BoxRec

this has my vote for worst post of the year

Hagler was always a much better boxer than he was a destroyer; his image overran what he was really doing in the ring. Leonard should have given Mugabi half of the money he was paid for the Hagler fight because Mugabi took a great deal out of Marvin and that may have made Leonard's victory possible.
Marvin could box had a terrific jab and usually a laser beam straight left hand. He had a tendency to arm punch with his punches especially on the inside, but he was capable of cranking them up as well. He bounces in and out of my top ten depending how regularly I watch his films

Hagler can never be considered great. Why not you ask? Because he was a southpaw. Hagler can only be considered awkward. Awkward and great are two different things. He was a plodding southpaw, and nowhere does that make a fighter great.

I agree with a lot fo what is being said here. Hagler's post prime wars make people think of him as a brawler when he was actually a great boxer. He had a long reach for his height. he had decent power, a good jab and was a great counterpuncher.

The Duran fight was less to do with Hagler and more to do with Duran. Duran realised Hagler didn't like to lead and forced him to do so. He figured Hagler out he just didn't have the size or youth to pull off a victory.

Anyway, Marvin was a great fighter, what else can i say?

Ezzard wrote:I agree with a lot fo what is being said here. Hagler's post prime wars make people think of him as a brawler when he was actually a great boxer. He had a long reach for his height. he had decent power, a good jab and was a great counterpuncher.

The Duran fight was less to do with Hagler and more to do with Duran. Duran realised Hagler didn't like to lead and forced him to do so. He figured Hagler out he just didn't have the size or youth to pull off a victory.

Anyway, Marvin was a great fighter, what else can i say?

Nothing. The guy beat Hearns, Duran and Leonard (yes i think he won the fight) so what else can i say ?

ringsider wrote:Hagler can never be considered great. Why not you ask? Because he was a southpaw. Hagler can only be considered awkward. Awkward and great are two different things. He was a plodding southpaw, and nowhere does that make a fighter great.

At last someone who knows what they are talking about

Croydon1 wrote:

ringsider wrote:Hagler can never be considered great. Why not you ask? Because he was a southpaw. Hagler can only be considered awkward. Awkward and great are two different things. He was a plodding southpaw, and nowhere does that make a fighter great.

At last someone who knows what they are talking about

What do you mean by awkward?

babyhuey wrote:this has my vote for worst post of the year

Amen! How does that old saying go? Better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Croydon1 wrote:

ringsider wrote:Hagler can never be considered great. Why not you ask? Because he was a southpaw. Hagler can only be considered awkward. Awkward and great are two different things. He was a plodding southpaw, and nowhere does that make a fighter great.

At last someone who knows what they are talking about

None of this answers the question as to why he was able to dominate the middleweight division.

Croydon1 wrote:

ringsider wrote:Hagler can never be considered great. Why not you ask? Because he was a southpaw. Hagler can only be considered awkward. Awkward and great are two different things. He was a plodding southpaw, and nowhere does that make a fighter great.

At last someone who knows what they are talking about

So southpaws cant be great?? Thats just dumb

babyhuey wrote:this has my vote for worst post of the year

Amen!

The bottom line is that Hagler was the greatest Middle for 7 whole yrs. This cannot be achieved by being an average fighter. Saying this I personally think Marvin was too inconsistent to be considered the greatest or even top 5.....He really looked like a novice against Leonard, who was out of the ring for 3.5 yrs, Duran made him look extremely average, Duran was a blown up lightweight. I think the reason he is considered so great is his granite chin, the fact nobody could dent it. I however see Marvin losing every time to a fast slick mover with decent power and stamina and chin. Leonard coasted against him and I wouldn't put my money on MARVIN beating a prime Nunn or James Toney...he's too slow for those guys....

ShoeShine wrote:

Croydon1 wrote:

ringsider wrote:Hagler can never be considered great. Why not you ask? Because he was a southpaw. Hagler can only be considered awkward. Awkward and great are two different things. He was a plodding southpaw, and nowhere does that make a fighter great.

