion like Hagler, and a multi-division champion like Leonard and Hearns. He has longevity over all of them, far and away. At his peak, virtually everone agrees that he was among the absolute best and most complete fighters in history. The vast majority of the boxing world are not wrong when they rate him as a top 10 ATG.So are you saying that since his career started before those guys he does not belong in the fab 4 of the 1980s? He certainly was the least dominant of the 4.
He was 7 years older than Hearns and 5 than Leonard. And Hagler was only 3 years younger than Duran. How was he so much older than those guys? He fought Hearns at 32 years old. How old was Hearns when Tommy beat Virgil Hill who had 10 defenses of the light heavy title? 32!! See how ridiculous these excuses are. Leonard was losing to Norris the same year Hearns was beating Hill. Leonard did not stay sharp and fight the fights Hearns did, so saying Leonard was washed up in 1991 still does not mean Hearns was.
You cannot say Duran's wins over Cueves and Moore were that great, or else you have to admit that Hearns and Benitez beat the Duran who beat those two guys. Duran fans give him the credit for the wins, but not admit his losses.
His record of 72-1 is good, but he fought a lot of non title fights to pad his record. Even Yori Boy was undefeated with 50 fights or so once wasn't he? Fact is Duran's lightweight reign was mediocre, but he was dominant. But he did not have the discipline or skills to keep this dominance up as he moved up,and that reign does not make him top 10 ATG. So what does?. I think Hearns win against Virgil Hill is better than any win Duran had above lightweight including Leonard. Leonard was inexperienced when he fought Duran. Hill had 10 defenses. Duran's reign and career says top 20, but not top 5. No way.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by MAG1965
You cannot say Duran's wins over Cueves and Moore were that great, or else you have to admit that Hearns and Benitez beat the Duran who beat those two guys. Duran fans give him the credit for the wins, but not admit his losses.
His wins over Moore, Barkley, and Cuevas are impressive because he beat them past his prime. That's the most impressive thing about them. Hearns and Benitez beat that Duran, and that Duran was a past his prime Duran. How much weight do you put on Hearns's losses to Barkely? Right after beating Hill he lost to Barkley. His win over Hill must not be that great then right?

His record of 72-1 is good, but he fought a lot of non title fights to pad his record. Even Yori Boy was undefeated with 50 fights or so once wasn't he? Fact is Duran's lightweight reign was mediocre, but he was dominant. But he did not have the discipline or skills to keep this dominance up as he moved up,and that reign does not make him top 10 ATG. So what does?. I think Hearns win against Virgil Hill is better than any win Duran had above lightweight including Leonard. Leonard was inexperienced when he fought Duran. Hill had 10 defenses. Duran's reign and career says top 20, but not top 5. No way.
His record of 72-1 was filled with good wins. His reign was Mediocre? He beat a top 10-15 all-time Lightweight, and another top 15-20 all-time Lightweight. He beat the best contenders of his day. His reign at Lightweight was no more mediocre than Hagler's at 160. Leonard had a very extensive amateur career and had already given what very well may be the best all-around performance of his entire career when he beat Benitez.

I disagree completely with your ranking of Duran as only top 20, but I have a question regarding it. you say he is only top 20, yet he should rank lower than the other 3, so do you rank Hearns and Hagler as top 20 too? I personally don't see that.

Anyway, I think there are a clear top 5 all-time (Robinson, Langford, Greb, Armstrong, and Charles), so I disagree with placing Duran as top 5 as well, but saying he is the greatest of all of the other contenders for a spot at #6 is reasonable to me.

[Bummy Davis]

Huertas is not Hearns or Hagler. That partying stuff is a good excuse. Duran was still in his 20s when he fought Leonard in the 1980s. Seems like when he lost his excuses were age, if that did not work it was partying. Yet he got credit for beating Moore, he lost bigtime to Benitez and Hearns. Duran at 135 never fought a Pernell Whitaker or a Chavez. Would have changed things. The fact is that the 4 greatest fighters he ever fought Hearns,Hagler,Leonard,Benitez he lost to. Duran's lightweight reign does not get him p4p best fighter since the 1960s.

he beat Ernesto Marcel (who later beat Sam Serrano and Alexsis Arguello) in his 16th fight and dominated over some excellent lightweights Buchanan. Dejesus,Hiroshi Kobayashi,Guts Ishimatsu, Edwn Viruet,Saol Mamby,Lou Bizzaro, Vilomar fernandez, Suger Ray Lampkin..also he was a natural 135 lber that moved up and beat 147lb Leonard and a 154, Cuevas, Moore and 160 Barkley at age 38....Duran was sporatic and not always in top shape but made it close vs Hagler( I had the difference 2 rds ) and he beat 101-5-2 Jorge Castro at 165 and 46 yrs old....Duran was Dominant at 135 ( PERFECT WEIGHT FOR HIM) the Duran of Leonard 1 would have been a tough fight for any 147 lber EVER, GIVE OR TAKE

[groove]

leonard was my favourite to watch as a kid - he was entertaining and exciting cuz he did the unexpected - but all were great to see in action.

