BoxRec

Hagler v Golovkin would have been a brilliant bout.

SteveDow wrote:GGG v McClellan at middleweight would have been an utter war.

Or what about this,Julian Jackson v GGG.,yes i know GGG would probably have worn Jackson down but imagine the bombs he would have to take first

jamesmcdonnell wrote:McCallum had a cast iron chin. Hagler would have have ground him down I think, Mike might have lasted the distance but I think he'd have lost it down the stretch, he'd have been competitive but I don't think he could have outboxed or hurt Hagler.

Hagler-Mugabi makes me wonder. Replay the same fight with McCallum's bodypunching through the early rounds, and who knows. Mugabi tried to work the body (he didn't do much wrong), but he was never as cute as McCallum.

Hagler took more shots from Hearns than McCallum did from Jackson. You might not care for that comparison because Hearns was better than Jackson, but I think the contrast in approach shows the personalities of the men, and that's what I find interesting. There were certainly versions of Hagler I could see McCallum beating. Prime-for-prime, not so much.

McCallum had a great chin, but not as good as Hagler's - Jackson had Mike's legs wobbling crazily for a moment, almost dropped him, but Marvin was freak of nature: absolutely 100% bullet-proof ..you never ever saw him hurt.

Had a very long reach as well, 75" to GGG's 70" ... No doubt he'd have made good use of that .

MightyWarrior wrote:McCallum had a great chin, but not as good as Hagler's - Jackson had Mike's legs wobbling crazily for a moment, almost dropped him, but Marvin was freak of nature: absolutely 100% bullet-proof ..you never ever saw him hurt.

Had a very long reach as well, 75" to GGG's 70" ... No doubt he'd have made good use of that .

I never saw Hagler's legs buckle even slightly,hearns stopped him in his tracks a couple of times,as did mugabi,but there was never a sign of a funky chicken,EVER and i's struggling to think of anyone else with such a chin.

Like a Boss wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Hagler has the chin and accuracy to beat GGG, no question.

We don't even know GGG's limits yet because nobody has taken him there.

that is the point, but that is why you cant rule ggg out at all. i have seen hagler lose , i have never seen the ggg lose

For those who know more about his era, what was Hagler's reputation like?

Was he always considered one of top few p4p fighters in the world? Was he a main stream star like Leonard or more of a hardcore's favourite? (and how did he compare to others like Hearns and Duran in this aspect?) Did he have to wait for his marquee fights like GGG? Was he ever criticised for not fighting top opposition or moving up in weights?

I don't really know anything about public perception in boxing back then, would like to learn a bit.

ElJefe wrote:For those who know more about his era, what was Hagler's reputation like?

Was he always considered one of top few p4p fighters in the world? Was he a main stream star like Leonard or more of a hardcore's favourite? (and how did he compare to others like Hearns and Duran in this aspect?) Did he have to wait for his marquee fights like GGG? Was he ever criticised for not fighting top opposition or moving up in weights?

I don't really know anything about public perception in boxing back then, would like to learn a bit.

Buy and read the book "Four Kings" by George Kimble and all will be revealed. Great book.

As it stands it's hard to pick GGG over Haggler as he hasn't been in with anyone remotely near Hagglers opponents.

Also, GGG best MW since Haggler is a big shout. Hopkins and Toney would've been a handful at 160, and Jones Jr was also formidable at 160 before moving up. Then there's Jackson, McAllum Benn Eubank Watson McClellan who are all far superior to anyone he's faced so far.

Lets not automatically fall into the trap of the old days being the best again. Hagler was excellent, yes, but he did lose to the likes of Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe. He also had two draws - Antuofermo and seales and the best names on his resume were Sugar Ray Leonard - lost, Tommy Hearns - won and Roberto Duran - won. Duran was never a middleweight so basically his standout win was Tommy Hearns.

I have no doubt that Golovkin would've KO'd spaghetti legs Hearns too.

It's pretty much impossible to compare eras but lets at least try and be subjective rather than trying to make out that yesteryear was some kind of different level. That is not the case.

