BoxRec

I don't know what it is but I'm still not being swept along with the GGG bandwagon. He does however appear to punch with power and allegedly has never been dropped as an amateur or pro (383 fights). His defence seems a bit slack so wondering how the great Hagler would've faired.

I see Hagler winning a decision. What do you think?

Golovkin would have broken his hand trying to knock Hagler out.

Golovkin is good; probably the best 160lber of his era, but he hasn't beaten anyone of any note yet.

I'm also saying Hagler on points.

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

Hagler was an old school technician with all around ability. He could brawl, apply pressure, power punch, and box well. Not the best on defense, and could be out speed.

If I had to put a standard label on him I'd have to say boxer/puncher type who could switch stances.

It would be one heck of a fight. 50.50

The thing about GGG is he hasn't really had a hard fight, at least not as far as I'm aware. On that basis I would imagine he hasn't taken the sort of stick Marvin proved able to soak up and give back with interest. On that basis I lean slightly towards Hagler. Close call though. There's no question Marvin looked the part more. If you see Golovkin outside the ring it's hard to imagine he's a fighter - fresh-faced, always smiling and laughing.

I have an inkling that in a year's time we'll be swinging towards GGG. Longevity of reign is the only thing he lacks now and perhaps in that period he'll get a defining fight as well....but right now the Marvellous One remains ahead.

pound per pound wrote: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

Ok well Golovkin looks impressive and can't do much more than he has done, sweeping all before him but seriously - is there one name on his list that isn't a just a decent contender. Hagler beat pretty much every middle in the world, held the undisputed title for 7 years and was unbeaten for 10. He beat Hearns, Duran and a whole host of top fighters.

From what we know Hagler is cut above and wins easy on points. Prob worth looking at this again in 2 years.

cfang wrote:Ok well Golovkin looks impressive and can't do much more than he has done, sweeping all before him but seriously - is there one name on his list that isn't a just a decent contender. Hagler beat pretty much every middle in the world, held the undisputed title for 7 years and was unbeaten for 10. He beat Hearns, Duran and a whole host of top fighters.

From what we know Hagler is cut above and wins easy on points. Prob worth looking at this again in 2 years.

While Hearns and Duran were all time greats, they were also blown up welter's and lightweights.

Mayweather isn't going to take the bait and fight Golvokin! Neither will Cotto. Ah, the times we live in.

Who were the best natural middles that Hagler beat?

GGG hasn't had a defining dust up yet but remains the best in his class - hagler beat world class opposition year in year out and remains among the best middleweights ever.

marvin UD

I read somewhere that GGG has never been off his feet pro or amatuer HAGLER was never down in his life as a pro until he it the canvas against ROLDAN It was more of a slip off balance time of knock down HAGLER wasn't hurt he was more pissed off about hitting the canvas, First time for everything HAGLER beat much better competition than GGG thus far if he could beat the best that's around his weight class like HAGLER did
then people will start to rate him up with the HAGLER'S but until then AND I KNOW THAT PEOPLE LIKE ARUM/OSCAR/HAYMON and the rest of them dictate more than ever who you can fight........ GGG would keep HAGLER on his toe's early MMH WOULD be aware of GGG power HAGLER would use
his faster combination punching to off set GGG and with good movement would build a commanding lead by the 6/7 round GGG would have his
moment's early but MR PERPETIAL MOTION would keep on keeping on and take advantage of GGG lack of defence to get a late stoppage
ROUND 11......

pound per pound wrote:

cfang wrote:Ok well Golovkin looks impressive and can't do much more than he has done, sweeping all before him but seriously - is there one name on his list that isn't a just a decent contender. Hagler beat pretty much every middle in the world, held the undisputed title for 7 years and was unbeaten for 10. He beat Hearns, Duran and a whole host of top fighters.

From what we know Hagler is cut above and wins easy on points. Prob worth looking at this again in 2 years.

While Hearns and Duran were all time greats, they were also blown up welter's and lightweights.

Mayweather isn't going to take the bait and fight Golvokin! Neither will Cotto. Ah, the times we live in.

Who were the best natural middles that Hagler beat?

I know Hearns started off at welterweight, but he was much bigger than Hagler & fought at higher weights eventually & was very successful doing so too.

Duran was blown up, but he was competitive in weight classes above lightweight, it's not as if Hagler was preying on some little guys who were way out of their depth.