[80s champs]

Hearns /Duran--The hitman was the only one do to that to Roberto before or since,WHAT A DISPLAY OF POWER!!.His span of victories through the divisions are awesome. Roberto's dominance was before the 80s,have to give him credit for being in the fab 4. Hearn's accomplishments are greater than the rest(minus his loses)..

[ringsider]

Hagler was a bumbler, and doesn't even belong on the list.

The other 3 are all tied.

In who was the best...... #1would have to be Leonard as he beat all of them and handed that plodding southpaw Hagler his ass.

[redrooster]

Hagler was a bumbler, and doesn't even belong on the list.

The other 3 are all tied.

In who was the best...... #1would have to be Leonard as he beat all of them and handed that plodding southpaw Hagler his ass.

speaking of bumbling plodders:



[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[ringsider]

speaking of bumbling plodders:



[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Another bitter Hagler fan, who wants to use the Terry Norris fight as a measuring stick of how good Leonard was. :roll: Why not use the Camacho fight?

Better yet rewatch him make Hagler look the fool.:nut

[redrooster]

Another bitter Hagler fan, who wants to use the Terry Norris fight as a measuring stick of how good Leonard was. :roll: Why not use the Camacho fight?

Better yet rewatch him make Hagler look the fool.:nut

Welcome to the forum.

I was and still am a huge leonard fan and the others here at ESb can testify to this. ;) But let's be honest; Leonard had a lot of legs left going into the Norris fight while Hagler had nothing going into the Leonard fight.


I love Leonard but I can't in good conscience give Leonard credit for beating a shell.

The Norris fight accurately gauges leonard's ability to handle to deal with fast moving boxers, something that Hagler no longer was. Hagler had no speed at the time of their meeting while Norris was by far the fastest opponent of ray's career. As was hector Camacho. In those fights we see the stark contrast in performance. It was the speed he couldnt deal with.

Tommy Hearns, who didnt quite possess Terry's versatilty or speed, would have won comfortably but didnt possess 15 round stamina. Tommy had the right plan but the tank was only half full. Terry had no such weaknesses and as a result, left Leonard swatting the air.

[196osh]

Welcome to the forum.

I was and still am a huge leonard fan and the others here at ESb can testify to this. ;) But let's be honest; Leonard had a lot of legs left going into the Norris fight while Hagler had nothing going into the Leonard fight.


I love Leonard but I can't in good conscience give Leonard credit for beating a shell.

The Norris fight accurately gauges leonard's ability to handle to deal with fast moving boxers, something that Hagler no longer was. Hagler had no speed at the time of their meeting while Norris was by far the fastest opponent of ray's career. As was hector Camacho. In those fights we see the stark contrast in performance. It was the speed he couldnt deal with.

Tommy Hearns, who didnt quite possess Terry's versatilty or speed, would have won comfortably but didnt possess 15 round stamina. Tommy had the right plan but the tank was only half full. Terry had no such weaknesses and as a result, left Leonard swatting the air.

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

[ringsider]

Welcome to the forum.

I was and still am a huge leonard fan and the others here at ESb can testify to this. ;) But let's be honest; Leonard had a lot of legs left going into the Norris fight while Hagler had nothing going into the Leonard fight.


I love Leonard but I can't in good conscience give Leonard credit for beating a shell.

The Norris fight accurately gauges leonard's ability to handle to deal with fast moving boxers, something that Hagler no longer was. Hagler had no speed at the time of their meeting while Norris was by far the fastest opponent of ray's career. As was hector Camacho. In those fights we see the stark contrast in performance. It was the speed he couldnt deal with.

Tommy Hearns, who didnt quite possess Terry's versatilty or speed, would have won comfortably but didnt possess 15 round stamina. Tommy had the right plan but the tank was only half full. Terry had no such weaknesses and as a result, left Leonard swatting the air.

