Hagler vs. Golovkin (GGG)

[Broomhall]

The question isn't who has the best resume, or if Golovkin has ever fought anyone as good as Hagler (we already know that the answers to both questions are obvious and not worth even stating), but who would win if they fought each other at their respective bests?
.

This where I have a hard time. I can't compare because of the resume. GGG has not faced stiff enough competition to tell me how good he really is.
It is the same argument people have had with Mayweather in other threads in this section of the forum.
You have to have some type of base line to compare. Saying GGG looks great against limited opposition. But how will those skills translate against an all time great?

OK, so who on Haglers resume would GGG not beat? Really the only real stand out for me would be Tommy Hearns. I think Haglers pre title oppononts are in some ways better than the guys he fought when he was champ, but I still see GGG as capable of beating most of them.

[IKSRTFO]

The question isn't who has the best resume, or if Golovkin has ever fought anyone as good as Hagler (we already know that the answers to both questions are obvious and not worth even stating), but who would win if they fought each other at their respective bests?
.

This where I have a hard time. I can't compare because of the resume. GGG has not faced stiff enough competition to tell me how good he really is.
It is the same argument people have had with Mayweather in other threads in this section of the forum.
You have to have some type of base line to compare. Saying GGG looks great against limited opposition. But how will those skills translate against an all time great?

OK, so who on Haglers resume would GGG not beat? Really the only real stand out for me would be Tommy Hearns. I think Haglers pre title oppononts are in some ways better than the guys he fought when he was champ, but I still see GGG as capable of beating most of them.

I'm unsure GGG is capable of beating Leonard. Yes, SRL is smaller but we're talking about a guy who could be top 10 of all time and took flush shots from Hearns who IMO is capable of having more 1 shot power than GGG.

[dempseyfire]

The question isn't who has the best resume, or if Golovkin has ever fought anyone as good as Hagler (we already know that the answers to both questions are obvious and not worth even stating), but who would win if they fought each other at their respective bests?
.

This where I have a hard time. I can't compare because of the resume. GGG has not faced stiff enough competition to tell me how good he really is.
It is the same argument people have had with Mayweather in other threads in this section of the forum.
You have to have some type of base line to compare. Saying GGG looks great against limited opposition. But how will those skills translate against an all time great?

OK, so who on Haglers resume would GGG not beat? Really the only real stand out for me would be Tommy Hearns. I think Haglers pre title oppononts are in some ways better than the guys he fought when he was champ, but I still see GGG as capable of beating most of them.

Golovkin has yet to beat someone on the level of Roldan or Willie Monroe, not to mention Ray Leonard.

[Broomhall]

He may yet have to beat someone as good as Monroe or Roldan, but this does not mean he wouldnt beat them. Or give Hagler.Leonard or anyone ese from that era a tough fight. The guy is a quality fighter amateur and pro and the fact that he is so far ahead of any meaningful opposition I feel implies that his style would translate to any era.

[Ambling Alp II]

I think it is fair to say that just because someone has not beat very good competition doesn't automatically mean that couldn't beat high level competition.
Especially if someone is easily beating the competition that is in front of him.

In reality, we just don't know how Golovkin would do. However, how often have we seen a guy with great win-loss record look bad when he finally has to take on someone good? I would say more often than not. Remember, with the right backing, it's that not that hard to start off your career 20-0 anymore.

If you took a current situation with one guy who was undefeated against weak competition against another who has fought much tougher competition and usually won, who is more likely to win? I would say the guy who has beaten the better competition. Not always, but most of the time.

[caldo2025]

I would agree with GGG being overrated if he didn't have the stellar amateur record that he has. He's clearly THAT good and I don't care that people knock him for not finding a credible fighter t sign a contract. That's not his fault and shouldn't be a knock against him. This is a guy that went 345-5 in the amateurs and is 33-0 as a pro with 30 KO's. The kid has lost 5 bouts his whole life. His last 4 fights, he's beaten some quality boxers: Monroe Jr., Martin Murray, Rubio and Geale. Those opponents combined for 137 wins 10 losses and he knocked out 3 out of the 4 for the first time in their careers. At some point, people should stop criticizing this kid and just appreciate what we are seeing because it's rare.

Hagler would lose badly if they met in their prime. It would be interesting to see who was backing who up early but before long the cream would rise to the top as it always does and GGG would prevail by stoppage or unanimous decision. GGG's lack of defense does make the argument interesting but this kid has not even been dazed in the ring taking big punches. I feel GGG is #1 P4P right now. I really do.

[pound per pound]

dempseyfire

Golovkin has yet to beat someone on the level of Roldan or Willie Monroe, not to mention Ray Leonard.

