Posted: 05 Dec 2006, 05:45
I'm of the opinion that Hagler's pre title opposition was just as good as his post title winning opposition. The pre title names may not be as 'big' but they certainly match up favourably against the fighters he defended againstDoubleM wrote:He got out with his health and dignity, but his legacy took a bashing. Most don't realize now, or didn't at the time, how past his prime Hagler was. The Hagler-Leonard fight is perhaps the most famous of all his fights, and it shows a plodding version of the once agile terror being made a fool of by the peoples' pretty boy (regardless of who won). I've known of a few people who have only seen the Hearns, Mugabi and Leonard fights and have turned round and said to me - 'yea, Hagler was great, but Leonard was better', or 'Hagler was a good brawler but could be outboxed' - as a fan it frustrates me because I know they haven't seen him anywhere near his best. By those fights he was far from the speedy, versatile destroyer of '79 to '82. At least with Ali-Holmes, nobody gives Holmes much credit for the win. Leonard is constantly praised for 'coming out of retirement and stepping up in weight to beat a monster' with no mention of Hagler's own disadvantages.dr_devious wrote:At least Hagler got out with his faculties in tact and is still in good health. Also he didnt attempt any pointless comebacks like most fighters do and get hammered by a lesser fighter. And finally, without wanting to start this old thread again, Hagler didnt really lose even in his last fight!DoubleM wrote:Marvin Hagler. At least with Muhammad Ali, Ray Robinson & co., you knew for definite they were past their best. Some people think Hagler was in his prime against Ray Leonard...