Why Isn't Marvin Hagler Recognized In Greater Glory?

Italian 4 U · Post by **Italian 4 U** » 07 Jan 2003, 18:22

To me, he was the Ultimate Boxer's Boxer! Tough as hell, unrelenting, tons of heart, and paid his dues to boxing! He really never lost a fight (fornicate the leonard fight) and I believe would've beat or at least given holy hell to ANY middleweight in the history of the game. Personally, only Ray Robinson would've beat him in his prime and Ray had better not be off his game on that particular night!

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 08 Jan 2003, 23:57

Italian 4 U · Post by **Italian 4 U** » 09 Jan 2003, 00:38

Tantum wrote:but, he is recognized, who says that Hagler isn't one of the top 3 middle weights ever?

Yea, you're right. I guess my problem is The Ring's placing of him as the 17th best fighter of all time. To me, he was just never really challenged ro came close to ever getting "beat up" in a fight whereas many in front of him have been ko'd!

zurdo · Post by **zurdo** » 09 Jan 2003, 02:37

17th best of all time isn't exactly dog doo.....who is ahead of him that IYO
shouldn't be...

zurdo · Post by **zurdo** » 09 Jan 2003, 02:48

Besides Hagler did lose to Willie the Worm Monroe in their first fight and he admittted as much... He says it helped to make him a better fighter..
His subsequent fights with Monroe bear this out..
Great Fighter ...no doubt
17th best is a great ranking

And yes he was never knocked out but neither was
Robinson(TKOed by the heat..not his opponent)
Or Monzon

Italian 4 U · Post by **Italian 4 U** » 09 Jan 2003, 18:04

I concede that 17th is a great ranking but those IMO who should be placed behind him include:

Pernell Whitaker
Ezzard Charles
and Sandy Saddler

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 10 Jan 2003, 01:15

italian 4u - No question Hagler should rate very high among the all time greats. He had all the skills in each category you mention...box, punch, great chin, tough competition, etc. However, when it comes to rating one fighter over another when you get to a list of the all time greatest, it's probably impossible to fine tune it to a point where one can say "Fighter rated number 11 should be higher than fighter rated number 7".... there are just too many factors involved. personally, I agree with you on Whitaker, am iffy about Saddler...but it's so subjective.However.this will come as no surprise to regular readers, i can't agree about him rating higher than Ezzard Charles, who was among the greatest of the greats. I didn't comment when you rated the admittedly great Archie Moore as the greatest light heavy instead of his three time conquerer Charles, as I figured you were rating Ezz as a heavyweight. Now for a surprise...Ezzard entered the top ten ratings in Ring magazine as a middleweight. He didn't stay long, but outgrew that division in a short time. the surprise..at that weight I'd pick Hagler to beat him. Ezz really came into his own when he started coming in as 171. Like you, I'd pick Hagler to be a champion or near thge top in any era he would have fought in. I also think the smartest thing he did was to retire when he was still an outstanding fighter.

zurdo · Post by **zurdo** » 10 Jan 2003, 01:51

103 kos in 163 fights...

Only 16 losses fighting against top competion...

Only stopped once in 163 fights... in his second pro fight.(by a guy who was good enough to eventually fight for the title)

the Long and lanky Saddler was an absoulute terror to the 126 pounders of the 1940s
sort of a miniature Thomas Hearns ...but incredibly tough and durable..

You could make an excellent case for him being the best featherweight of all time...

Most importantly Koed Willie Pep in three out of four meetings...

The Equvalent would be Hagler taking on Carlos Monzon and beating him three out of four times..

If anything Sandy Saddler isn't rated high enough....

zurdo · Post by **zurdo** » 10 Jan 2003, 01:57

Pernell Whitaker shouldt be rated over Hagler... I think you are right about that..

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 10 Jan 2003, 14:09

zurdo...I was on the fence about Saddler, but you tipped me over to his side. I just forgot how good he really was. Again, though, it is awfully hard to put a number on greats against greats.

Italian 4 U · Post by **Italian 4 U** » 10 Jan 2003, 18:15

Thanks for the input fellas! You all really know your stuff. You're probably right about Sandler as he was a terror. He probably deserves his ranking based on what he did to the incredible Pep alone. As far as Ezzard Charles, putting him behind Moore was a little difficult considering his dominence over Moore. I just feel what Moore accomplished prior to winning his first title in his upper 30's plus how long he reigned after winning it was too much to overcome!

Ridiculous_Ray · Post by **Ridiculous_Ray** » 20 Jan 2003, 00:14

whoa, whoa, whoa, hey, whoa

ring has him only at 17th best? wtf is that about? im not a subscriber to ring so im not at liberty to dissect just how the hell they went wrong but 17th best is just assified and unjustified i think

zurdo · Post by **zurdo** » 20 Jan 2003, 03:07

I could understand Ridiculous' indignation if Hagler had been rated 17th best middleweight..

I say 17th best of ALL TIME amongst all the great fighters is pretty awsome.....I think Hagler clearly is deserving of such a lofty rank

If you think it's so wrong then who would you kick out to make room for Hagler to move up?

Say why He's better than the guys rated over him

The only one we could think of was Pernell Whitaker....and thats debatable