Counterpoint, GGG has yet to lose to someone as average as Watts, Monroe, or draw with someone on Antuofermo's level.

For all his gifts, Hagler could be out thought. Sometimes he boxed when he should have slugged. Other times he started too slowly.

If GGG beats Froch, he will have beaten a quality opponent, and done something Halger declined to do. Move up in weight.

[Ambling Alp II]

It is fair to mention these fights. However, Monroe and Watts were not average. They weren't great, but they were good. They (and Antuofermo) were better than the guys Golovkin has fought. The decisions were iffy, and it's worth mentioning that Hagler avenged them.

Minter, Hamsho, Sibson, among others were better than Golovkin's opponents as well. Duran and Hearns were light years better.

Beating Froch at this stage is not going to mean a whole lot. Fighters should not get to much credit for beating senior citizens.

Also should be mentioned that the Super middleweight division did not exist until the end of Hagler's career. The WBC and WBA did not even have Super Middleweight titles until after Hagler's last fight.

[pound per pound]

It is fair to mention these fights. However, Monroe and Watts were not average. They weren't great, but they were good. They (and Antuofermo) were better than the guys Golovkin has fought. The decisions were iffy, and it's worth mentioning that Hagler avenged them.

Minter, Hamsho, Sibson, among others were better than Golovkin's opponents as well. Duran and Hearns were light years better.

Beating Froch at this stage is not going to mean a whole lot. Fighters should not get to much credit for beating senior citizens.

Also should be mentioned that the Super middleweight division did not exist until the end of Hagler's career. The WBC and WBA did not even have Super Middleweight titles until after Hagler's last fight.

All true, however Hagler had opportunities to move up to light heavyweight, which back then is where supper middles weight on fight night weigh.

GGG can move up or down. Hagler stayed put and beat up blow up welters ( Hearns ) and light weight ( Duran ) for his signature fights. Floyd Mayweather knows better than to fight GGG at middle weight. Cotto is avoiding GGG too. Hagler was not avoided. His fight with Duran was too close, and showed he wasn't the best thinker in the ring.

I disagree on Froch. The win will mean something. Froch is a pound for pound man ranked fighter in Ring Magazine and well accomplished. These days 37 is the new 33.

GGG has not showed one round of struggle at middle weight. Hagler has shown plenty outside of Duran, and Leonard. GGG would floor and quickly cut Antuofermo. Halger took him the distance.

In closing you could say GGG has been better vs. run in the mill type of top ten contenders in comparison to Hagler and not get many arguments.

How would GGG do vs legendary welters our lightweights? Its a guess. Based on his style, and hitting power I say he crushes them. In other words I think GGG would do better vs the Duran who fought Hagler ( I say KO win for GGG ) and have a better chance at defeating Leonard. Hearns did not have the chin to last vs GGG.

[Ambling Alp II]

Hagler could have moved up to 175; it would have been interesting if he had done so. However, the lightheavyweight division was loaded at the time. I don't buy the notion that Carl Froch was as naturally as big as say Qawi or Michael Spinks, or nearly as good.

37 is the new 33? It wouldn't be if there more good younger fighters.
Hearns and Duran were just blown up welters or light weights. Duran had not been a lightweight in 6 years and had not been a welter for 3. Hearns had not been a welter for four years.

Hearns didn't have the chin to survive vs Golotvkin? Myabe not. However, Hearns could outbox him, and what happens if Hearns lands a haymaker? Duran might outhustle him.

Yes Golovkin has looked good against run of the mill contenders. But Hagler's "run of the mill" contenders" were better.
Hagler did dominate most of contenders anyway.

We don't know how Golovkin would do against a master boxer. We don't how he would do against a guy who puts a ton of pressure on him. Or against a guy who can really punch.

It's easy to say he looks great against the stiffs he has fought. Maybe he really is a truly great fighter. However, for now, we just don't know.

[dr_devious]

Hagler could have moved up to 175; it would have been interesting if he had done so. However, the lightheavyweight division was loaded at the time.

Marvin isn't that big. I've met him and he's a couple of inches smaller than me and I'm pushing 5'10. I'd say he's 5'8 max and not big enough to have taken Spinks on. Meeting the great man was awesome

[Tuan_Jim]

GGG is so wildly overrated. Devising these scenarios where he's beating up all-time greats makes the poster look quite silly. We just don't have anything near a complete picture of his capabilities. His opponents so far have indeed been bad, and to assume he can perform to the same level against some of the finest technicians we have seen is a baseless fantasy.