Man are you distorted in thinking....you Leonard beat a shell of a Hagler? You say Hagler lost his speed? Hagler never had any speed!! Leonard & Hagler were both a bit past it. But to use Norrois as measuring stick, hell Norris had no chin, and prime on prime, SRL would have handed Norris his ass. Tommy Hearns would have stoned Norris dead. Quit hanging on the Norris nuts....:blood

[MAG1965]

Welcome to the forum.

I was and still am a huge leonard fan and the others here at ESb can testify to this. ;) But let's be honest; Leonard had a lot of legs left going into the Norris fight while Hagler had nothing going into the Leonard fight.


I love Leonard but I can't in good conscience give Leonard credit for beating a shell.

The Norris fight accurately gauges leonard's ability to handle to deal with fast moving boxers, something that Hagler no longer was. Hagler had no speed at the time of their meeting while Norris was by far the fastest opponent of ray's career. As was hector Camacho. In those fights we see the stark contrast in performance. It was the speed he couldnt deal with.

Tommy Hearns, who didnt quite possess Terry's versatilty or speed, would have won comfortably but didnt possess 15 round stamina. Tommy had the right plan but the tank was only half full. Terry had no such weaknesses and as a result, left Leonard swatting the air.Are you actually saying that Leonard was prime for Terry and Camacho? Anyone would have beaten Ray when Hector did, that was almost 10 years after his last win. And with Terry, Ray was weak and flat and inactive. Hearns was much better than Terry Norris. Hearns was very versatile. He outboxed Virgil Hill and Wilfred Benitez.

[Robbi]

Redrooster, happens to come to the conclusion that Leonard was still in his prime against Norris simply because he used his legs and moved around the ring. This man has "double standards" as a tattoo on his forehead. Hagler was a shell? It makes everyone laugh. He must be embarrassed with his comments continually being shot down by posters on a near daily basis.

I have mentioned, more than once, about Camacho moving around the ring like a roadrunner against De La Hoya. However, Rooster has decided to ignore this whenever I've mentioned it.

If Leonard showed that running around the ring supports any claims that he was still in his prime, Camacho must have been as well. :good

[redrooster]

Man are you distorted in thinking....you Leonard beat a shell of a Hagler? You say Hagler lost his speed? Hagler never had any speed!! Leonard & Hagler were both a bit past it. But to use Norrois as measuring stick, hell Norris had no chin, and prime on prime, SRL would have handed Norris his ass. Tommy Hearns would have stoned Norris dead. Quit hanging on the Norris nuts....:blood

Speed is relative. Without it, an A-class fighter such as Hagler cannot put enough snap necessary to hurt the opponent, whoever it may be; even one such as Leonard. At the time of the fight, Hagler slowed to the point Ali had in his meeting with Young. When I first put on a set of gloves, the trainer told me to snap my punches, often reminding me not to push them out. This is often the problem with fighters on their last legs such as Ali in 1976 or Hagler in 1986/87.

Indeed, you are right-Hagler had become a plodder at the time of his fight with Leonard/retirement.

With Leonard, the situation was quite different. here was a fighter that even tho age 34, had most of his skills were intact and on a usable level comparable with Bernard Hopkins, Archie Moore, Dick Tiger, Joe Walcott...which you will see ray admit to in part 1 of this video.

Click here for proof-->

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

There is no denying or trying to hide it as embarrassing as the loss may be. Ray had his legs and from what I can see, used the combinations quite well early in the fight. His problem? Norris was not a stationary target but moved out quickly, scoring before Ray leonard could get set, that there was nothing to hit but air. With his great speed, he could get away with it.

No shame in losing to Terry. Still a great fighter in my book.

A side note: And from what I often see, Tommy also had a glass jaw. Remember, that's not me talking, it's the consensus.

[redrooster]

Are you actually saying that Leonard was prime for Terry and Camacho? Anyone would have beaten Ray when Hector did, that was almost 10 years after his last win. And with Terry, Ray was weak and flat and inactive. Hearns was much better than Terry Norris. Hearns was very versatile. He outboxed Virgil Hill and Wilfred Benitez.

I've seen Leonard's prime. He was incredible. In fact I was watching the fight last night. My friends and I talked about that right hand for hours. But we also remarked how Tommy's hit and move strategy completely threw Ray off. Ray simply could not adjust the way hagler did. With that in mind, I knew that if he EVER faced off with a Micheal Nunn type, it would be over for him.

How many fighters has Ray faced that had the speed of Norris?

Ray doesnt have the experience necessary to cope with the style of Terry, who is always on the move, scoring on the way in and then moving back out of range. Norris & Camacho are these types of fighters and when they put it together in an aggressive mode, spell big trouble for Ray.

