Who was better....

[Violent Demise]

Hearns
Hagler
Leonard

[CutMeMick]

I've followed the sport closely for many years, although I probably haven't watched as many fights as you have. Buying or downloading old fights is not the way I like to spend my time and/or money.

For the most part I don't have the time either but I make time...
I've have a portable DVD player, I have fights in my I-Pod, I always carry a boxing mag. so I've got something to read.
I work 1 full time job and I also do some part time work. But I squeeze in time or find a way to make time for my boxing. Fights download for me while I sleep. I burn and convert fights while I'm out doing things.

I do spend time and money on this cause it's a passion of the sport it's something that's been a part of me for so long. All I heard growing up was boxing talk between my uncles and dad. I've mentioned this before but my name is actually "Roberto" (I go by Robert) because my pops named me after Roberto Duran his fav. boxer.

So if your coming out and saying you don't understand why Duran is ranked so high up in P4P list and at the same time what you've seen of his career has been limited and is somewhat based on his record vs. SRL, Hearns & Hagler and how his record looks on paper. Then maybe you should take some time to download some fights so that you can see for yourself with your very own eyes why Duran is so highly regarded.

I just feel that Durans greatness or for that matter any boxers greatness is NOT just about numbers but like I said, skills, opposition, adversity, titles and ofcourse record/numbers is also part of it.
Duran also happens to be the 1st Latino fighter to win titles in 4 div. something that JCC couldn't do, nore Alexis. (Oddly enough the only other one to have done this is not an ATG Leo Gamez)

A lot of it depends on what your criteria are for greatness. Lots of room for opinion there. Sure Duran is an all time great, but to be consistently ranked top 5 by so many, I don't agree. Not so much that he doesn't deserve it, just that there are several others who are equally deserving IMO, who never get ranked as high as he does.

That's something I can def. agree with.
Take Alexis Arguello for example...
Nevermind his career by the numbers as far as titles, wins etc. etc.
His skills and ring generalship was amazing and so elusive.
It's fucken magical to watch him fight, yet you rarely if any see him ranked in P4P lists.

p.s. your list is pretty good IMO, cheers keep up the good work

Thanks, it's so hard to try and make a list especially a P4P list.
Like I said my list changes often, I'm sure if you ask me next week to make another one. Without looking at this one it would look different.

[Master]

P4P

Hearns - welter to light heavy champ
Duran - greatest lightweight and beat Moore and Barclay
Hagler - best middleweight ever
SRL - Great heart, skills, chin but only at welter

[BIG H]

If they fought 12 round fights back then, then Hearns would've won a comfortable decision against SRL first time - and we all know what happened the 2nd time.

Mind you if my Aunty had bollox sh'ed be my uncle

Going back to the Duran argument. Anybody who thinks Duran is overrated and doesn't deserve his place on the all time p4p list has only watched him on Boxrec You can only tell so much on paper!

Have a look and see how many of the most respected boxing experts/writers/pundits don't have Duran top 10 all time p4p. I don't think you'll find 1!

I guess you're referring to me, since I don't see anyone else raising issues about Duran's exalted status.

Obviously has only watched him on Boxrec? OK dude if you say so. I've seen him plenty, but you go ahead and say what you want. Sure a boxer's record isn't everything, but it's a lot, unless you will tell me it doesn't count for a lot? I suppose you watched many many of his fights, and others, and done your own careful analysis? When you give your props to Calzaghe, what do you go on if it aint his record?

btw I never said he wasn't great, I only questioned whether or not he was that much greater than others who never get ranked as high. And I can give a lot of reasons based on fights they've won and lost, titles they've defended, etc. And I choose not to say yeah Duran must be top 5 just because a lot of people in the business say he is, but you go ahead and do that if you want.

Top 10 ain't too far out of line tho.

I wasn't specifically referring to you, this is an age old debate that has gone on for years on here and that's what I was referring to.

[Taeth]

What would happen if Hagler at foughten a natural middleweight version of Leonard, who could move for 15 rounds, and could punch equivalently harder at the weight? Leonard was untried for all intense and purposes against a guy at the highest weight he had ever been at. He hadn't had a real fight in three years, he couldn't maintain his movement for even 6 rounds. I think people are forgetting the factor of Hagler's size, and that with that advantage he was still on basically an even playing field with an old Duran, rusty Leonard, and he basically outchinned Hearns which Leonard had done before, and lesser guys have done since.

Marvin Hagler wasn't in his prime against SRL far from it, he had 66 fights and atleast 50 percent of those fights were tough. SRL wouldn't of even beat that version of Marvin Hagler, had he not demanded a bigger ring/gloves/12 rounds ETC.

And again just because a fighter started at a smaller weight class, doesn't mean thats there natural weight class. SRL went as high as almost a Light Heavyweight against Donny LaLonde, the size difference between 5'9 Marvin Hagler, 5'10 Sugar Ray Leonard isn't that much at all.

And i can't think of many Middleweights who moved gracefully, around the ring only RJJ/SRR. But a prime Marvin Hagler could cut the ring off very well.

Roberto Duran was not old he was coming off one of his best performances, against Davey Moore. Who was a highly rated prospect like David Reid, and Roberto Duran just battered him from pillar to post.

Roberto Duran was 152 for that fight and he was 156 for the Marvin Hagler fight. Roberto Duran may of not been at his best at Middleweight, but he was still very good at that weight. Which showed when he upset Iran Barkley at Middleweight in 1989.

