BoxRec

Why Marvelous Marvin Hagler have a long layoff world middleweight title defenses between Thomas "Hitman" Hearns, John "The Beast" Mugabi and Sugar Ray Leonard?

After stopping Hearns in 3 rounds of the memorable war, Hagler took 11 months to knocked Mugabi out in 11 rounds and 13 months later, he lost his title to Sugar Ray Leonard in a disputed 12 round split decision.

Between those fights, should Hagler defend his title against the middleweight contender like James Shuler (summer of 1985), James "Heat" Kinchen and Herol Graham? Whatever reason, Hagler refused to fight them, but I don't want to accuse him for ducking because he was one of the all-time great middleweights. Do you think challengers like those I mentioned earlier weren't the top draw if they each fought Hagler? Did Hagler "dodged" them for him to defend against the top draw fighter like Sugar Ray Leonard?

I would imagine because its real hard to get up real early in the morning to train when you'r wearing silk pajamas.

Marvin was really at the end of his career. Made good money and would really only fight for the megabucks.

Yes, he should have fought Graham and re-matched Hearns. But nobody should hold it against him. He'd earned the right by that point...

Caractacus wrote:I would imagine because its real hard to get up real early in the morning to train when you'r wearing silk pajamas.

a great quote from the great man

stevedoc wrote:

Caractacus wrote:I would imagine because its real hard to get up real early in the morning to train when you'r wearing silk pajamas.

a great quote from the great man

Thanks pal!

scorpio83 wrote:Why Marvelous Marvin Hagler have a long layoff world middleweight title defenses between Thomas "Hitman" Hearns, John "The Beast" Mugabi and Sugar Ray Leonard?

After stopping Hearns in 3 rounds of the memorable war, Hagler took 11 months to knocked Mugabi out in 11 rounds and 13 months later, he lost his title to Sugar Ray Leonard in a disputed 12 round split decision.

Between those fights, should Hagler defend his title against the middleweight contender like James Shuler (summer of 1985), James "Heat" Kinchen and Herol Graham? Whatever reason, Hagler refused to fight them, but I don't want to accuse him for ducking because he was one of the all-time great middleweights. Do you think challengers like those I mentioned earlier weren't the top draw if they each fought Hagler? Did Hagler "dodged" them for him to defend against the top draw fighter like Sugar Ray Leonard?

At the time ,there was little interest in fights against Shuler, Graham, and Kinchen. He was far better than them and would have beaten them easily.

If I remember correctly, Hagler was supposed to fight Schuler the night Hearns did. They switched opponents at some point. The ultimate aim was for a rematch between Hagler/Hearns, I think it might have even been signed prior to that night.

At this point in his career he just wanted big money fights. Can't blame him.

Because aside from the ones you just mentioned, there weren't any big money fights of interest worth making.

Thanks for your opinions I appreciate it.

Ambling Alp II wrote:
At the time ,there was little interest in fights against Shuler, Graham, and Kinchen. He was far better than them and would have beaten them easily.

Kinchen and Shuler he'd have beaten easily. Nobody ever beat Graham easily. I'm not about to say Graham would beat him, but you can be sure he'd have take the early rounds with his speed and evasiveness against a slow starting Hagler, and Marvin would have needed to be at his best to walk him down. Trouble is, there wasn't anything in it for Hagler, whereas there was an awful lot in it for Graham. Not fighting him was a very smart move.

SamWise72 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
At the time ,there was little interest in fights against Shuler, Graham, and Kinchen. He was far better than them and would have beaten them easily.

Kinchen and Shuler he'd have beaten easily. Nobody ever beat Graham easily. I'm not about to say Graham would beat him, but you can be sure he'd have take the early rounds with his speed and evasiveness against a slow starting Hagler, and Marvin would have needed to be at his best to walk him down. Trouble is, there wasn't anything in it for Hagler, whereas there was an awful lot in it for Graham. Not fighting him was a very smart move.

Yes Graham would have been a hard, frustrating night. I suppose the general consensus would be Hagler getting to Graham eventually. It's a shame it never happened.

Graham never fought anyone nearly as good as Marvin Hagler. Huge disparity in ability here. Nobody was crying out for a Hagler-Graham fight. Hagler would have won this fairly easily.