Hagler had a whole career, came up the hard way, fought & beat some major beasts before he even got a title shot.

I would argue that some of those guys he fought then were better than anyone Golovkin has beaten to date.

This is always going to be Golovkins problem when being judged against guys like Hagler. There isnt the strength in depth that Hagler had in his day, and also no other "great" fighters to compete against. All he can do is fight the best available and keep winning.

Potentially he is as good as Hagler, but he will never have the chance to prove it.

The wackos have escaped from the asylum.

Now there's a host of people who think Golovkin could actually shine Hagler's shoes.

When this GG character starts putting names on his resume that rival the Durans, Leonards, Hearns, Mugabis, Minters, and Antuofuermos, then the discussion can commence.

Right now, the thought of Golovkin in the ring with Hagler is ludicrous. He would be painfully butchered by a rugged master technician, solid puncher and a guy you simply couldn't hurt.

The only thing these two fighters have in common is their weight and both having fought Willie "The Worm" Monroe.

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

Hagler was an old school technician with all around ability. He could brawl, apply pressure, power punch, and box well. Not the best on defense, and could be out speed.

If I had to put a standard label on him I'd have to say boxer/puncher type who could switch stances.

It would be one heck of a fight. 50.50

But I can't surely say he hits harder than Hearns or Mugabi

SenorPipino wrote:The wackos have escaped from the asylum.

Now there's a host of people who think Golovkin could actually shine Hagler's shoes.

When this GG character starts putting names on his resume that rival the Durans, Leonards, Hearns, Mugabis, Minters, and Antuofuermos, then the discussion can commence.

Right now, the thought of Golovkin in the ring with Hagler is ludicrous. He would be painfully butchered by a rugged master technician, solid puncher and a guy you simply couldn't hurt.

The only thing these two fighters have in common is their weight and both having fought Willie "The Worm" Monroe.

I am not so sure Pipino, agreed the modern game is very different, and the talent pool is much thinner. BUT...I think GGG would also have beaten many of Haglers defences-Mugabi, Anteufermo, Obel, Lee, Sibson, Scypion, Roldan etc would all I feel have fallen in fights with GGG. Hagler also struggled with Duran, Anteufermo-and I don't think the thought of Hagler in the ring with GGG is "ludicrous"...of course Hagler would start as an overwhelming favourite-he is possibly the best middleweight of all time-but GGG is a very accomplished box fighter with great power. It isn't ludicrous to imagine him giving Hagler a decent fight.

IKSRTFO wrote:

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

Hagler was an old school technician with all around ability. He could brawl, apply pressure, power punch, and box well. Not the best on defense, and could be out speed.

If I had to put a standard label on him I'd have to say boxer/puncher type who could switch stances.

It would be one heck of a fight. 50.50

But I can't surely say he hits harder than Hearns or Mugabi

I would say on pure power, GGG hits a little harder than Hearns. Hearns was a monster at 147, but his power was as great as GGG's at 160.

If GGG fights and defeats Froch at 168, he will have done something Hagler never did. Move up in class to fight a bigger man. Many of Hagler's best wins were vs. fighters moving up to 160.

pound per pound wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:

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

Hagler was an old school technician with all around ability. He could brawl, apply pressure, power punch, and box well. Not the best on defense, and could be out speed.

If I had to put a standard label on him I'd have to say boxer/puncher type who could switch stances.

It would be one heck of a fight. 50.50

But I can't surely say he hits harder than Hearns or Mugabi

I would say on pure power, GGG hits a little harder than Hearns. Hearns was a monster at 147, but his power was as great as GGG's at 160.

If GGG fights and defeats Froch at 168, he will have done something Hagler never did. Move up in class to fight a bigger man. Many of Hagler's best wins were vs. fighters moving up to 160.

We don't know until GGG moves up. What we do know is that Hearns power DID move up to light heavy with him. Hearns basically cracked as a heavyweight. You know a mid weightclass fighter hits hard when Mike Tyson is impressed by it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... -qmd8#t=88

I enjoy watching GGG. He is a very entertaining fighter that shows a ton of talent. But and it is a very big BUT. Who the hell has he beaten that makes people say he can beat a Hagler?
I will agree I would like to see this fight. But I would not put money on GGG.
Hagler proved himself against legitimate competition. GGG has faced well pretty much no one.
It is just comparing an atg vs a guy that we don't know what he is really capable of just yet.

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?