Who had just come off beating Thomas Hearns, and Roberto Duran just ate all of Iran Barkley's shots like nothing. And Iran Barkley was a huge guy for a Middleweight he was like 6'1.

Lastly SRL didn't outchin Thomas Hearns you need to watch it again, SRL was outboxed throughout the fight. And Thomas Hearns suspect stamina let him down not his chin.

The fact is except for Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler didn't really have a size advantage. Over Thomas Hearns or Sugar Ray leonard. Marvin Hagler wasn't a big Middleweight at all.

You usually know what you are talking about, but I have seen all those Hagler fights, and most of them weren't wars at all. An example was Hagler vs Mugabi, Hagler boxed the shit out of Mugabi, Mugabi was a poor boxer, he had decent speed and good power, but he didn't land all that much against Hagler.

If Hearns wasn't a natural WW, why did he fight from 1977 to 1981 more or less at welterweight? Obviously he carried his power up, but it wasn't the same as what it was p4p at welterweight. Also are you seriously goign to argue Leonard was bigger than Hagler or close to the same size because he was taller? Maybe you are going to argue that Robinson was bigger than Lamotta because he was taller. That's stupid Leonard was way smaller then Hagler in the ring, he looked about 15 pounds lighter. You talk about all Hagler's wars, waht about what Leonard went through with Duran in their first fight? What he went through against Hearns? His detached retina? Him not fighting for 3 years. Hearns and Leonard were able to move up because of their skill, speed, and power. You are using height to compare size which is stupid because Mike Tyson was shorter than Leonard and Hearns, is he smaller? Hagler had so much more natural muscle density not to mention his concrete head that he was a very big middleweight like Lamotta. He didn't fight that many wars, and the guys you mentioned like Roldan were roll overs, I mean Michael Nunn ko'ed Roldan.

90% of his opponents Hagler steam rolled. Same with Hopkins who had limited troubles against guys like Echols, but you can't call those wars.

Also of course Hearns' chin let him down, obviously he was a little spent, but mostly his inability to fight on the inside, and his inability to take Ray's power let him down. He was tired, but so was Leoanrd, Leonard was getting battered the whole fight.

ALso I didn't read it but you said Duran-Hagler wasn't close? Maybe you should watch it again. Hagler barely won that fight, and that was because of his size advantage.

Also I am not comparing records I am comparing what I've seen and Hagler was barely better than these guys at his own weight class. The fact is that he could have moved up to crusierweight or higher had he foughten longer, he wasn't that much slower against Leoanrd than he was earlier, he didn't have the ring rust Leonard had, he should have won that fihgt, and he should have dominated Duran, but he couldn't. He wasn't the best tactician, he was relatively easy to hit against the top guys, and he wasnt' overly fast. He obviously was able to steamroll average competition because like I said he was in fact a great fighter, but not like Duran or Leonard or even Hearns.

[Taeth]

What makes these lists so subjective,it depends what you want to see out of a guy that determines where you rank them
Leanord is a dazziling fighter to watch
Hearns had a mean streak 7 miles wide and twice as deep
Hagler and Duran were more complete fighters
So any attempt to rate them against each other will get tainted with your own subjective desires for what you wish to see from a fighter

Obviously I like Leonard, but besides him I appreciate all the others equally, and I like them about the same. Just IMO Hagler wasn't as good as the rest p4p, not that he was way worse, but he wasn't as good.

[DAWGSWIN]

What makes these lists so subjective,it depends what you want to see out of a guy that determines where you rank them
Leanord is a dazziling fighter to watch
Hearns had a mean streak 7 miles wide and twice as deep
Hagler and Duran were more complete fighters
So any attempt to rate them against each other will get tainted with your own subjective desires for what you wish to see from a fighter

Obviously I like Leonard, but besides him I appreciate all the others equally, and I like them about the same. Just IMO Hagler wasn't as good as the rest p4p, not that he was way worse, but he wasn't as good.

I feel the same about Hagler. I would also take any of them over Hopkins. They were all crowd pleasers!

[Taeth]

p4p I think Hearns would have easily used his height and speed to outbox Hopkins, maybe even just him naturally going up to middleweight how he was.

p4p obviously Leonard is better than Bernard, it would be interesting though because HOpkins deals with speed and combinations so well, he was also pretty quick hismelf, but once again Hopkins beats the Leonard who came up to middleweight, but not a natural middleweight version of Leonard, Leonard against guys his own size was similar to Calzaghe, only a much sharper puncher, considerably faster, and better technique.

I think Hagler-Hopkins would be a great and even matchup. Hopkins has that ability to spoil any offense in the sport, he did it to some of the best offensive fighters in this generation (Trinidad, RJJ, Calzaghe, even a sharp ODLH had amazing offensive skills), also he spoiled an accurate puncher in Winky Wright who reminds me a lot of Hagler except that he was quicker and replaced power for defensive skills. Either way both of these guys can adapt in the ring like nobodies business, they both are street smart in there, and they both are amazingly well rounded.

vs Duran: I think its a toss up, I think it depends of their styles mesh, perhaps Hopkins' movement gives Duran a ton of problems, but I am not sure if even Hopkins being one of the best inside fighters I have ever seen could match Duran in the furnace.

I admit these guys skills, I mean Hopkins is one of my top 5 favorite fighters ever, and I still think he wouldn't fair so well against these three.

[ICB]

I'll reply to you tomorrow Taeth too late here and i'll have to break it all down, because you posted alot of good points.