Hagler

[Grimm]

I've seen what everyone thinks of Tyson, but what flaws did Hagler have IMO he was the best middleweight of all time and I see no flaws in his game.

[KOJOE90]

I am a huge Marvin Hagler fan and rate him right at the top of the all time Middleweight list. I say this meaning no disrespect to the like of Robinson, Monzon and Greb etc whom were all wonderfull fighters.

He had KO power in either hand, a cast iron chin, excellent speed and skills, always in great shape and very determined to win. He was also a southpaw whom could switch hit at ease.

The only major flaw (IMO) that he did show occasionaly in his career was at times picking the wrong tactics and fighting the wrong fight against the wrong fighter. Such as the first few rounds against Ray Leonard (fought in wrong stance) and his first fight against Vito Antuofermo (neglected in fighting) and to a lesser degree against Roberto Duran (showed too much respect).

Of course these are just my humble opinions and I am sure others may not agree.

[Gordon]

I agree

Marvin was possibly the best Middleweight in my life time. The three fights mentioned above were tactical nightmares in his part.

He managed to pull the last round to beat Duran....just.

I thought he beat Antuoferno .....but the draw was no suprise.

Leonard ..I originally had Marvin winning this fight by a point. Have since watched it a couple of dozen times and its still to close to call. Leonard hang on in the later stages, watch him clinging, looking at his corner and then fighting in bursts. Hagler should have taken him but started clowning with Leonard in the last round.

3 very close fights than Marvin should have won.

[crooked nose]

Hard to find any flaws in MMH. Maybe a tendency in some fights to load up on hard punches rather than throw combos. And sometimes he let his emotions get in the way - he didn't want to fight Ray Leonard, he wanted to kick his ass. Against Duran and Antuofermo he seemed a bit tight, not flowing. But against Minter before a hostile crowd, he was cool as the breeze. And something about the Hearns match brought out all the best in him. Hagler weathered everything thrown at him and hacked away at him. Still hard to believe that fight only lasted all of eight minutes. Will power was the key extra element in Hagler - his whole identity was being the middleweight champ.

[Gordon]

Minter, Hearns I totally agree. The Marvelous one fought the right fight.

The Leonard fight was similar to the first Leonard-Duran fight. Hagler was out to beat the Sugar man into oblivion, but underestimated his durability.

Leonard thought he could out muscle Duran and lost his title and undefeated record.

As for Hearns, Hagler took him to pieces.

Fights against Fully Obel, Tony Sibson, Mustapha Hamsho showed how technically gifted Marvin was.

A joy to watch any night,

[silkov]

Hagler was one of the all time greats yes, but the best of all time I don't think so.... I think Monzon would have had the tactics and style to beat Hagler, also a peak Robinson, then you have Stanley Ketchel, Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Jake Lamotta, Mike Gibbons... all of whom would have given Hagler lots of trouble, ...Dick Tiger and Emile Griffith are another two who I think would have had a shot at beating Hagler.
Overall I'd Rate Hagler about 5 or 6th as all time Middleweight, one of the best but not the best imo. 8)

[Grimm]

Hagler was one of the all time greats yes, but the best of all time I don't think so.... I think Monzon would have had the tactics and style to beat Hagler, also a peak Robinson, then you have Stanley Ketchel, Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Jake Lamotta, Mike Gibbons... all of whom would have given Hagler lots of trouble, ...Dick Tiger and Emile Griffith are another two who I think would have had a shot at beating Hagler.
Overall I'd Rate Hagler about 5 or 6th as all time Middleweight, one of the best but not the best imo. 8)

See people like you always go to name the big names (or "Legends" if you will) to win fights.

It's understandable that you named Ray Robinson and Monzon but comme on hagler would out box Lamotta and out muscle Robinson.

[silkov]

Hagler was one of the all time greats yes, but the best of all time I don't think so.... I think Monzon would have had the tactics and style to beat Hagler, also a peak Robinson, then you have Stanley Ketchel, Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Jake Lamotta, Mike Gibbons... all of whom would have given Hagler lots of trouble, ...Dick Tiger and Emile Griffith are another two who I think would have had a shot at beating Hagler.
Overall I'd Rate Hagler about 5 or 6th as all time Middleweight, one of the best but not the best imo. 8)

See people like you always go to name the big names (or "Legends" if you will) to win fights.

It's understandable that you named Ray Robinson and Monzon but comme on hagler would out box Lamotta and out muscle Robinson.

