BoxRec

This was mentioned on another thread but I thought it deserved a thread of it's own.

What if Ray Leonard had stayed retired in 1987 and the aging Hagler had defended his title against the UK's Herol 'Bomber' Graham?

Hagler was coming to the end of his career and had slowed down a bit which would of course be an advantage to the 'king of the who needs him club' Graham.

Herol had to type of slippery style to give anyone a nightmare of a fight as seen when he gave a near peak Mike McCallum a tough nights work.

Was Hagler still a cut above Graham? Or would the tricky Graham slip, slap, slide and fustrate his way to a points win.

Over 15 rounds what do you think would happen fight fans?

KOJOE90 wrote:This was mentioned on another thread but I thought it deserved a thread of it's own.

What if Ray Leonard had stayed retired in 1987 and the aging Hagler had defended his title against the UK's Herol 'Bomber' Graham?

Hagler was coming to the end of his career and had slowed down a bit which would of course be an advantage to the 'king of the who needs him club' Graham.

Herol had to type of slippery style to give anyone a nightmare of a fight as seen when he gave a near peak Mike McCallum a tough nights work.

Was Hagler still a cut above Graham? Or would the tricky Graham slip, slap, slide and fustrate his way to a points win.

Over 15 rounds what do you think would happen fight fans?

I'd have to go with Hagler within 3 rounds.

I think the Hagler of '87 would find Herol too slippery..... even in his prime Hagler would be troubled by Herols style and speed but while a prime Hagler would eventually wear Graham down I think the Hagler of 86/87 would not have been able to catch up with Herol for long enougth and would lose on points quite clearly.
Herol would have been able to do a better job than Leonard did in '87 I think.

I would favour Herol to have been good enough to do the job as early as 85.

By 87 Hagler was past it , he never was the most active of title holders but he had only 2fights in 84, then one fight in 85 86 and the loss to leonard in 87.

Graham was probably at his best around 87.

Hagler would have knocked out herol graham in 5 rounds. just because he lost to leonard after leonard had basically not fought in 5 years doesnt mean he was past his prime. i admit hagler was STARTING TO slip a little, but defintely still had it. the signs of slipping came when mugabi gave him a tough fight, but mugabi then was undefeated and fought his best fight and hagler still gave him a beating and knocked him out, though he took some shots. leonard should get all the credit in the world for beating hagler, dont try to take away leonrds victory by saying hagler was way past his prime.
remember hagler fought his best fight just two years earlier and hadnt shown much signs of aging.


graham defintely didnt have the skill to beat hagler, even hagler of 87 which was still very good. ur comparing an all time great with a good champion but not great. leonard beat hagler by driving hagler off his game and by fighting the smartes tactical fight ever. lleonard also still had amazing hand speed better than herol and leonard knew how to stay clear of danger. harol wouldnt be able to do those things.


also in 87, graham was beaten by sumbu kalambay.


graham would have waited about 3 more years until 1990 if he was going to fight hagler. no way he would fight him when hagler still had fight in him. remember this, mike mccalum never challenged hagler or never showed signs of wanting to step up in face hagler. mccalum had a chance to fight guys like hearns and hagler but he stayed clear of them.
i would have liked to se mccalum try to step up and face hagler. even if he lost it wouldnt hurt his legacy, it would have only helped.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Hagler would have knocked out herol graham in 5 rounds. just because he lost to leonard after leonard had basically not fought in 5 years doesnt mean he was past his prime. i admit hagler was STARTING TO slip a little, but defintely still had it. the signs of slipping came when mugabi gave him a tough fight, but mugabi then was undefeated and fought his best fight and hagler still gave him a beating and knocked him out, though he took some shots. leonard should get all the credit in the world for beating hagler, dont try to take away leonrds victory by saying hagler was way past his prime.
remember hagler fought his best fight just two years earlier and hadnt shown much signs of aging.