Moreover, if you study the genius of Ray Leonard, you will note that he does take some time while looking for the right openings to score. This was the kiss of death with Norris who would capatilize on his frequent pause and stare style.

In short, it's Terry's style that was responsible for his defeat and his inability to properly perpare for his style. Not sure if there's any amount of preparation he could take for a fighter like Terry and he lacked the firepower to take out terry with one blow.

Still a great warrior and one of the 80s best. :good

[COULDHAVEBEEN]

Did boxing history ever see a better window in time?

These 4 had everything! The perfect blend - that's why we're still talking about them.

Happy to say I rated the least favourite of some, Leonard, as personal favourite.

But Hearns was great to watch, and Hagler & Duran were just plain great!

Bye & bye, the book 'Four Kings' about these particular guys is an absolute gem!!

[MrMarvel]

Norris' win over Leonard was a quality win. Leonard still had a lot left. How old was he? Mid-30s? It wasn't like he had fought a lot of fights and suffered significant wear and tear like Hagler. Norris was just a lot better than Leonard. People don't give Norris enough credit.

I would pick Norris to beat Leonard whenever they fought. This doesn't mean that Norris would win, just that I wouldn't bet against him. Remember how Leonard struggled with Ayub Kalule? Leonard was getting tagged, and looked amateurish at times. Remember Leonard dusting himself off after Kevin Howard put him down (although only a bit over welterweight for that one)? Leonard was stunned by Marcos Geraldo in an earlier test at middleweight. Norris was lightyears better than those guys.

The problem in the Norris fight, aside from Norris' excellent boxing skills and speed, wasn't so much Leonard's age as it was that the bigger men were just, well, too big for him. This tells us how far Hagler had slipped in his skills by the time he met Leonard. A year or two earlier, and Leonard wouldn't have stood much of a chance of seeing the final bell.

For the person describing Hagler as "plodding," it's clear this person hasn't watched many Hagler fights. You lose credibility when you make silly comments like that.

[ringsider]

Norris' win over Leonard was a quality win. Leonard still had a lot left. How old was he? Mid-30s? It wasn't like he had fought a lot of fights and suffered significant wear and tear like Hagler. Norris was just a lot better than Leonard. People don't give Norris enough credit.

I would pick Norris to beat Leonard whenever they fought. This doesn't mean that Norris would win, just that I wouldn't bet against him. Remember how Leonard struggled with Ayub Kalule? Leonard was getting tagged, and looked amateurish at times. Remember Leonard dusting himself off after Kevin Howard put him down (although only a bit over welterweight for that one)? Leonard was stunned by Marcos Geraldo in an earlier test at middleweight. Norris was lightyears better than those guys.

The problem in the Norris fight, aside from Norris' excellent boxing skills and speed, wasn't so much Leonard's age as it was that the bigger men were just, well, too big for him. This tells us how far Hagler had slipped in his skills by the time he met Leonard. A year or two earlier, and Leonard wouldn't have stood much of a chance of seeing the final bell.

For the person describing Hagler as "plodding," it's clear this person hasn't watched many Hagler fights. You lose credibility when you make silly comments like that.

You guys are amazing!! :happyYou all want to say how great Norris was because he beat an old tired Leonard, who then got his ass handed to him by Camacho, ........but then because Leonard made Hagler look like the bumbling amatuer southpaw foot in the bucket plodder he was, (and always was) you want say how Hagler was past his best......Hagler was most over rated MW in history, he never had a best.

And Leonard beats Terry Norris prime on prime all day everyday, and twice on sundays. And Sugar Ray would have beaten Hagler any day, any time because Hagler could not box a lick.......:good

[MAG1965]

I've seen Leonard's prime. He was incredible. In fact I was watching the fight last night. My friends and I talked about that right hand for hours. But we also remarked how Tommy's hit and move strategy completely threw Ray off. Ray simply could not adjust the way hagler did. With that in mind, I knew that if he EVER faced off with a Micheal Nunn type, it would be over for him.

How many fighters has Ray faced that had the speed of Norris?

Ray doesnt have the experience necessary to cope with the style of Terry, who is always on the move, scoring on the way in and then moving back out of range. Norris & Camacho are these types of fighters and when they put it together in an aggressive mode, spell big trouble for Ray.

Moreover, if you study the genius of Ray Leonard, you will note that he does take some time while looking for the right openings to score. This was the kiss of death with Norris who would capatilize on his frequent pause and stare style.

In short, it's Terry's style that was responsible for his defeat and his inability to properly perpare for his style. Not sure if there's any amount of preparation he could take for a fighter like Terry and he lacked the firepower to take out terry with one blow.

