Why didn't Hagler get a title shot sooner?

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 25 Nov 2005, 11:38

Hagler had fifty five fights before getting a shot at the title, where someone like Leon Spinks got a shot with less than ten. Is this just part of the politics of boxing or is their a more specific reason?

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 25 Nov 2005, 12:03

I think it was down to a number of reasons.

(1) Hagler wasn't a big name amateur or Olympic Gold medalist whom whilst wearing the vest got a lot of media attention or hype etc.

(2) He didn't have big money backing.

(3) He was handled by a small team in Goody & Pat Petronelli who had little weight in the Boxing community.

Or it may be as Joe Frazier once told a young Hagler "Your going to struggle getting a Title shot because, your black, your a southpaw and your GOOD"

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 25 Nov 2005, 12:04

well that about answers that... great post kojoe

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 25 Nov 2005, 19:28

Hagler was a National AAU Champion in 1973, so he was an accomplished amateur.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 25 Nov 2005, 19:30

that long, hard route to the top made Hagler even tougher, more skilled and determined. also, the plethora of very good fighters really adds weight to Hagler supporters in 'greatest middleweight' debates

theone · Post by **theone** » 25 Nov 2005, 19:55

I think the whole thing about Haglar being black contributing for him being denied his shot is overblown. Too good and southpaw i could see, but not the black thing.
The 3 most popular fighters during Haglers prime were two blacks(Ali,Leonard) and a hispanic(Duran). It is an insult to fighters like Langford, Willis,Mcvey and later fighters like Moore, Burley and Holman Williams to lump in Haglars struggles with theirs. To paraphrase Chris Rock, Haglar may have had trouble catching a cab but Langford WAS the cab. Haglar himself did not help his cause by underwhelming a few times when he got a big fight. His first two fights with top ten contenders Bobby Watts and Willie "the worm", were disapointments. His next big shot against a faded but still ranked Bennie Briscoe, Haglar decided to play it safe and box at a distance instead of trying to go all out and making a statement. His shot with Antefuermo, although he may have actually won, once again he fought well below what he was capable off. Early when the spolight was on him, Haglar didnt excite, so the public wasnt clamoring to see him. Hearns for instance, wasnt an olympic champion and didnt get the push Leonard did but he was always exciting and recieved his shot alot sooner than Haglar.

wolverine1 · Post by **wolverine1** » 25 Nov 2005, 21:51

KOJOE I think you left out the fact that Hagler was GOOD and fighters avoided him IMO.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 25 Nov 2005, 23:50

Hagler had the one span where he lost two of three fights but he avenged the Monroe loss with a pair of knockouts. Also after the second loss he had won twenty fights in a row before receiving his title shot. Leon Spinks lost his title, then suffered a humiliating first round knockout, a subsequent draw, then he won a couple of fights and he was right in line again. I don't recall to many modern day fighters who had to win twenty straight fights coming off of a loss to get back into the picture.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 26 Nov 2005, 09:36

tegenm wrote:Hagler was a National AAU Champion in 1973, so he was an accomplished amateur.

I know, but he didn't get the hype and media coverage like many other Amateurs such as the USA 76 Olympic team. Therefore didn't get a big money backer.

Decagon wrote:AAU? Was Hagler in high school? What weight did he fight in?

Middleweight I think.

theone wrote:I think the whole thing about Haglar being black contributing for him being denied his shot is overblown. Too good and southpaw i could see, but not the black thing.

Just for the record I was quoting Smokin' Joe on this matter.

wolverine1 wrote:KOJOE I think you left out the fact that Hagler was GOOD and fighters avoided him IMO.

You may well be right. I've heard said that Gil Clancy was in no rush to let Hagler get a shot at his fighter Rodrigo Valdez. Wether this is actually true or not your guess is as good as mine.

theone wrote:His next big shot against a faded but still ranked Bennie Briscoe, Haglar decided to play it safe and box at a distance instead of trying to go all out and making a statement.

I understand what you are saying but I was of the understanding that Hagler got a cut to his eye around the second round and was instructed by his corner (who did a great job on the cut) not to take any risks and box from the outside. Also Briscoe even then was a very tough fighter and almost impossible to knockout so why take risks by playing into Briscoes hands and going toe to toe with the sly old warhorse?

theone wrote:Hearns for instance, wasnt an olympic champion and didnt get the push Leonard did but he was always exciting and recieved his shot alot sooner than Haglar.

Fair point, but it could be argued that Hearns was from a famous fight town and because of this was able to gather a strong local following at his fights which of course is always of interest to promoters as this means more tickets sales and money.

Also Hearns had got a fair bit of TV coverage as an amatuer, as far as I am aware Hagler got very little.

theone · Post by **theone** » 26 Nov 2005, 10:38

Fair point, but it could be argued that Hearns was from a famous fight town and because of this was able to gather a strong local following at his fights which of course is always of interest to promoters as this means more tickets sales and money.

True, but you would imagine that the potential of another great fighter coming out of Brockton would have garnered alot more press. Maybe he should have fought more in Philidelphia; established there, he would have gotten alot more attention.

Also Hearns had got a fair bit of TV coverage as an amatuer, as far as I am aware Hagler got very little.

I began following boxing in 1975, when I was six years old. My uncles were huge fans of the sport and I enjoyed spending time with them, hearing them debate and argue about it for hours. I remember hearing the buzz about Hearns, before even knowing who Haglar was. He was so exciting and different from anything you ever seen, even as an amatuer.
I recall one of my uncles telling me soon after they both turned pro, that Hearns was going to be the one to knock Leonard off his high horse in a couple of years. I enjoyed ribbing him later on about that.

wolverine1 · Post by **wolverine1** » 26 Nov 2005, 14:17

theone wrote:
His next big shot against a faded but still ranked Bennie Briscoe, Haglar decided to play it safe and box at a distance instead of trying to go all out and making a statement. <<

Isn't the art of hitting and not being hit the whole point of Boxing? I'd rather watch a skillful boxer outbox a fighter rather than slug-fests. Slug-fests are fine in their own right, but if a boxer can box, then why should he go toe-to-toe with someone? To prove a point? That point can be proven if and when there's the NEED to slug it out, and then not often if you can box your way through a fight.

theone · Post by **theone** » 26 Nov 2005, 16:06

sn't the art of hitting and not being hit the whole point of Boxing? I'd rather watch a skillful boxer outbox a fighter rather than slug-fests. Slug-fests are fine in their own right, but if a boxer can box, then why should he go toe-to-toe with someone? To prove a point? That point can be proven if and when there's the NEED to slug it out, and then not often if you can box your way through a fight.

I agree wolverine1. If you have to do what ever it take to win. If that means boxing carefully and not taking chances, then fine. But if you want to be noticed, and have people clamoring to see you fight then you have go for broke when the oppertunity arises. Fighters like Whitaker,McCullum and Hopskins tolled for years in their prime with only boxing enthusiast knowing who they were. Hopskins really came to the publics attention when he beat the vastly more popular Trinidad by KO. On the flip side Marciano and Tyson were able to excite people very early in their careers when they were fighting tomato cans because they beat them in such spectacular fashion.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 26 Nov 2005, 17:18

Their were a few times where Hagler had to settle for the decision, but most of the time he was devestating and knocked opponents out in imppressive fassion.