Sugar Ray Leonard or Marvin Hagler
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
Sugar Ray Leonard or Marvin Hagler
who in ur opinion rates higher on p4p list?
-
hawaiianpunch
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 89
- Joined: 15 Feb 2003, 14:54
Perhaps this is just my perception, but it seems time has not been as friendly to Marvelous Marvin Hagler as it has a lot of other great fighters. I don't know why that is, but it certainly seems to be true.
Perhaps it's because of the way he went out. He loses to Leonard and never fights again. Just disappears altogether. Yet, personally, by the time of the Leonard fight, I believed Hagler might've been slowing just a bit, and that, if anyone at the time presented a bad style matchup, Leonard was probably it.
Maybe, too, it's because it wasn't that long after that guys like Roy Jones Jr. (briefly) and Bernard Hopkins came along in their own respective times and served over the division, Hopkins with the longest reign of all.
Yet, Hagler was not just a champion. He was a dominant champion at a time when the middleweight division was certainly not lacking in talent. Pound-for-pound, I myself would have a hard time rating him below Leonard, but that's not to say I think the Leonard crowd couldn't make a very good argument against that assessment.
Perhaps it's because of the way he went out. He loses to Leonard and never fights again. Just disappears altogether. Yet, personally, by the time of the Leonard fight, I believed Hagler might've been slowing just a bit, and that, if anyone at the time presented a bad style matchup, Leonard was probably it.
Maybe, too, it's because it wasn't that long after that guys like Roy Jones Jr. (briefly) and Bernard Hopkins came along in their own respective times and served over the division, Hopkins with the longest reign of all.
Yet, Hagler was not just a champion. He was a dominant champion at a time when the middleweight division was certainly not lacking in talent. Pound-for-pound, I myself would have a hard time rating him below Leonard, but that's not to say I think the Leonard crowd couldn't make a very good argument against that assessment.
The biggest thing going for Leonard is that he moved up in weight and won more world titles... having said that his fights with Lalonde, and Hearns 2 were rather tainted. If you're looking at pure ability though Leonard at his prime at 147 was superior to Hagler... he just had that extra speed and power and though the Hagler Ray beat was past his best it was still a pretty impressive performance after so long out!...
-
kick asner
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 692
- Joined: 02 Oct 2005, 00:01
To bad they could'nt have fought more than once so you really could have settled this issue. I think Hagler would have implemented a totally different stategy in a rematch and would have stood an excellent chance. Plus the fact that he always fared better in a rematch gives him an edge.
I think the fact that Hagler disapeared from boxing after the Leonard fight gives testament to his intellegence. He did not tarnish his reputation with an ill advised comeback or by staying in the game to long as many of his peers had made the mistake of doing. He made his money and decided to call it quits. He had nothing left to prove and no longer needed boxing.
I think the fact that Hagler disapeared from boxing after the Leonard fight gives testament to his intellegence. He did not tarnish his reputation with an ill advised comeback or by staying in the game to long as many of his peers had made the mistake of doing. He made his money and decided to call it quits. He had nothing left to prove and no longer needed boxing.
Thats true, I respect Hagler for quitting when he did... he didn't duck a rematch with Leonard, Leonard ducked a rematch with him. On pure talent Leonard was probably a tad above Marvin but as a champion I'd rate Marvin higher, he didn't play the games that Leonard did, so Hagler will always be the man for me. Remember also, Leonard only agreed to fight Marvin when he was sure Hagler was in decline... the Hagler of 80-83 would have been far too strong and relentless for Leonard imo....kick asner wrote:To bad they could'nt have fought more than once so you really could have settled this issue. I think Hagler would have implemented a totally different stategy in a rematch and would have stood an excellent chance. Plus the fact that he always fared better in a rematch gives him an edge.
I think the fact that Hagler disapeared from boxing after the Leonard fight gives testament to his intellegence. He did not tarnish his reputation with an ill advised comeback or by staying in the game to long as many of his peers had made the mistake of doing. He made his money and decided to call it quits. He had nothing left to prove and no longer needed boxing.
It would be unfortunate to allow Hagler's remaining a middleweight his entire career to lower his pound-for-pound value against the likes of a Leonard. Whereas many fighters naturally put on weight as they get older, Hagler just happened to remain a middleweight. Indeed he never came to a fight in anything other than stellar physical condition. And as I said earlier, for the time while he reigned over the middleweight division, he was not just a champion. He was a dominant champion.
Well you do have to respect a fighter who moves up in the weights and it shows extra ability. If Hagler had moved up to 175 and fought Spinks and won he would have gained a lot more recognition. Leonard, despite all his antics did move up in weight and beat Hagler and deserves credit for that. Whether that makes him p4p a better fighter than Hagler is a matter of opinion... I think there is not much to choose between them really.Decagon wrote:I understand that. Too much emphasis is placed on moving up in weight and winning multiple titles. The problem is that most of Hagler's best opponents were coming up from 147 or 135. I look at Bernard Hopkins, who's been at 160 his entire career, and think that he could have won titles at 147 and 154, too. Hopkins has said as much in the past. If Hagler had, would he be viewed as a better boxer?kingpawn wrote:It would be unfortunate to allow Hagler's remaining a middleweight his entire career to lower his pound-for-pound value against the likes of a Leonard. Whereas many fighters naturally put on weight as they get older, Hagler just happened to remain a middleweight. Indeed he never came to a fight in anything other than stellar physical condition. And as I said earlier, for the time while he reigned over the middleweight division, he was not just a champion. He was a dominant champion.
-
Syntax Error
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9007
- Joined: 22 Apr 2005, 08:00