ElJefe wrote:For those who know more about his era, what was Hagler's reputation like?

Was he always considered one of top few p4p fighters in the world? Was he a main stream star like Leonard or more of a hardcore's favourite? (and how did he compare to others like Hearns and Duran in this aspect?) Did he have to wait for his marquee fights like GGG? Was he ever criticised for not fighting top opposition or moving up in weights?

I don't really know anything about public perception in boxing back then, would like to learn a bit.

He was known by the boxing hard-core as the uncrowned middleweight champion for some years in the lead up to him finally ripping the title from Alan Minter .
He'd been to the city of brotherly love, Philly, where the baddest middleweights on the planet were at the time and beaten the lot of them - Bobby boogaloo watts, Willie the worm Monroe, Eugine cyclone Hart and the greatest middleweight to never win a world title, the fearsome Bad Bennie Briscoe.
in the early years of his reign he was only really known by the boxing fraternity, and would often moan about how no one wanted to fight him, and he wasn't getting the recognition or the paydays he deserved...Hagler was like the outsider, always looking in from outside & not invited to the party - and the party was at welterweight: Leonard, Hearns, Duran, and million dollar paydays all round.

But by the time Marvin was putting on masterclasses against Wilfred Scypion and our own Tony Sibson, he was finally being recognised as the best fighter on the planet. Leonard had retired.

Duran stepped up, but Hagler was too respectful and the fireworks never happened ...until finally, after something like a two year build up and having sensationally blasted out Duran himself, Tommy hitman Hearns stepped up for a super fight that would decide who was the baddest man on the planet .
With that sensational fight, Marvin finally got the recognition he deserved worldwide, and at long last he became a bona fide superstar.

ElJefe wrote:For those who know more about his era, what was Hagler's reputation like?

Was he always considered one of top few p4p fighters in the world? Was he a main stream star like Leonard or more of a hardcore's favourite? (and how did he compare to others like Hearns and Duran in this aspect?) Did he have to wait for his marquee fights like GGG? Was he ever criticised for not fighting top opposition or moving up in weights?

I don't really know anything about public perception in boxing back then, would like to learn a bit.

Marvin Hagler was considered P4P1 number 1 or 2 (along with SRL) for much of the 1980s. He was a massive star at the time and had a certain amount of crossover appeal but not as much as Mike Tyson did later on in the decade. His marquee fight was against Tommy Hearns which came late on in his career in 1985 as well as the SRL fight in 1987. He fought everyone in the middleweight division and had been doing so for ten or more years as he had fought a lot of the top Americans in the 1970s before he became champ. To my knowledge he never received any criticism at the time, but a few on here criticise him for fights were he was below his best e.g. the Duran and first Antuofermo fights, and that's usually on the threads which start comparing Marvin with Carlos Monzon ot debate who is the greatest middleweight in history. He's nearly always ranked in the top 4 or 5 middleweights of all time and some people rate him number 1.

Ian1973 wrote:Lets not automatically fall into the trap of the old days being the best again. Hagler was excellent, yes, but he did lose to the likes of Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe. He also had two draws - Antuofermo and seales and the best names on his resume were Sugar Ray Leonard - lost, Tommy Hearns - won and Roberto Duran - won. Duran was never a middleweight so basically his standout win was Tommy Hearns.

I have no doubt that Golovkin would've KO'd spaghetti legs Hearns too.

It's pretty much impossible to compare eras but lets at least try and be subjective rather than trying to make out that yesteryear was some kind of different level. That is not the case.

I'm someone that completley agrees with you. However on this occassion it's not nostalgia, it's head over heart. Haggler was one of the greatest middleweights of all time. He was up against it from day one, he was once described as a fighter with three problems "your black, your good and your southpaw". He had to fight mostly away from home as "the away fighter" and took the Monroe loss at two weeks notice before beating him in the rematch.

GGGs doesnt really have a "best win" yet. He needs a defining fight, and soon. Granted he's looked sublime on the way up, but he's yet to face a real challenge. Unfortunately I think the only way he'll achieve long term greatness is by moving up.