The two fighters I loved watching more than anyone else and I never once thought about a p4p hypothetical matchup between the two. I think both guys would have gotten seriously hurt.

Hagler would have gotten serously hurt, however shrink mike down to middle and hagler wins one of the toughest fighters I have ever seen. Supposedly Hagler used to beat up on then light heavy michael spinks in sparring, so hagler could have fought light heavies. There was only 1 hagler and 1 mike tyson

If its a theoreatical who was the better fighter p4p, and not a theory that they could ever fight, then I would say Hagler was p4p the better fighter

But then again has any Heavyweight except Ali ever had the ame sort of skills as the lighter fighter?

larry holmes

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

larry holmes

He would be the other (only) heavyweight that I would probably agree on - but not quite

Originally Posted by BIG H

If its a theoreatical who was the better fighter p4p, and not a theory that they could ever fight, then I would say Hagler was p4p the better fighter

But then again has any Heavyweight except Ali ever had the ame sort of skills as the lighter fighter?

Different skills, it's horses for courses. At Heavy Weight a Higher % of every punch is going to KO you than at the lower weights and obviously there are physical differences like speed etc too.

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Originally Posted by BIG H

If its a theoreatical who was the better fighter p4p, and not a theory that they could ever fight, then I would say Hagler was p4p the better fighter

But then again has any Heavyweight except Ali ever had the ame sort of skills as the lighter fighter?

Different skills, it's horses for courses. At Heavy Weight a Higher % of every punch is going to KO you than at the lower weights and obviously there are physical differences like speed etc too.

people will laugh at me but tim witherspoon when he fought holmes he was so slick and so quick on hes feet when he done that ali impersanation

Tyson late stoppage....Even though Hagler was a very good boxer and a very good brawler Prime Mike was one of the most skillfull fighters i have ever seen even P4P.

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Originally Posted by BIG H

If its a theoreatical who was the better fighter p4p, and not a theory that they could ever fight, then I would say Hagler was p4p the better fighter

But then again has any Heavyweight except Ali ever had the ame sort of skills as the lighter fighter?

Different skills, it's horses for courses. At Heavy Weight a Higher % of every punch is going to KO you than at the lower weights and obviously there are physical differences like speed etc too.

people will laugh at me but tim witherspoon when he fought holmes he was so slick and so quick on hes feet when he done that ali impersanation

Originally Posted by cockey cockney

Tyson late stoppage....Even though Hagler was a very good boxer and a very good brawler Prime Mike was one of the most skillfull fighters i have ever seen even P4P.

hagler was middleweight tyson was heavyweight of course he would win tyson had some decent skills but i dont know about one of the best

Tyson had a perfect punch. That made up superbly for his deficiency in height and reach in his division. He would cock his arms and, instead of throwing his punches, he 'pops' them like a gun, and also puts his whole body into his punch as if leaning on to it - he uses his whole body as an anchor for his explosive punches. You can see that, for example, when he landed a perfect punch against Andrew Golota. A brawler like Hagler would be a good target for his punches.

I agree hagler would get hit and often but the problem is so would Mike (hypothetical same weight in reality of course mike would ko hagler) Hagler is going to throw back off, its not in his nature to ever back off he doesnt know how hed take some to give some and break mike down eventually

hagler is middleweight tyson is hw .. but anyway hagler has got much better chin than tyson no way he would get koed

If Hearns right hand couldn't KO Hagler, Tyson wouldn't either, in a p4p sense of course.

In a p4P comparison putting Tyson against Hagler is laughable...anyone picking Tyson knows nothing about either fighter....While Hagler defended his title for 7 years and 16 defences against legendary or near legendary opponents Tyson was beating on nobodies or old men for his title reign...during their title reigns Hagler defended against Duran, Hearns, Mugabi, Roldan, Hamsho, Antuofermo, etc. and Mike's Title reign lasted a little under 3 years against fighters like Thomas, Williams, Holmes (38 yrs old version), Spinks, Bruno, with the only truly threatening opponent being Tucker who took him the distance....In a p4p comparison there is just no logical way these two guys could be compared based on quality of opponents, longevity or legacy...