Marvin Hagler's prime?

[Bomp]

Just wondering what people's opinions are on when exactly was his prime. Someone on a previous thread (I think it was the 100 greatest boxers ever thread) mentioned that his prime was 77-79 i.e. that he peaked before he won the title. During this period he avenged a previos loss and a previous draw (emphatically boxrec suggests) but he also drew with antuofermo.

I have seen bits of some of his fights pre world title (including Alan Minter) and would agree that his style seemed slicker than later on in his career (he seemed to have good rythm and countered well), he would also arguably be at his physical prime (athletically) in his mid to late twenties.

After winning the world title (in the clips I have seen) his style seems to change to a more brutal come forward style. It's as if he figured out that he had this solid chin that his challengers couldn't hurt him, so he would come forward relentlessly and batter them. His knockout streak up to and after the Duran fight is impressive (which includes antuofermo who he drew with previously)
This leads me to the question of which version of Hagler was the most effective, the slick moving one who beat the likes of Minter, or the brutal version who roughed up and Knocked Hearns out?

[ElTerribleMorales]

the Hagler that beat the likes of Hearns

[jbirdy]

deffinately the hearnes hammering hagler. i cant think of many middleweights in history who could have stood up to that. maybe your robbinsons and your la mota's. but deffinately not your b hops, jones jrs or your taylor's.

[SimonH]

Just wondering what people's opinions are on when exactly was his prime. Someone on a previous thread (I think it was the 100 greatest boxers ever thread) mentioned that his prime was 77-79 i.e. that he peaked before he won the title. During this period he avenged a previos loss and a previous draw (emphatically boxrec suggests) but he also drew with antuofermo.

I have seen bits of some of his fights pre world title (including Alan Minter) and would agree that his style seemed slicker than later on in his career (he seemed to have good rythm and countered well), he would also arguably be at his physical prime (athletically) in his mid to late twenties.

After winning the world title (in the clips I have seen) his style seems to change to a more brutal come forward style. It's as if he figured out that he had this solid chin that his challengers couldn't hurt him, so he would come forward relentlessly and batter them. His knockout streak up to and after the Duran fight is impressive (which includes antuofermo who he drew with previously)
This leads me to the question of which version of Hagler was the most effective, the slick moving one who beat the likes of Minter, or the brutal version who roughed up and Knocked Hearns out?

That would be me....

IMO, Hagler was at his very best in his November 1977 bout with the then unbeaten top contender Mike Colbert. His Prime began IMO, with his revenge victory over Winky 'The Worm' Monroe, and finished with his destruction of 'Sugar' Ray Seales in February 1979.

The first Antuofermo fight, perhaps was the first indication Hagler had indeed 'peaked'. And although Hagler was unlucky to only get a draw; much like de la Hoya against Trinidad, he did not help his case by boxing on the run in the championship rounds.

The closest Hagler came to achieving his best form as champ, was perhaps against Tony Sibson in 1983.

By the time he was fighting Hearns, he was relying virtually purely on his power and his chin, it was an amazing fight, but Hagler had well and truly peaked by then.

[southpaw1991]

after he won the title he lost his hunger and thought he'd accomplished everything. he got sloppy and started running in proper running shoes instead of his old heavy boots. even though the proper footwear weighed a fraction compared to the boots, his times were slower after he was champ. even if he won the title when he was in his prime, the same thing would of happened to his performance

[Taeth]

deffinately the hearnes hammering hagler. i cant think of many middleweights in history who could have stood up to that. maybe your robbinsons and your la mota's. but deffinately not your b hops, jones jrs or your taylor's.

Robinson would have died against Hagler there... Roy Jones Jr. would have beaten him because he alot faster than Hearns, and he hit harder than Hearns who hurt stunned Hagler a few times. Hagler was strong, but I don't feel he was exceptionally stronger than Taylor. Also B-hops would techinically picked Hagler apart, and he would come into the fight larger than Hagler. Lamotta would be outmuscled by Hagler, and KTFO... Robinson couldn't keep Lamotta away in their first fight... well Hagler is bigger, stronger, faster than Lamotta and would have killed Robinson.

[Wacko3205]

I often go back & forth on the subject of Hagler's prime...I think that Hagler shined the most around 1981 on...but I know that everyone will say that was his slide.

Personally...I just thought that he got better with age. I know that as he got older he started relying on his power & chin & that that is a no no...but I think that it made his performances more dramatic & gritty.

[Unknowndonor]

His prime= late 70s, his most exciting time= early 80s.

[BoomBoom]

I just think he had along prime. Simple as that. Its like saying which B-Hop was more prime...vs. Taylor or vs. Johnson. Both

[SimonH]

I just think he had along prime. Simple as that. Its like saying which B-Hop was more prime...vs. Taylor or vs. Johnson. Both

Well you would say that, wouldn't you 'Boom Boom'? Or should that be Alan

[SimonH]

His prime= late 70s, his most exciting time= early 80s.

Change early 80's, to mid 80's, and I agree 100%.

[BoomBoom]

I just think he had along prime. Simple as that. Its like saying which B-Hop was more prime...vs. Taylor or vs. Johnson. Both

Well you would say that, wouldn't you 'Boom Boom'? Or should that be Alan

?? Alan?

[SimonH]

I just think he had along prime. Simple as that. Its like saying which B-Hop was more prime...vs. Taylor or vs. Johnson. Both

Well you would say that, wouldn't you 'Boom Boom'? Or should that be Alan

?? Alan?

LOL, I thought that might go over everyones head, it is a pathetic Britkid joke

I suspect your name is in honour of Ray Mancini, but 'Boom Boom' was also the nickname of Alan Minter, who lost the Middleweight Championship to Hagler in 1980.

As my argument is that Hagler was at his best pre World Championship, you would expect Alan Minter to claim that, that is wrong, and that he met prime Hagler in 1980...

Hence the awful joke...

[BoomBoom]

I just think he had along prime. Simple as that. Its like saying which B-Hop was more prime...vs. Taylor or vs. Johnson. Both

Well you would say that, wouldn't you 'Boom Boom'? Or should that be Alan

?? Alan?

LOL, I thought that might go over everyones head, it is a pathetic Britkid joke

I suspect your name is honour of Ray Mancini, but 'Boom Boom' was also the nickname of Alan Minter, who lost the Middleweight Championship to Hagler in 1980.

As my argument is that Hagler was at his best pre World Championship, you would expect Alan Minter claim that, that is wrong, and that he met prime Hagler in 1980...

Hence the awful joke...

Aha. I gotcha. took a few minutes and a bad headache though . Minter was always one of those forgettable fighters to me

[LBSCFC]

hagler in his later championship years although winning the bigger fights was a lot more flat footed (hearns, mugabi)

undoubtedly his boxing peak was around 76/77 when fighting on the tough philadelphia circuit against the likes of briscoe,hart and monroe. he combined a granite chin with power and also very underrated boxing skills and movement