Printable View
I wanted to know about Haglers less known opponents (apart from Hearns, Leonard and Duran) and if they were the best around then. Were there more deserving opponents and was it a strong or weak middleweight era he domniated? How does his resume compare to the other 3 kings?
It was alright, I think like the division Hopkins dominated it was underrated, and he cleared out the middleweight division like Hopkins did before facing DUran and Leonard.
Hagler had a workman like resume....it wasn't flashy because 160 wasn't a flashy division until the likes of Hearns, Duran, and Leonard showed up. I think outside of the Hearns win, and destroying Minter the way he did, Hagler's biggest win was vs John Mugabi who was "the next big thing"...Mugabi was supposed to be the Jermain Taylor to Hagler's Bernard Hopkins but turned out to be the Jeff Lacy to Hagler's Joe Calzaghe.....and Marvin just worked him over round after round. Mugabi didn't have any quit in him in that fight, he just got the door slammed on him by a great fighter.
I think he beat Ray Leonard too....I don't have as much respect for Ray as I do Marvin, Ray was all flash and Marvin was all business, that bush league Ali didn't have the balls to FIGHT Marvin, he would run and then flurry at the end of each round....bullshit!
I think his resume was on a similar level, only Leonard's is better in the sense of that he beat all the other 'kings'.
Most importanly he beat guys like Obelmeijas, Roldan & Mugabi who would continue to have good careers even after he would dismantle them, as well as top-class guys like Minter & Antofuermo who were at least similar to the level of the current champs. This is in addition to the wins over Duran & Hearns & the fight with Leonard with probably the most debated decision in boxing history.
Would have been great to have seen him fight Monzon in his prime.
I don't think their records were that similar, Leonard faced Benitez, Hearns both in their prime division, and DUran was still a monster at welterweight. Hearns and him were still amazing moving up, but not quite the same way, they power carried well, but it wasn't as devastating as it was at WW.
Hopkins era underrrated? Nah, it was just very poor. Take a look at who he fought at Middleweight it's a horrible listQuote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Hagler's resume includes:
Hamsho
Antufuermo
Mugabi
Hearns
Leonard
Duran
Roldan
That's a good list
The problem with comparing resumes are the not so well known guys early on in the records. Nowadays when a touted talent's career is built the opponents (while steadily increasing in ability) are always expected to lose. Marvin had it real tough on the way up and had many 50/50 fights while still learning his trade. Much more participants in the sport back then, and getting past the tier just below world class was much harder than nowadays.
Bennie Briscoe was past his best, but he was still a pretty good fighter. Vito was decent, two. Most of his defenses were against #1 contenders. It was an era off good, not great, MW's and he handled most of them like an ATG handles fighters of that level - he dominated them.
I just watched Duran against Hagler and found it a wide points win for Hagler. 12-3 rounds. Judges had it a one point fight. Your thoughts?
i'd say that the middleweight division had better opposition when Hagler was champ than when Hopkins was champ, IMO though they're pretty even when it comes to terms of greatness, but to me at least, the last time that the middleweight division seemed pretty stacked was in the late 80's to mid 90's, there were loads of talent
the fact that Duran, a natural lightweight, went 15 rnds with an ATG in Hagler, who was the naturally bigger man, is an accomplishment in itselfQuote:
Originally Posted by gest12645
i know that, just pointing out that the judges were really off.