At last someone who knows what they are talking about

So southpaws cant be great?? Thats just dumb

So what about Whitaker ?

walshb wrote:The bottom line is that Hagler was the greatest Middle for 7 whole yrs. This cannot be achieved by being an average fighter. Saying this I personally think Marvin was too inconsistent to be considered the greatest or even top 5.....He really looked like a novice against Leonard, who was out of the ring for 3.5 yrs, Duran made him look extremely average, Duran was a blown up lightweight. I think the reason he is considered so great is his granite chin, the fact nobody could dent it. I however see Marvin losing every time to a fast slick mover with decent power and stamina and chin. Leonard coasted against him and I wouldn't put my money on MARVIN beating a prime Nunn or James Toney...he's too slow for those guys....

I agree with the first part of your statement. But I don't see how you can single out Hagler as being inconsistent and not say the same thing about Toney or Nunn. Their are very few fighters who were at their best every time they fought. Even Joe Louis had off nights. Anytime Hagler lost or drew he came back to avenge this setback. The Leonard fight being the lone exception and I think he wins that in a rematch. Hagler was extremly consistent and competly underated. I also disagree when you say he would lose to Toney or Nunn.

So what about Whitaker ?

Sweet Pea was even worse, at least Hagler could punch a bit. Whitaker was a runner, never fought....

ringsider wrote:

So what about Whitaker ?

Sweet Pea was even worse, at least Hagler could punch a bit. Whitaker was a runner, never fought....

Boxings not just about punching and 'fighting' its about using the skills and science of 'boxing' itself... which far few boxers can do today... shame on you for denigrating a great boxer like Whitaker.

walshb wrote:The bottom line is that Hagler was the greatest Middle for 7 whole yrs. This cannot be achieved by being an average fighter. Saying this I personally think Marvin was too inconsistent to be considered the greatest or even top 5.....He really looked like a novice against Leonard, who was out of the ring for 3.5 yrs, Duran made him look extremely average, Duran was a blown up lightweight. I think the reason he is considered so great is his granite chin, the fact nobody could dent it. I however see Marvin losing every time to a fast slick mover with decent power and stamina and chin. Leonard coasted against him and I wouldn't put my money on MARVIN beating a prime Nunn or James Toney...he's too slow for those guys....

maybe thats why herol graham never got a title shot.

headhunter wrote:

walshb wrote:The bottom line is that Hagler was the greatest Middle for 7 whole yrs. This cannot be achieved by being an average fighter. Saying this I personally think Marvin was too inconsistent to be considered the greatest or even top 5.....He really looked like a novice against Leonard, who was out of the ring for 3.5 yrs, Duran made him look extremely average, Duran was a blown up lightweight. I think the reason he is considered so great is his granite chin, the fact nobody could dent it. I however see Marvin losing every time to a fast slick mover with decent power and stamina and chin. Leonard coasted against him and I wouldn't put my money on MARVIN beating a prime Nunn or James Toney...he's too slow for those guys....

maybe thats why herol graham never got a title shot.

I think Graham in 86 or '87 would have beaten the Hagler of that time...

silkov wrote:

headhunter wrote:

walshb wrote:The bottom line is that Hagler was the greatest Middle for 7 whole yrs. This cannot be achieved by being an average fighter. Saying this I personally think Marvin was too inconsistent to be considered the greatest or even top 5.....He really looked like a novice against Leonard, who was out of the ring for 3.5 yrs, Duran made him look extremely average, Duran was a blown up lightweight. I think the reason he is considered so great is his granite chin, the fact nobody could dent it. I however see Marvin losing every time to a fast slick mover with decent power and stamina and chin. Leonard coasted against him and I wouldn't put my money on MARVIN beating a prime Nunn or James Toney...he's too slow for those guys....

maybe thats why herol graham never got a title shot.

I think Graham in 86 or '87 would have beaten the Hagler of that time...

so do i mate.

headhunter wrote:

silkov wrote:

headhunter wrote: maybe thats why herol graham never got a title shot.

I think Graham in 86 or '87 would have beaten the Hagler of that time...

so do i mate.

I think Graham was the top contender at the time but Marvin was having his 'superfights' ...which I don't really begrudge him but a Graham vs Hagler bout would have been fascinating....