I suspect that Golovkin's recent laxness in terms of his defence is in part wilful: over-confidence / lack of respect for his opponents / creating fight ending counter-punch opportunities / just wanting to entertain the fans. If I'm right he should be at least somewhat more on-point if the Froch fight comes off.

Saying that, Hagler lived to be in the ring with someone as aggressive as Golovkin. Plus the evidence seems to suggest that he had much better stamina (Golovkin at least looking tired in the later rounds while fighting at his own pace vs Murray / Hagler closing the show when he needed to vs Duran) which would make a huge difference if it is a 15 rounder.

Hagler was arguably outhustled for parts of the Duran and Leonard fights and Golovkin and his team have enough savvy and boxing ability to somewhat exploit his struggles with guys who won't stay in the pocket playing chess with him the whole time. We haven't seen Golovkin on a huge stage but he seems to have a icy, business-like aspect which should serve him well in the heat of battle, Hagler seems a little bit more emotional.

In the end, I see the fight going like this: after the first few rounds Golovkin has shown Hagler a few different looks but has generally fought aggressively and sharply, generally keeping the mid-long range he prefers, maybe scoring a KD, maybe inflicting a cut. After six GGG is clearly up. Marvin works his way into the fight from here and most rounds up to 10 are close with momentum sways and a few dramatic trade-offs. Generally Hagler is getting the best of it and thereafter it starts to look more and more like a Hagler fight. After being encouraged to keep it out of the hands of the judges, Hagler overwhelms an exhausted Golovkin and forces the ref (or the corner) to stop it near the beginning of the 14th.

HyacinthusTurnipseed wrote: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?

HyacinthusTurnipseed wrote: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 is a good point and one that people in this section of the forum often overlook in my opinion. So much of the discussion in the hypothetical match-ups threads just comes down to which guy fought better opposition rather than how good each fighter was and how their styles and attributes compare.

crusader wrote:

HyacinthusTurnipseed wrote: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 is a good point and one that people in this section of the forum often overlook in my opinion. So much of the discussion in the hypothetical match-ups threads just comes down to which guy fought better opposition.

yes you are correct. Resume is always mentioned and sometimes unfairly.
but shouldn't the fighter have had to have at least one A level opponent to see how they handle it?
GGG has never faced a single top tier opponent. I just don't know how anyone can base a performance against a string of C level fighters.

Again I will stress that I enjoy GGG and he may be the total package and end up in a discussion as an all time great. But to pick him against an atg in a mythical match up at this time is premature. Until we see what he does against at least one quality opponent

Resumes are relevant to an extent, but to me it seems like some people overestimate their importance in hypothetical match-ups; fights aren't won based on who has the better resume and just because someone hasn't fought a certain level of opponent doesn't mean that they couldn't successfully do so. Moreover, because of the assumption involved some people become apoplectic when others pick a relatively unproven fighter to beat a more proven one, but remember that in cases like this if you predict that a fighter will win because they're more proven you're also assuming that an opponent who has faced inferior opposition won't be able to cut it at a higher-level.

HT gave his prediction in the ideal manner, mentioning specific qualities the fighters bring to the ring and how those compare without too heavily going by whose opposition is better.

pound per pound wrote:

cfang wrote:Ok well Golovkin looks impressive and can't do much more than he has done, sweeping all before him but seriously - is there one name on his list that isn't a just a decent contender. Hagler beat pretty much every middle in the world, held the undisputed title for 7 years and was unbeaten for 10. He beat Hearns, Duran and a whole host of top fighters.

From what we know Hagler is cut above and wins easy on points. Prob worth looking at this again in 2 years.

While Hearns and Duran were all time greats, they were also blown up welter's and lightweights.

Mayweather isn't going to take the bait and fight Golvokin! Neither will Cotto. Ah, the times we live in.

Who were the best natural middles that Hagler beat?

Hearns a: "blown up welter". Yeah, that poor, undersized, Tommy Hearns. He was quite a scrappy guy to have the career he had with the size disadvantage and all.

As good as Hearns was he still folded early enough against Marvin. Hearns was just a bit unreliable. He was shaky. Could never have true confidence in him against hard and tough and heavy handed opponents. GGG IMO gives Marvin a lot more to think about. He's stringre, hits very hard and seems to take a good shot. I just think this fight becomes a war of attrition and close range fought. I'd have to lean with Hagler in this scenario. GGG would need to be a little cuter and better defensively for me to pick him. Hagler via points over 12.