No, it not too far off, at least during Hopkins reign at MW. IMHO, Hopkins has made much of his legacy since losing his MW championship with dominate wins over Tarver and Pavlik, a clear win against Winky, and a debatable loss to Calzaghe. Guys like Obelmejias, Antuefermo, Hamsho, and Mugabi are at least as good as Joppy, Eastman, Vanderpool, and Echols. Prime Eastman and Vanderpool are probably a bit underrated, but so is Hamsho and Fully Obel. I think Hagler's win over Duran is better than Hopkins win over ODLH. I would consider Hagler's win over Hearns and B-Hop's win over Tito to be on a similar level.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
I disagree with your last comment, Thomas Hearns achieved alot above Middleweight. Where as Felix Trinidad didn't and he looked a bit out of his depth at Middleweight aswell IMO. Beating Thomas Hearns is a much better achievement.Quote:
Originally Posted by RozzySeanNo, it not too far off, at least during Hopkins reign at MW. IMHO, Hopkins has made much of his legacy since losing his MW championship with dominate wins over Tarver and Pavlik, a clear win against Winky, and a debatable loss to Calzaghe. Guys like Obelmejias, Antuefermo, Hamsho, and Mugabi are at least as good as Joppy, Eastman, Vanderpool, and Echols. Prime Eastman and Vanderpool are probably a bit underrated, but so is Hamsho and Fully Obel. I think Hagler's win over Duran is better than Hopkins win over ODLH. I would consider Hagler's win over Hearns and B-Hop's win over Tito to be on a similar level.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Bernard Hopkins' toughest fights before the big names came after him (but after RJJ got him)were vs Robert Allen.....ROBERT ALLEN!!!
Hopkins was tough and cagey but IMO Hagler is hands down the better of the two and in a fight pitting a PRIME Hopkins vs a PRIME Hagler you have to pick Hagler to win on points, big punch output, won the early AND the late rounds, had a rock solid chin, and a motor like no other! Added to which Marvin was a southpaw and B-Hop apparently didn't like southpaws.
Robert Allen was beating Bernard Hopkins in there 1st fight, until Mills Lane pushed Bernard Hopkins out of the ring IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
But Robert Allen acted like a total drama queen in the rematch, it was some of the most over dramatic acting i've ever seen in my life. He should of been ashamed of himself that night.
All three were dirty fights
Hagler was perhaps the last great old school fighter.
He had to earn everything he got.
He had to fight the best Philadelphia could throw at him in the 70s, and back then, that was basically half of the top ten Middleweights in the world!
He also had to learn from defeats. The Worm Monroe stumped him first time round and yet Hagler learnt and avenged the defeat twice.
He was the victim of a close defeat to Boogaloo Watts, but avenged that defeat.... twice!
Hagler got his title shots against Vito and Minter by beating half the top 10 fighters in the division.
As a champ from 1980 and 1983 Hagler became a star by beating the best the division could throw at him, which was slightly below par historically.
Hagler's body of worked from 1976 to 1983 compares to most Middleweights; Duran, Hearns and Leonard from 83 onwards, adds the cherry on the cake of his career.
Wins over
Watts (2)
Monroe (2)
Hart
Colbert (2)
Finnegan (2)
Briscoe
Seales (2 plus a draw; 2 fights before 1976)
Antuofermo (plus a draw)
Minter
Obelmejias (2)
Sibson
Hamsho (2; one after 83)
Were excellent foundations to a future great.
I think Hagler had a pretty good resume wish he would of fought Micheal Spinks after his lose to Leonard would of been a good fight.
Both Hopkins and James Toney were "Old School"
I'm as big a Hagler fan as there is out there, but Spinks would have been too much for him. In 1987, Spinks was HW champion having beaten Cooney and Larry Holmes. He was just too big for Marvin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
Hearns briefly held the WBA strap at that point and vacated and LaLonde picked up the WBC strap around that time. I wouldn't have minded if he moved up and had a rematch with Hearns or even fought LaLonde, but I think he was mentally done with boxing at that point.
Does anybody know if a rematch was discussed with Hagler and Hearns after the Leonard fight? I'm guessing Hearns probably didn't want anything to do with Hagler after fight one. I'm not sure LaLonde was a big enough name an payday for him. He could have tried to add a belt just for the sake of adding a belt (like Ray Leonard), but Hagler had too much integrity for those kind of games, like paying guys extra to drain themselves down in weight. I'm fairly certain Hagler would have beaten LaLonde even at 175.
Without a 15 rounder to your name, you cannot classify yourself as such, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Jorge Paez may have a case, but is a whole level and quite a bit below Hagler, maybe Starling has an argument, ditto McCallum, but neither where quite as Marvelous as Hagler.