Isn't HAGLER a big name too???.
Hagler had trouble with Antirfirmo, Roldan, and Duran... all great infighters, so Lamotta would certainly be no walk in the park for Marvin.
Robinson at his best would have been too fast and sharp for Hagler... the Robinson who lost to Fullmer and Basilo was in his late 30s.
The middleweight division is so deep with great champions that it is difficult to besure about many of the matches, and to say one champion is clearly superior to all the others is always going to be debatable, but Harry Greb gets my vote as number 1 an astonishing career he had.

[silkov]

Why no response Grimm?... run out of insults with which to hide your total lack of boxing knowledge!??.... 8)

[jamesmcdonnell]

A lot of those old timers are often mentioned as being better middlweights, and of course there were lots of middlweight champions before the 1980's with impressive records.

Hagler was undeniably the best of his era, as for best of all time hard to say. Robinson's speed and movement, and combination punching, as well as his fantastic stamina and power would undeniably have given Hagler problems. Monzon, not sure, not seen enough to be sure, but Hagler was strong and determined enough to overcome Monzon's ability and make a fight of it.

LaMotta was an underrated boxer, that's for sure, anyone who went the distance all those times and even beat Robinson was no crude brawler.

[silkov]

I certainly think Hagler would have given Monzon problems but the same is true viseversa. Monzon had a way of dictating the pace of a fight and although he could seem awkward at times he was a very clever fighter.... probably more so than Marvin.
There are so many other great Middleweights, Tiger Flowers, Gorilla Jones are two often overlooked champs who could have troubled any of the other Middleweights... then theres Jack Dillon who though he reigned as Light-heavyweight champion was actually no more than a middleweight and usually weighed around 158 I believe.

[Manos de Oro]

Monzon had a way of dictating the pace of a fight and although he could seem awkward at times he was a very clever fighter....

Yeah, I've noticed exactly the same thing. Very strange how he managed to do that so often. Maybe his height over his opponents made him more intimidating when you're standing across from him in the ring? He usually looked so static and awkward from the outside pushing out that jab, but then when the smaller guy would attack he'd let go uppercuts, body/head combos, the lot. Very easy to underestimate him - made him very dangerous and probably played into his favour.

[silkov]

Monzon had a way of dictating the pace of a fight and although he could seem awkward at times he was a very clever fighter....

Yeah, I've noticed exactly the same thing. Very strange how he managed to do that so often. Maybe his height over his opponents made him more intimidating when you're standing across from him in the ring? He usually looked so static and awkward from the outside pushing out that jab, but then when the smaller guy would attack he'd let go uppercuts, body/head combos, the lot. Very easy to underestimate him - made him very dangerous and probably played into his favour.

I think part of his secret was that he could fight on the inside as well as on the outside, despite his height and reach he was also able to match fighters like Briscoe etc on the inside... his uppercuts were tremendous.
I think he was always thinking in there, he seemed to make a move just at the right time and to anticipate what his opponents were about to do and despite looking static at times when he put his punches together he was very fluid and fast. I've got quite a few of Monzons fights and the more I see of him the more impressed I am, he always seems to have something in reserve.
Shame that his life ended on such a tragic note after he had become one of the few champions to walk away while at the top.

[Grimm]

Monzon had a way of dictating the pace of a fight and although he could seem awkward at times he was a very clever fighter....

Yeah, I've noticed exactly the same thing. Very strange how he managed to do that so often. Maybe his height over his opponents made him more intimidating when you're standing across from him in the ring? He usually looked so static and awkward from the outside pushing out that jab, but then when the smaller guy would attack he'd let go uppercuts, body/head combos, the lot. Very easy to underestimate him - made him very dangerous and probably played into his favour.

Hmm....interesante.

[silkov]

Monzon had a way of dictating the pace of a fight and although he could seem awkward at times he was a very clever fighter....

Yeah, I've noticed exactly the same thing. Very strange how he managed to do that so often. Maybe his height over his opponents made him more intimidating when you're standing across from him in the ring? He usually looked so static and awkward from the outside pushing out that jab, but then when the smaller guy would attack he'd let go uppercuts, body/head combos, the lot. Very easy to underestimate him - made him very dangerous and probably played into his favour.

Hmm....interesante.

HHHMMMM whats wrong Grimm?... can't get your mind around a genuine discussion of boxing free of sexual fetishness and insults?.... go back to watching replays of your Mikey biting Evanders ears off!!! 8)

[Grimm]

A lot of those old timers are often mentioned as being better middlweights, and of course there were lots of middlweight champions before the 1980's with impressive records.

Hagler was undeniably the best of his era, as for best of all time hard to say. Robinson's speed and movement, and combination punching, as well as his fantastic stamina and power would undeniably have given Hagler problems. Monzon, not sure, not seen enough to be sure, but Hagler was strong and determined enough to overcome Monzon's ability and make a fight of it.