Still a great warrior and one of the 80s best. :goodIt was Hearns jab and picking Ray apart up and down with the jab which hurt Ray so much. Tommy was fast and Ray could not get close until Tommy decided to try to knock Ray out. Tommy could have beaten up Ray everytime if Tommy would have just boxed him and not tried to land anything significant. Terry Norris got hit with a jab of Brown and rocked and stopped. Ray in his prime had a good jab which would have hurt Terry. Terry only had a 71 inch reach. Ray knocks out Terry Norris in his prime. What beat Ray with Norris was speed and age. Ray at 34 was way past his prime because he was too inactive when he should have fought in his prime. You are trying to make Terry Norris into this ATG. He does not have the chin. Ray and Tommy and Marvin and Roberto were all time greats. Terry was not.

[redrooster]

It was Hearns jab and picking Ray apart up and down with the jab which hurt Ray so much. Tommy was fast and Ray could not get close until Tommy decided to try to knock Ray out. Tommy could have beaten up Ray everytime if Tommy would have just boxed him and not tried to land anything significant. Terry Norris got hit with a jab of Brown and rocked and stopped. Ray in his prime had a good jab which would have hurt Terry. Terry only had a 71 inch reach. Ray knocks out Terry Norris in his prime. What beat Ray with Norris was speed and age. Ray at 34 was way past his prime because he was too inactive when he should have fought in his prime. You are trying to make Terry Norris into this ATG. He does not have the chin. Ray and Tommy and Marvin and Roberto were all time greats. Terry was not.


If you were talking about Hagler's jab I would agree with you. Hagler busted people up with the jab and put opponents on queer street; Leonard did not.

Therefore, Leonard cannot hurt Norris. But we know Terry can hurt Leonard.

Face it, Terry is just too fast with him. If Ray thought he had his hands full with Tommy's jab, he'd run into far worse with Terry because Terry had a lot more going for him than just a jab. he KNEW how to set even leonard up for his best shots.

i dont really believe that talk about Ray's layoff hurting him in the Norris fight becuz of the fact he beat hagler with one fight in 5 yrs. People also talk about Terry as having a glass jaw but notice that after all was said and done, that it was Terry who put a hurting on leonard?

Facts speak for themselves. he even hurt Ray to the body in the opening round. Again in round two he sent Ray to the canvas with a counterpunch to fast to defend against. Ray had no chance but to go down; his legs gave way.

Again in the third round, Terry set up the perfect combination-a jab, a right to the body and a left uppercut. After that, I lost count. But Ray was thru for the night in round 3.

That's how good Norris was. Even 3-1 fav, 5 time champion Leonard was helpless before him. Ray had never faced an opponent with the diversity, the speed, the power, the defense, the competitiveness all combined into one opponent.

Leonard is still great no doubt but head to head he knows Terry Norris is too much challenge.

[MAG1965]

If you were talking about Hagler's jab I would agree with you. Hagler busted people up with the jab and put opponents on queer street; Leonard did not.

Therefore, Leonard cannot hurt Norris. But we know Terry can hurt Leonard.

Face it, Terry is just too fast with him. If Ray thought he had his hands full with Tommy's jab, he'd run into far worse with Terry because Terry had a lot more going for him than just a jab. he KNEW how to set even leonard up for his best shots.

i dont really believe that talk about Ray's layoff hurting him in the Norris fight becuz of the fact he beat hagler with one fight in 5 yrs. People also talk about Terry as having a glass jaw but notice that after all was said and done, that it was Terry who put a hurting on leonard?

Facts speak for themselves. he even hurt Ray to the body in the opening round. Again in round two he sent Ray to the canvas with a counterpunch to fast to defend against. Ray had no chance but to go down; his legs gave way.

Again in the third round, Terry set up the perfect combination-a jab, a right to the body and a left uppercut. After that, I lost count. But Ray was thru for the night in round 3.

That's how good Norris was. Even 3-1 fav, 5 time champion Leonard was helpless before him. Ray had never faced an opponent with the diversity, the speed, the power, the defense, the competitiveness all combined into one opponent.

Leonard is still great no doubt but head to head he knows Terry Norris is too much challenge.
Leonard would beat Terry easily in his prime. You actually think the Feb. 1991 version of Ray is the real Ray? Ray was too good for Terry. he would knock him out easily enough. Ray always found guys chins and Terry's he would find and stop him. I think Ray's jab would be the key with Terry. Norris was ok but he was not great. The guy lost to Simon Brown which started with a jab. Good fighter and decent reign, but not great. He didn't even have lateral movement. He wasted his time hoping up and down and not side to side. Quick hands, but Leonard would have stopped him in about 3 or 4. Terry is not an ATG..