graham defintely didnt have the skill to beat hagler, even hagler of 87 which was still very good. ur comparing an all time great with a good champion but not great. leonard beat hagler by driving hagler off his game and by fighting the smartes tactical fight ever. lleonard also still had amazing hand speed better than herol and leonard knew how to stay clear of danger. harol wouldnt be able to do those things.


also in 87, graham was beaten by sumbu kalambay.


graham would have waited about 3 more years until 1990 if he was going to fight hagler. no way he would fight him when hagler still had fight in him. remember this, mike mccalum never challenged hagler or never showed signs of wanting to step up in face hagler. mccalum had a chance to fight guys like hearns and hagler but he stayed clear of them.
i would have liked to se mccalum try to step up and face hagler. even if he lost it wouldnt hurt his legacy, it would have only helped.

I doubt you have seen Herol at his best. The Graham of 86/87 was faster and harder to hit than the Leonard who beat Hagler. Hagler was well past his prime against Leonard... in fact he was very close to being 'shot'... he didn't have much at all and had Graham been in there that night he would have taken a much clearer decision victory over Hagler.
Herol was slowing down himself by '90... in the late 80s he was persuaded by certain persons to alter his style and become more aggressive and less elusive in the hope that this would get him a title fight.... this ploy eventually backfired badly.
Against Hagler Herol would not have layed on the ropes like Leonard did he would have been moving the whole time and Hagler would have had a hard time landing more than one punch at a time on him.
If you want to see how good Herol was watch him against Mccallum and Kalambay two other fighters who were avoided by all and sundry..... Herol fought the wrong fight against both but still gave both men very hard fights... indeed he could have beaten Mccallum... that was a very close fight when Mccallum was in his prime.

yeah i saw both fights and he did give mike mccalum a very tough close fight. i was impressed by herol graham. and i think higjly of mccalum, and can never understand why he lost to sumbu kalambay. sumbu was very underated, i just though mccalum should have won.
and i also saw the fight where graham was out unconcious on the floor in the 4th round after he won the first 3 rounds.


u cannot say graham had faster hand speed than leonard even in 87. in leonards prime theirs not question but his hand speed did slow down a little from insane to one of the best. i think in leonards prime, he might have had the quickest handspeed of all time. and he showed a lot of handspeed against hagler with those flurries. herol graham could not match leonard in handspeed.

was hagler really past his prime?? OR DID LEONARD EXPOSE HIM AND FIGHT A SMART FIGHT TO BEAT HAGLER. hagler just two years before fought his peak fight???

Hagler would have got to him before the end, he wasn't that bad vs Leonard.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it? At the time all the boxing mags were saying that Hagler wouldn't be bothered or motivated by the prospect of battering Herol Graham around for 12 rounds in what may have been one of his very last fights. This was before the Leonard fight

An actual fight? As said earlier hindsight suggests that Graham would have been too slippery for Hagler by this stage but I'd tend to believe that Bomber would have frozen up at the prospect of fighting a Hagler, same as he'd previously done with his biggest fights (except the Jackson one, where he was simply bombed by a haymaker)

It just struck me that I have never seen Graham fight...Kalambay and McCallum are good ones?

tiredoldngrey wrote:It just struck me that I have never seen Graham fight...Kalambay and McCallum are good ones?

Graham is worth checking out if you enjoy some of the more subtle skills of Boxing and if you enjoy watching slippery defence minded type fighters. Although some of his fights could be a little messy at times.

If you ever saw a young pre-title Naseem Hamed, Graham was simular but with less power.

Graham was beaten in 87 by Kalambay but you have to realise that this was his second fight since leaving Brendan Ingle.

He went with Barnie "kiss of death" Eastwood. The same Eastwood who ruined McGuigan's title reign. The very first quote from eastwood after securing Herols services went along the lines of "We are taking him back to basics to make a better, more aggresive fighter" the result? Bomber was never has good again. Hate to say it but once an Ingle fighter leaves his stable and tries to alter their style under another trainer, even one as good as Manny Steward, they just seem to start losing or put in really lacklustre performances, Naseem Ahmed anyone???