Croydon1 wrote:power but no skill

you are a comedian

go and play with the traffic

kick asner wrote:

walshb wrote:The bottom line is that Hagler was the greatest Middle for 7 whole yrs. This cannot be achieved by being an average fighter. Saying this I personally think Marvin was too inconsistent to be considered the greatest or even top 5.....He really looked like a novice against Leonard, who was out of the ring for 3.5 yrs, Duran made him look extremely average, Duran was a blown up lightweight. I think the reason he is considered so great is his granite chin, the fact nobody could dent it. I however see Marvin losing every time to a fast slick mover with decent power and stamina and chin. Leonard coasted against him and I wouldn't put my money on MARVIN beating a prime Nunn or James Toney...he's too slow for those guys....

I agree with the first part of your statement. But I don't see how you can single out Hagler as being inconsistent and not say the same thing about Toney or Nunn. Their are very few fighters who were at their best every time they fought. Even Joe Louis had off nights. Anytime Hagler lost or drew he came back to avenge this setback. The Leonard fight being the lone exception and I think he wins that in a rematch. Hagler was extremly consistent and competly underated. I also disagree when you say he would lose to Toney or Nunn.

I concur with K.A. I believe Hagler would have out worked Nunn and outboxed Toney. As slick defensively as Toney is, RJJ exposed a major chink in his armor - movement, speed & accuracy. Toney is a defensive minded fighter. While Hagler would not have been able to break through completely and KO him, he definitely would have out-hustled Toney into a UD win.

As for Nunn, he was big, had a decent jab and power, but he hadn't faced someone quite like Hagler. I see Hagler going through his jab, blocking Nunn's power shots, and landing with his own. Both fights, however, would have gone the distance with Hagler winning by UD, not a wash-out, but a win nevertheless.

walshb wrote:The bottom line is that Hagler was the greatest Middle for 7 whole yrs. This cannot be achieved by being an average fighter. Saying this I personally think Marvin was too inconsistent to be considered the greatest or even top 5.....He really looked like a novice against Leonard, who was out of the ring for 3.5 yrs, Duran made him look extremely average, Duran was a blown up lightweight. I think the reason he is considered so great is his granite chin, the fact nobody could dent it. I however see Marvin losing every time to a fast slick mover with decent power and stamina and chin. Leonard coasted against him and I wouldn't put my money on MARVIN beating a prime Nunn or James Toney...he's too slow for those guys....

Duran was far more than just a lightweight with a great chin, he was a great boxer too... Hagler didn't slug with him because he knew Durans excellence at infighting... but Nunn and Toney were along way from Duran... Hagler would have broken Nunn up and outworked Toney... the Hagler who lost to Leonard was a faded force, which is why Ray agreed to fight him at last...

silkov wrote:

headhunter wrote:

walshb wrote:The bottom line is that Hagler was the greatest Middle for 7 whole yrs. This cannot be achieved by being an average fighter. Saying this I personally think Marvin was too inconsistent to be considered the greatest or even top 5.....He really looked like a novice against Leonard, who was out of the ring for 3.5 yrs, Duran made him look extremely average, Duran was a blown up lightweight. I think the reason he is considered so great is his granite chin, the fact nobody could dent it. I however see Marvin losing every time to a fast slick mover with decent power and stamina and chin. Leonard coasted against him and I wouldn't put my money on MARVIN beating a prime Nunn or James Toney...he's too slow for those guys....

maybe thats why herol graham never got a title shot.

I think Graham in 86 or '87 would have beaten the Hagler of that time...

Possibly, Pete. But that version of Herol Graham was comprehensivly beaten by Sumbu Kalambay. Yes, I've heard all the excuses for that loss but the fact still stands. I did think he did enough to win the rematch some years later though.

headhunter wrote:

walshb wrote:The bottom line is that Hagler was the greatest Middle for 7 whole yrs. This cannot be achieved by being an average fighter. Saying this I personally think Marvin was too inconsistent to be considered the greatest or even top 5.....He really looked like a novice against Leonard, who was out of the ring for 3.5 yrs, Duran made him look extremely average, Duran was a blown up lightweight. I think the reason he is considered so great is his granite chin, the fact nobody could dent it. I however see Marvin losing every time to a fast slick mover with decent power and stamina and chin. Leonard coasted against him and I wouldn't put my money on MARVIN beating a prime Nunn or James Toney...he's too slow for those guys....

maybe thats why herol graham never got a title shot.

He actually had 3 titles shots.

Very closely outpointed by McCallum when Herol was probably at his peak.

Sparked by Jackson in a fight he was well on the way to winning.

Stopped by Brewer at 168 when he was at the end of his career.