LaMotta was an underrated boxer, that's for sure, anyone who went the distance all those times and even beat Robinson was no crude brawler.

The only reason LaMotta is such an underrated boxer is because of how he was depicted in the movie "Raging Bull".

[Slapsie Maxie]

Hagler was certainly the greatest MW in my time watching boxing. He could brawl when needed, be technically adept and seemed to improve with age.

My respect for him grew when he proved to be one of the few who could walk away from the game.

He is a pretty useful co-commentator too

mind you,amongst all the praise, let's not forget that he also made those fornicate awful action films in italy for a while too

[bollox]

Never saw any of those awful Italian movies and don't particularly want to

What's Hagler up to these days, anyone?

[Syntax Error]

I've seen what everyone thinks of Tyson, but what flaws did Hagler have IMO he was the best middleweight of all time and I see no flaws in his game.

His only flaw was his relative lack of speed. He wasn't slow, but he didn't have the blistering speed of a Leonard, Robinson or Ali. Other than that, you can't fault him.

[Grimm]

I've seen what everyone thinks of Tyson, but what flaws did Hagler have IMO he was the best middleweight of all time and I see no flaws in his game.

His only flaw was his relative lack of speed. He wasn't slow, but he didn't have the blistering speed of a Leonard, Robinson or Ali. Other than that, you can't fault him.

Hagler reminds me alot of Holyfield.

[KOJOE90]

Hagler reminds me alot of Holyfield.

In what way?

[Grimm]

Hagler reminds me alot of Holyfield.

Well you know? They're both bald, always come in the fight in good shape, good chin and muscular.
Also they seemed to brawl sometimes when it wasn't necessary.

[Ezzard]

I know that this might sound odd but I think Hagler had difficulty in pressing a fight. I'm not talking about applying pressure when the opponent is in front of him (Antuofermo, Briscoe, Sibson, Hearns, Mugabi) but when they are forcing him to lead. Whatever your thoughts on the Hagler-Leonard outcome Leonard gave Hagler his most difficult defence. Watching Hagler lead you can see that he is uncomfortable, always reaching in, often off-balance. Hagler liked to draw his opponents lead and counter OR go toe-to-toe. Leonard was the only back peddaler that he faced during his reign. Hagler got criticised for not making lighter work of Duran but Duran fought a tactically shred fight but just didn't have the physical prowess to go on and win the bout. Duran forced Hagler to lead which is why at first glance it appeared to be a below par performance by Hagler (and I only say that because he set himself such high standards).

Hagler always did well in rematches and one of the biggest disappointments was that we didn't get Leonard-Hagler II. It really made ray look bad when he then came back just after Hagler formally retired. I lost a lot of respect for him when he did that.

[tiredoldngrey]

Hagler was a very skilled boxer, always in top condition and with an incredible chin, impossible to hurt him or so it seemed. He had an incredible right jab and his southpaw left was arrow straight; he could fight inside, punched well to the body, had more good power, especially in his right hook. On the other side he had a tendency to are punch for stretches during a fight especially when boxing orthodox. He is misunderstood in that he was always more of a cerebral boxer, using a hard jab and pinpoint punches to defeat a foe; he was not the wrecking ball that the public came to see him as. His first fight with Hamsho, a test for anybody and undisputed champ today, and then were it not for hagler, was brilliant. As for his place on the all-time ladder... I think he'd have defeated Robinson who was a Middle when he was past his prime- he'd been fighting 11 years when he won the title, lost in his first defense to Turpin, then won it back- and then he retired for 2 and 1/2 years. From that point up until he lost his last title fight in 1961 he went 14-7-1. He lost twice to Fullmer, twice to Pender, to Basilio, Tiger Jones and Maxim. His legs were gone, hence his eemergence as a one punch guy- based on what? two fights? When Robinson retired he was 119-2-2 (76kos); his greatness was established at welter and before that, lightweight Hagler easily beats the Robinson that fought Basilio etal... I think Monzon would've troubled Hagler, from what I've seen which, admittedly is not enough for me to speak on it further. I think he edges LaMotta based on his advantage when at distance and crisper punching in general.

[locoxelbox]

Never saw any of those awful Italian movies and don't particularly want to

What's Hagler up to these days, anyone?

He's in Buenos Aires, Argentina for the WBA KO Drugs festival this week. I took a picture with him today ! He looks like he could come back any day. He's a big hero over here. Otherwise he's living in Italy and he wants to continue with the movies.