Graham had been calling out Hagler for 2 - 3 years prior to 87. In fact I recall him doing just that on ITV after outclassing Jose Seyes in 84 which prompted some American in the background to retort "what did that young man just say?"

None of the top americans (nor the top british guys later) wanted to touch Graham if they could help it and who could blame them. Personally I always got the feeling that this was the main reason that Ahmed made his mouth run away so much, he was much harder to ignore that way. Poor Herol was so quite and unassuming out of the ring and did speak quite effeminate that even with his considable skills he was never going to find a fanbase within the "football" fan culture. Incidently I suppose everyone as now seen the photo of Herol where someone as "doctored" it to remove his shorts, although funny I feel it does a great diservice to probably one of the most naturally talented fighters I have ever seen.

At his best I would not have been the least bit surprised if Graham had befuddled and outpointed Hagler although it is hard to vote against probably the best middleweight that I have ever seen.

It's just a shame that Ingle can't hang on to these guys cos they don't then fulfill their considerable promise.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:was hagler really past his prime?? OR DID LEONARD EXPOSE HIM AND FIGHT A SMART FIGHT TO BEAT HAGLER. hagler just two years before fought his peak fight???

Hagler was without doubt past his prime infact I believe he was well on his way to being shot.

But Leonard fought a clever fight as well.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:yeah i saw both fights and he did give mike mccalum a very tough close fight. i was impressed by herol graham. and i think higjly of mccalum, and can never understand why he lost to sumbu kalambay. sumbu was very underated, i just though mccalum should have won.
and i also saw the fight where graham was out unconcious on the floor in the 4th round after he won the first 3 rounds.


u cannot say graham had faster hand speed than leonard even in 87. in leonards prime theirs not question but his hand speed did slow down a little from insane to one of the best. i think in leonards prime, he might have had the quickest handspeed of all time. and he showed a lot of handspeed against hagler with those flurries. herol graham could not match leonard in handspeed.

was hagler really past his prime?? OR DID LEONARD EXPOSE HIM AND FIGHT A SMART FIGHT TO BEAT HAGLER. hagler just two years before fought his peak fight???

When Leonard fought HAGLER he was still fast I'm not disputing that but Herol would have been much more mobile and elusive even than Leonard was against Hagler. Grahams 'party trick' in his gym was to get into the ring with another boxer and with his hands behind his back avoid all the punches thrown by the other boxer.
The reason Leonard agreed finally to fight Hagler is that he saw that Marvin had slowed down considerably against Mugubi... Mugubi fought a great fight that night but Hagler was not the Hagler of old.
Herols style was polluted when he was taken over by Eastwood who tried to make a more aggressive fighter of him and this cost him the fights against both Kalambay and Mccullum... hard fights anyway they were made harder by Graham fighting in a manner which he shouldn't have been. The loss to Jackson was for the same reason... Julians eyes were closing Herol was well ahead, had he just kept his distance and boxed he would have won on a stoppage in a round or two but he instead came forward to try and force a stoppage and got nailed by one of the most powerful punchers pound for pound I've ever seen.
The sad with with Herol is he tried to alter his style to become more 'viewer friendly' and it ruined him.

silkov wrote: Herols style was polluted when he was taken over by Eastwood who tried to make a more aggressive fighter of him and this cost him the fights against both Kalambay and Mccullum... hard fights anyway they were made harder by Graham fighting in a manner which he shouldn't have been.

Absolutely, I am convinced Graham would have won these fights with surprising ease had he stayed with the Ingle camp.

It is often said that Hagler fought his best opponents before he was champ, that he cleared out the division before he finally won the title.