[redrooster]

Leonard would beat Terry easily in his prime. You actually think the Feb. 1991 version of Ray is the real Ray? Ray was too good for Terry. he would knock him out easily enough. Ray always found guys chins and Terry's he would find and stop him. I think Ray's jab would be the key with Terry. Norris was ok but he was not great. The guy lost to Simon Brown which started with a jab. Good fighter and decent reign, but not great. He didn't even have lateral movement. He wasted his time hoping up and down and not side to side. Quick hands, but Leonard would have stopped him in about 3 or 4. Terry is not an ATG..

Now you know I'd love to take your word for the claims you just made but all the facts are on my side. It was much too one sided for me to conclude Ray was even remotely Terry's equal and as we all know, fights are decided in the ring, not on paper. :nono

It is not enough to merely say that so and so had a crappy chin. YOu obviously overlook his assets as a fighter and that is where people have gone wrong.

Besides, Terry wasnt the only one with chin problems. Ray Leonard has been dropped by Kevin Howard at the age of 27. Do you think Howard would have dropped Terry Norris? Unlikely to happen. What do you think Terry would have done to him? It's likely that Ray would have met with the same fate against Terry, only sooner.

I know it seems illogical to even compare the two considering their reputations but I've seen stranger things happen in boxing. Look what happened in the Cuevas hearns fight. The Ali-Foreman fight. Foreman Frazier fight. The Ali-Liston fight. All contests in which the challenger raised the level of his game and overwhelmed the favorite.

miracles happen dont they? And Norris was definitely the miracle man the night he upset the odds. He beat the reigning five time world champion, unbeaten in 11 years. That's a fact!

Terry didnt have the problems with speedy fighters that Leoanrd had. This can be seen in the Taylor fight. Just as in the leonard fight, it took about a round and a half for Terry to start working his concussive magic.

So cheer up! Ray Leonard is in good company. John Mugabi, Simon Brown, Maurice Blocker, Don Curry, Meldrick Taylor, Carl Daniels that fell to Terry's blazing fists.

I would love adding Julian Jackson to that list but facts deter me from doing so. To make claims without any proof would be dishonest. You'll never see me boasting how Terry is above Jackson. :nono

[ringsider]

So Jackson must be above Leonard with your flawed logic......

[redrooster]

So Jackson must be above Leonard with your flawed logic......

I'll make this short and sweet: Jackson knew the secret for dealing with blazing fast boxers and succeeded; Leonard didnt.

Both were great but Jackson adjusted to adversity more easily

[MAG1965]

Now you know I'd love to take your word for the claims you just made but all the facts are on my side. It was much too one sided for me to conclude Ray was even remotely Terry's equal and as we all know, fights are decided in the ring, not on paper. :nono

It is not enough to merely say that so and so had a crappy chin. YOu obviously overlook his assets as a fighter and that is where people have gone wrong.

Besides, Terry wasnt the only one with chin problems. Ray Leonard has been dropped by Kevin Howard at the age of 27. Do you think Howard would have dropped Terry Norris? Unlikely to happen. What do you think Terry would have done to him? It's likely that Ray would have met with the same fate against Terry, only sooner.

I know it seems illogical to even compare the two considering their reputations but I've seen stranger things happen in boxing. Look what happened in the Cuevas hearns fight. The Ali-Foreman fight. Foreman Frazier fight. The Ali-Liston fight. All contests in which the challenger raised the level of his game and overwhelmed the favorite.

miracles happen dont they? And Norris was definitely the miracle man the night he upset the odds. He beat the reigning five time world champion, unbeaten in 11 years. That's a fact!

Terry didnt have the problems with speedy fighters that Leoanrd had. This can be seen in the Taylor fight. Just as in the leonard fight, it took about a round and a half for Terry to start working his concussive magic.

So cheer up! Ray Leonard is in good company. John Mugabi, Simon Brown, Maurice Blocker, Don Curry, Meldrick Taylor, Carl Daniels that fell to Terry's blazing fists.

