Calzaghe-Hagler?

[RozzySean]

That's valid, I am not sure I would see a younger Hagler putting that type of punishment on Calzaghe though. I think Calzaghe is better now than in his physical prime because he has improved as a boxer, I am not sure Hagler would find it super easy to hit him, I mean both Hopkins and Roy are old, they are still very quick and still amazingly accurate, and even Bernard had some difficulties finding Calzaghe as the night progressed because Joe doesn't slow down.

And like Rozzysean said, I don't think prime Hagler would be so eager to just pressure Calzaghe, and I don't think he is fast enough to catch Calzaghe coming in, consistently. Kessler was able to because he was orthodox, and Bernard was able to because he is an amazing counter puncher, but both gradually landed less, and less punches as Calzaghe maintained or increased the tempo, and got more into a rhythm.

As for Leonard, he hadn't fought in three years, so you can't really use him being good before in 15 round fights as evidence for the Hagler fight, especially against a guy so much bigger (Hagler's head probably weighed as much as Ray). I am looking back at Hagler's record and I honestly see a punch of pylons for him to walk over Minter, Watts, Hamani . I think a lot of what people see of Hagler is him fighting guys WAY worse than him, and if you remember when Foreman came back he was able to dominate guys and outbox them because they were so much below him. The guys on Hagler's list don't rate highly to me, and him not being able to stop Leonard even in 12 rounds or Duran in 15 makes me think HAgler wouldn't be too much for Calzaghe.

I can't argue against the reality that Hagler got stuck fighting a lot of people that were far below him during his championship period. It wasn't the best era for MW's. What I can say in defense of Hagler's list is that he DEMOLISHED all the lesser fighters put before him, more so than many other great champions, that were forced to defend against less than world class opponents for stretches of their careers. Considering that both Duran and Leonard are ATG's and lower weight or not, better fighters than any non-Hopkins fighter Calzaghe has faced. I'm not too troubled that he didn't stop them.

The only point I really disagree with you on is that Hagler was great counterpuncher, perhaps equal to Hopkins, but certainly not too far behind him, and he had better killer instict. He was a different style than Hopkins, but his countering was no less effective. He would explode out of counter-mode and go into full attack mode, unlike many other superb counterpunchers, and he was an amazing finisher once he got him man in trouble. If Hagler put Calzaghe on his ass like Jones or Hopkins did, I'm fairly certain that he could have pressed his advantage better than Jones or Hopkins. Hagler definately ate some shots by going for the kill, but he had the chin to take it and in the end he got was he was after.

It's not like I see Hagler an overwhelming favorite in this mythical bout. You can certainly make a legit case for Calzaghe. In some ways, they both suffered from the same problem of having trouble getting the big fights in their prime and having relatively weak opposition in the division during their reigns. Late in his career, Hagler got big fights against great WW's and LWM's moving up, and Calzaghe got big fights against great older fighters. Hagler took a loss on paper, and Calzaghe got a gift on paper.

My judgement is based in large amount that Hagler beat his second rate opponents worse than Calzaghe beat his, and that Hagler, even though he fought some smaller fighters, fought these fights were against better opposition than Calzaghe. As much as I respect Kessler, he is no Tommy Hearns, no matter the weight class, and I can't imagine guys like Brewer, Salem, Reid, Ashira, or Jiminez going the distance with Hagler.

That's fair enough as long people respect that Joe is somewhere in Hagler's league. I think you broke it down very well. I have Joe winning, but I can see the arguement for the other side. I still don't agree with Hagler being the counter puncher or tactician Bernard is/was though ;P

He wasn't the tactician that Bernard is/was, I agree 100%. It's almost like comparing apples and oranges to look at their counterpunching styles. Hopkins is the better counterpuncher in the pure sense of the word, but Hagler generated pressure and fury out of his counters in a way that Hopkins seldom showed because Bernard was/is such a disciplined tactician that he doesn't explode with the fury and abandon that Hagler usually put out.

Joe is absolutely in Hagler's league and it's a great discussion because they are both so great and provide interesting stylistic contrasts. You can make good cases for either fighter. I can see Joe's handspeed, angles, and movement frustrating Hagler and getting him off his gameplan, but I can also see Hagler cutting off the ring, pounding Joe in corners and against the ropes, switching between orthodox and southpaw effectively, and launching vicious counter combos.

My biggest pet peeve issue when discussing Hagler is many people (such as Ross) judge him based on the last few fights of his career and his mediocre performance against Duran. He gets painted as a one dimensional fighter. People forgot that he would start slow, box and wait on his openings before launching into full assault mode. At his best, he was a superb boxer AND an animal in the ring. Not too many fighter have had that combination.

I might like Hagler against Calzaghe more than Hagler against Hopkins. Even though he was known as a pressure fighter, he was at his best against fighters who brought the fight to him. Hopkins might have been a tougher matchup for him.