Graham never fought anyone nearly as good as Marvin Hagler. Huge disparity in ability here. Nobody was crying out for a Hagler-Graham fight. Hagler would have won this fairly easily.

True, Herol was still a work in progress when Marvin was the kingpin and even in a prime v prime match-up I see Hagler marching Herol down and stopping the fight in the later rounds. Hagler was bad news for British middleweights in general...he finished Minter and gave Tony Sibson (who was not a bum) a right tonking. Herol lasts longer with that speed but still loses.

As an aside, whilst the Marvellous Marvin title was great....I much preferred Reg Gutteridge's nickname for Hagler which was the classic 'His Bald Eminence.'

I have no doubt that Hagler would have beaten Herol Graham in '87, let's say just before the loss to Kalambay. But I would expect Graham to give Hagler his toughest title defense and a close fight.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Graham never fought anyone nearly as good as Marvin Hagler. Huge disparity in ability here. Nobody was crying out for a Hagler-Graham fight. Hagler would have won this fairly easily.

Have you forgotten that he fought, and nearly beat, McCallum. You're absolutely right nobody was crying out for it, but the best Herol gives the Hagler of the Leonard fight a really hard night.

Herolium cuthbert graham v hagler in early 87 would have been closer than hag"s other defences but i see marvin coming from behind to pummel a stoppage in rounds 10-11 and retire immediately.if we are talking hagler 78-85 a huge disparity would be like sibson fight

I'm with you on the 87 fight, but even an earlier Hagler isn't going to hammer him; he was a LOT harder to hit than Sibson. I agree that Hagler still wins, and more easily, but I don't foresee an arse-kicking, ever. Nobody ever came close to giving a prime Graham a kicking.

Hagler-Mugabi got postponed from November '85 due to Hagler having an injury (back?) I'm not sure of exactly when rumours of Leonard's comeback started but I guess any of Hagler's future fights went on hold when it looked a serious proposition. Obviously there were questions about whether it would even get sanctioned especially since Leonard wouldn't have a warm up fight and Leonard had 'let down' Hagler before. Hearns was hoping for a rematch but with Hagler-Hearns fresh in the memory there wasn't a lot of clamour for it and even less after his mediocre (by Hearns standards) performance against Mark Medal.

SamWise72 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Graham never fought anyone nearly as good as Marvin Hagler. Huge disparity in ability here. Nobody was crying out for a Hagler-Graham fight. Hagler would have won this fairly easily.

Have you forgotten that he fought, and nearly beat, McCallum. You're absolutely right nobody was crying out for it, but the best Herol gives the Hagler of the Leonard fight a really hard night.

McCallum wasn't nearly as good as Hagler, and Graham couldn't beat him. He couldn't beat Kalambay either.

He beat Kalambay the second time, in the eyes of everyone but the judges. I agree that as a middle, McCallum is a level below Hagler, but not "nowhere near". Hagler McCallum peak for peak would have been a fantastic fight, which Hagler would have won. It would have been a masterclass on both sides.

Graham also got stopped by Julian Jackson and the legendary Frank Grant at middle. I think somehow Hagler would have done handled Graham as well.

Don't see why McCallum would be considered just a level behind Hagler at middleweight. Hagler was one of the greatest middleweights of all time. McCallum simply wasn't a great middleweight. Doubt he belongs in the top 50 for middleweights. We probably could name 30 that were better off the top of our heads.

Hagler wouldn't have not blown out McCallum, but would have won fairly easily assuming they both fought their normal fights. If Hagler had an off day, or McCallum had the best fight of his career, it would be more competitive. However, most of the time Hagler would have beaten him convincingly.

SamWise72 wrote:I'm with you on the 87 fight, but even an earlier Hagler isn't going to hammer him; he was a LOT harder to hit than Sibson. I agree that Hagler still wins, and more easily, but I don't foresee an arse-kicking, ever. Nobody ever came close to giving a prime Graham a kicking.

Sure he was a lot harder to hit than sibson and Tony was a terrific fighter.but that's not the point.the point is hagler was just so high a level than most other mw"s in history. Halter demolished some pretty slick fighters in the late 70s.

It wouldn't be a arse kicking per se.it would be a fight where haggie would systematically outclass his man and stop him late like McCallum to watson