I would love adding Julian Jackson to that list but facts deter me from doing so. To make claims without any proof would be dishonest. You'll never see me boasting how Terry is above Jackson. :nonoRay in 1991 was 10 years from his prime. When prime I mean a guy who was active. Ray would have stopped Terry in his prime, no competition in skills or speed. But if you want to think that Ray Leonard in 1991 was the real Leonard of 1981 then that is up to you. Terry was a good fighter but no way ATG but probably HOF, but no where near Leonard in ranking. Leonard would have never been knocked down with a jab by Simon Brown. Ray took Thomas Hearns jab over and over again. Terry never fought the guys Ray fought. Hearns would have stopped Terry in one or two rounds similar to the Jackson fight. Meldrick Taylor was too high in weight and that fight was unfair, and Curry was way past his prime. Mugabi was not prime at all either. When Terry fought prime good fighters his chin usually failed.

[MAG1965]

I'll make this short and sweet: Jackson knew the secret for dealing with blazing fast boxers and succeeded; Leonard didnt.

Both were great but Jackson adjusted to adversity more easilyRay adjusted to adversity better than any fighter in history. By the time he fought Norris he was past him prime and flat as a fighter. I am surprised you actually rate Ray on a fight when he was washed up. If you do that with all fighters no one will be great and you can manufacture the ratings to benefit your favorite fighters. I think the Hearns fight of 1989, it took a lot out of Ray. He went to the hospital after that fight. Norris was good but you are overrating a guy who really was knocked out whenever he fought a prime strong guy. The key to Jackson was power. There was not that much of a secret to it. He had tremendous power. Julian would be being beaten up a little and his opponent would be having an easy enough time hitting him, then he was in the Jackson range and boom. Incredible power. The fight with Terry was not competitive. Jackson stopped him cold. The only man who was good enough to overcome that was McCallum. Terry was no McCallum. McCallum was all time great, and Terry was not.

[ringsider]

I'll make this short and sweet: Jackson knew the secret for dealing with blazing fast boxers and succeeded; Leonard didnt.

Both were great but Jackson adjusted to adversity more easily

What a crock.....:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[brando18b4h]

Duran
Hearns
Hagler
Leonard

[MrMarvel]

There were six years between Norris and Camacho. Leonard had not been in the ring for all those years and was facing an excellent technician who was regularly competing. Leonard was, what? 41 years old?

When Leonard faced Norris he was coming off a fight with Duran in which he won every round. He was fit as a fiddle. Unlike such trench fighters as Hagler, Leonard did not suffer a lot of wear and tear. You can't excuse the Norris performance by referencing the Camacho performance. Norris deserves credit for handing Leonard's ass to him. It was an amazing performance. My only problem with the fight is that Norris let up in the later rounds apparently out of respect.

Norris is an underrated fighter. He had quality wins over John Mugabi, Meldrick Taylor, Donald Curry, Maurice Blocker, Simon Brown, and some others. His great flaw was his chin and lapses in concentration. But this is all the more reason why Leonard should have looked better against Norris - if Leonard was as great as his fans claim. You can tell the Norris fight drives Leonard fans crazy by the way they are so quick to excuse it.

Leonard did not make "bumbling amatuer southpaw foot in the bucket plodder he was." Your description of Hagler - "he cannot box a lick" - is so off the mark that we can say with confidence that you don't know the sport. Hagler won that fight against Leonard despite Hagler's diminished skill (over almost 70 fights, many of them conducted in the trenches with the toughest middleweights around). I am the first to admit that Leonard looked impressive against Hagler and that Hagler looked old. But, as with fight with Hearns and the rematch with Duran, Leonard can thank circumstances and not skill for the win.


You guys are amazing!! :happyYou all want to say how great Norris was because he beat an old tired Leonard, who then got his ass handed to him by Camacho, ........but then because Leonard made Hagler look like the bumbling amatuer southpaw foot in the bucket plodder he was, (and always was) you want say how Hagler was past his best......Hagler was most over rated MW in history, he never had a best.

And Leonard beats Terry Norris prime on prime all day everyday, and twice on sundays. And Sugar Ray would have beaten Hagler any day, any time because Hagler could not box a lick.......:good

[Bokaj]

There were six years between Norris and Camacho. Leonard had not been in the ring for all those years and was facing an excellent technician who was regularly competing. Leonard was, what? 41 years old?

When Leonard faced Norris he was coming off a fight with Duran in which he won every round. He was fit as a fiddle. Unlike such trench fighters as Hagler, Leonard did not suffer a lot of wear and tear. You can't excuse the Norris performance by referencing the Camacho performance. Norris deserves credit for handing Leonard's ass to him. It was an amazing performance. My only problem with the fight is that Norris let up in the later rounds apparently out of respect.

You have a point here. But even if Leonard wasn't shot, he was clearly past his best and fighting at a weight class above his natural one. Duran, for example, has several losses at an similar age, so it's not a terribly big deal. But a very good win for Norris, nonetheless.