[Broomhall]

GGG is so wildly overrated. Devising these scenarios where he's beating up all-time greats makes the poster look quite silly. We just don't have anything near a complete picture of his capabilities. His opponents so far have indeed been bad, and to assume he can perform to the same level against some of the finest technicians we have seen is a baseless fantasy.

His oppononts since winning the title have not been bad. They may not be quite as good as middleweight divisions in the past but this does not make them bad fighters.

[Ambling Alp II]

The opponents themselves were not bad fighters compared to most fighters ever to lace up the gloves. Most guys don't get past the 6 round stage. The opponents have been bad compared to challengers in most other eras.

[beaujack]

Not sure who wins. GGG hits harder and has a better offense. Possibly an equal to or better chin.

Agree with the first part and GGG seems to have a decent beard but Hagler's chin is the best in the sports history

Hagler had a great chin, but let's not go overboard. Harry Greb had abiout 285 bouts in a row fighting LHs and HWs and he was never
STOPPED, EVER. And get ths, fighting the last 5 or so years with but ONE EYE, and the remaining eye very bad...Picture Hagler having 220 MORE bouts against bigger HOF fighters, and still not being stopped...? And Jake LaMotta had an iron chin able to absorb the blows of a lightheavyweight
like Bob Satterfield, whom Jake Kod. And in his last fight with Ray Robinson, LaMotta was weight drained terribly losing 12 pounds and absorbed
a fusillade of every blow in the book from the greatest fighter I ever saw ringside, with Jake still on his feet...

[dr_devious]

Marvin fought 67 times professionally over 14 years, most of these at the top end of his division, and was never legitimately knocked down.

[Tomasino]

Not sure who wins. GGG hits harder and has a better offense. Possibly an equal to or better chin.

Agree with the first part and GGG seems to have a decent beard but Hagler's chin is the best in the sports history

Hagler had a great chin, but let's not go overboard. Harry Greb had abiout 285 bouts in a row fighting LHs and HWs and he was never
STOPPED, EVER. And get ths, fighting the last 5 or so years with but ONE EYE, and the remaining eye very bad...Picture Hagler having 220 MORE bouts against bigger HOF fighters, and still not being stopped...? And Jake LaMotta had an iron chin able to absorb the blows of a lightheavyweight
like Bob Satterfield, whom Jake Kod. And in his last fight with Ray Robinson, LaMotta was weight drained terribly losing 12 pounds and absorbed
a fusillade of every blow in the book from the greatest fighter I ever saw ringside, with Jake still on his feet...

Greb was knocked cold in one of his early fights by Joe or George Chip I believe.

[pound per pound]

Hagler could have moved up to 175; it would have been interesting if he had done so. However, the lightheavyweight division was loaded at the time.

Marvin isn't that big. I've met him and he's a couple of inches smaller than me and I'm pushing 5'10. I'd say he's 5'8 max and not big enough to have taken Spinks on. Meeting the great man was awesome

Awesome that you meet him. I think the Leonard fight still haunts Hagler. Not sure why Hagler moved to Italy.

[Broomhall]

Hagler could have moved up to 175; it would have been interesting if he had done so. However, the lightheavyweight division was loaded at the time.

Marvin isn't that big. I've met him and he's a couple of inches smaller than me and I'm pushing 5'10. I'd say he's 5'8 max and not big enough to have taken Spinks on. Meeting the great man was awesome

Awesome that you meet him. I think the Leonard fight still haunts Hagler. Not sure why Hagler moved to Italy.

Didnt he go there to make some spaghetti westerns? and then just liked the place.

[dr_devious]

Yes he did a bit of acting over there and must have fallen for the place, not much to dislike about Italy

[Crease]

I would reserve judgment on this fight.

Hagler is (rightfully) acclaimed to be one of the greatest Middleweights ever seen in a boxing ring. That's beyond question.

With Golvokin however there is a question... I do think that there is something a little special about him, but I don't know the extent of that.
The truth is we haven't seen him in the ring against the best possible competition of his time. I don't think we can truly answer this until we see him in the ring against Miguel Cotto and Saul Alvarez. Even if he fought Carl Froch at a catchweight, it might tell us something about him.

So for the meantime, let's leave it. That's what I think anyway.

[THECHOSENONE]

I would have to give it to GGG hes more strategic when placing his punches hagler goes out and imposes his will and you cant do that with GGG he invites that kind of fight maybe on punches thrown and landed but clean punches and pecentage wise golovkin will win.

[DrDuke]

Hagler could have even stopped him.

[jamamb]

easy win for hagler

[gilgamesh]

Ask me again when Golovkin has retired, and the story of his career has been fully written.