It is also true that he gained more stature in the division by beating lighter weight fighters moving up, true these fighters were also legends..Hearns, Duran and Leonard.

Mugabe was a fearsome fighter but limited to just a tremendous punch.
The likes of Herol, Kalambay and especially McCallum were alltogether different class.

Like most boxers when they have made it they look for the `most suitable` opponents, not the most deserving.

I have never heard it say before that McCallum was the one who avoided Hagler, hearns or Leonard...what does get said is that they avoided him..and who could blame them

Mccallum, Kalambay and Graham were all member of the 'who needs them' club and that is one of the reasons why they all ended up fighting eachother.

2 southpaws might make this a bit of a stinker (which would suit Graham). Hagler would have been following him around the ring and missing. Graham had a great defence and great reflexes. In 1987 Marvin seemed to have lost a little in speed.

I think Hagler's erosion coupled with Graham's peak would have made this intriguing. I still favour Marvin over 15 (by stoppage) but over 12 I could see Herol stealing an unpopular decision.

Why is this even being discussed?

What great fighter has Herol Graham ever beaten?

You're comparing a fighter who never even held a major title before to a fighter who held the title for 8 years.

The talk of style's come up in this matchup, surely graham wasn't more slippery or faster than the Leonard that Hagler lost a gift decision to.

If Julian Jackson could knock him out in 4 Hagler could knock him out in 2.

I mean come on, this guy



Or this queer?

......you're so sad Grimm I just find you ridiculous!!!....... ..........my fish know more about boxing than you do..... they've certainly watched more fights!.

Grimm wrote:Why is this even being discussed?

What great fighter has Herol Graham ever beaten?

You're comparing a fighter who never even held a major title before to a fighter who held the title for 8 years.

The talk of style's come up in this matchup, surely graham wasn't more slippery or faster than the Leonard that Hagler lost a gift decision to.

If Julian Jackson could knock him out in 4 Hagler could knock him out in 2.

The fact is Herol Graham was avoided by many very good fighters, especially here in the UK even when he was something of an old man.
Graham, Kalmbay and McCallum were as has been mentioned too good for their own good.

Graham lets not forget was a genuine middleweight, not a bulked up welter/superwelter, that more than answers the question regarding Leonard who even in his last fighting years could make superwelter.

Herol was on the slide when he fought Jackson at the end of 1990, and was closing the show when he caught that excellent shot off a totally outclassed Jackson, if they fought another hundred times jackson would never have caught Graham with anything like that shot...but only the one it took

Its all too easy to believe the hype when it comes to yesteryears boxers, and people forget certain facts and forgotten fighters.

Grimm wrote:
You're comparing a fighter who never even held a major title before to a fighter who held the title for 8 years.

Thats right, you clever little sausage you.... which means of course that Charlie Burley couldn't have been any good either!!

Ask the grown ups who Charlie Burley was, you would be surprised.

Totybear wrote:

Grimm wrote:
You're comparing a fighter who never even held a major title before to a fighter who held the title for 8 years.

Thats right, you clever little sausage you.... which means of course that Charlie Burley couldn't have been any good either!!

Ask the grown ups who Charlie Burley was, you would be surprised.

You'll have to excuse Grimm... he's yet to reach puberty!... 8)

If Herol Graham ever fought Eubank, Benn or Collins he would have kicked ass. It's a dirty shame that these guys got to call themselves world champ while Graham didn't.
Graham v Hagler is close, wether in '87 or any other year. Hagler wins any time up to '87, after that, who knows?
The importance of this fight, if it happened, would be what happened next. Most likely, Graham loses a razor tight decision to Hagler instead of the Leanord fight, Marvin retires, and Herol, now that he's known and respected in the states gets a shot at the vacant (one of the vacant) titles. I think Kalambay had Grahams number, and McCallum maybe a little too clever. Against anyone other Middleweight in the late 80's, Graham holds his own - although a fight with Hearns would be very interesting.