[ringsider]

There were six years between Norris and Camacho. Leonard had not been in the ring for all those years and was facing an excellent technician who was regularly competing. Leonard was, what? 41 years old?

When Leonard faced Norris he was coming off a fight with Duran in which he won every round. He was fit as a fiddle. Unlike such trench fighters as Hagler, Leonard did not suffer a lot of wear and tear. You can't excuse the Norris performance by referencing the Camacho performance. Norris deserves credit for handing Leonard's ass to him. It was an amazing performance. My only problem with the fight is that Norris let up in the later rounds apparently out of respect.

Norris is an underrated fighter. He had quality wins over John Mugabi, Meldrick Taylor, Donald Curry, Maurice Blocker, Simon Brown, and some others. His great flaw was his chin and lapses in concentration. But this is all the more reason why Leonard should have looked better against Norris - if Leonard was as great as his fans claim. You can tell the Norris fight drives Leonard fans crazy by the way they are so quick to excuse it.

Leonard did not make "bumbling amatuer southpaw foot in the bucket plodder he was." Your description of Hagler - "he cannot box a lick" - is so off the mark that we can say with confidence that you don't know the sport. Hagler won that fight against Leonard despite Hagler's diminished skill (over almost 70 fights, many of them conducted in the trenches with the toughest middleweights around). I am the first to admit that Leonard looked impressive against Hagler and that Hagler looked old. But, as with fight with Hearns and the rematch with Duran, Leonard can thank circumstances and not skill for the win.

Just a bunch of Hagler fan excuses. Leonard could see it, and so could anyone who knew boxing. Leonard was a league above Hagler in the boxing skills department. Hagler could not box a lick!! Just watch his fights. Hagler was always slow and plodding......always....

[redrooster]

Ray adjusted to adversity better than any fighter in history. By the time he fought Norris he was past him prime and flat as a fighter. I am surprised you actually rate Ray on a fight when he was washed up. If you do that with all fighters no one will be great and you can manufacture the ratings to benefit your favorite fighters. I think the Hearns fight of 1989, it took a lot out of Ray. He went to the hospital after that fight. Norris was good but you are overrating a guy who really was knocked out whenever he fought a prime strong guy. The key to Jackson was power. There was not that much of a secret to it. He had tremendous power. Julian would be being beaten up a little and his opponent would be having an easy enough time hitting him, then he was in the Jackson range and boom. Incredible power. The fight with Terry was not competitive. Jackson stopped him cold. The only man who was good enough to overcome that was McCallum. Terry was no McCallum. McCallum was all time great, and Terry was not.

not better than jackson i'm afraid because while Terry left Jackson in the dust for the entire first round, JJ regrouped beautifully in round two and took care of his man. Leonard on the other hand, tried to emulate the formula for success used by Jackson and couldnt do it.

Jackson succeeded. Leonard failed. Jackson showed he knew how to deal with adversity (Norris) while leonard struggled and could not.

It's a fact

And please dont tell me Leonard had nothing left. The FILMS do not support your claims.

In the Hagler fight we saw the same footwork and the combinations. We saw the combinations in the lalonde and Hearns fight. And in uno mas, Tim Ryan congradulated Ray telling him, "what an absolutely masterful performance!"

Not a mark on him except for a little cut above the eye. Did he resemble Joe Louis from the Marciano fight? He more cloesly resembled Roy Jones Jr.

In fact, Steve Farhood made the claim that he fought the perfect fight and we all know you cant fight the perfect fight if the fighter is washed up. You just told me that ray was washed up but he cant be with these kinds of rave reviews. Not only that but he was winning, for 11 years in fact. And also, he hadnt lost a fight in 11 years and had won five champioships. How can he be washed up?

I think you are embarrassed to admit Norris was the better man.

Now dont get me wrong. Ray Leonard is truly one of the greats. Just a few nights ago some friends of mine were reminiscing over the right hand that ruined the legs of Tommy Hearns. I even have him proudly placed in my top 50of all time. Is he in the same class as Terry Norris? Probably not. A few more high profile wins over the new crop of the 80s stars would have have sealed the deal for me. Sadly, those wins are missing.

[redrooster]

You have a point here. But even if Leonard wasn't shot, he was clearly past his best and fighting at a weight class above his natural one. Duran, for example, has several losses at an similar age, so it's not a terribly big deal. But a very good win for Norris, nonetheless.

I dont see an extra pounds as being a real problem. he'd been at a weight of 153 1/4 since 1979. It shouldnt have been responsible for the way he was blown out by Norris. The speed of Norris was responsible for that.