BoxRec

who do you take in this classic middleweight matchup

Marvin Hagler wins on points or late stoppage

Haglar would win but have to box to do it. I think Walker was too strong for Haglar to brawl with. Haglar wouldnt be able to ko him and would win a very tough but clear cut 15 round decision.

If Hagler boxes, he probably wins by 3 pts. If they trade toe to toe for 15 rounds, Walker probably wins by 2 pts. Other possible scenario would be Hagler winning on cuts.

Seamus wrote:If Hagler boxes, he probably wins by 3 pts. If they trade toe to toe for 15 rounds, Walker probably wins by 2 pts. Other possible scenario would be Hagler winning on cuts.

Good call I see it going this way also.

I dont see how any MW in history could slug it out with Marvin Hagler and win........

Basically brawling would be Walkers Only chance. Hagler I believe would win it on cuts. Marvin really could do it all.

Mickey Walker just wouldn't be able to cope with Hagler's deadly versatility. Hagler was a controlled menace in the ring, punishing his opponents with a variety of punches and dishing out damage like Spaghetti to a bunch of hungry Italians. Walker would be tough, game and would put up a great fight at first, but in the end he succumbs to the wrath of his superior opponent in the late rounds, who would be married to his scything right jab all night, motoring around the ring and peppering the smaller man.

Mickey Walker just wouldn't be able to cope with Hagler's deadly versatility. Hagler was a controlled menace in the ring, punishing his opponents with a variety of punches and dishing out damage like Spaghetti to a bunch of hungry Italians. Walker would be tough, game and would put up a great fight at first, but in the end he succumbs to the wrath of his superior opponent in the late rounds, who would be married to his scything right jab all night, motoring around the ring and peppering the smaller man.

Walker was shorter but definitelynot the smaller man. He had a tough stocky build and fought more comfortable at between the middleweight and light heavy range. Hagler was a good puncher but did not punch hard enough to take Walker out. Walker fought bigger stronger people than Hagler, so it would be hard for Hagler to out muscle him. That being said, I beleive Hagler superior boxing skill would allow him to win this fight.

theone wrote:

Mickey Walker just wouldn't be able to cope with Hagler's deadly versatility. Hagler was a controlled menace in the ring, punishing his opponents with a variety of punches and dishing out damage like Spaghetti to a bunch of hungry Italians. Walker would be tough, game and would put up a great fight at first, but in the end he succumbs to the wrath of his superior opponent in the late rounds, who would be married to his scything right jab all night, motoring around the ring and peppering the smaller man.

Walker was shorter but definitelynot the smaller man. He had a tough stocky build and fought more comfortable at between the middleweight and light heavy range. Hagler was a good puncher but did not punch hard enough to take Walker out. Walker fought bigger stronger people than Hagler, so it would be hard for Hagler to out muscle him. That being said, I beleive Hagler superior boxing skill would allow him to win this fight.

Bah... I meant shorter!

dr_devious wrote:I dont see how any MW in history could slug it out with Marvin Hagler and win........

Juan Roldan almost did.

Nero3000 wrote:

dr_devious wrote:I dont see how any MW in history could slug it out with Marvin Hagler and win........

Juan Roldan almost did.

Roldan was nowhere close to beating Hagler.

Nero3000 wrote:

dr_devious wrote:I dont see how any MW in history could slug it out with Marvin Hagler and win........

Juan Roldan almost did.

How did he? Hagler slipped early on, I agree Roldan gave him a tough fight but didnt come close to winning.

dr_devious wrote:

Nero3000 wrote:

dr_devious wrote:I dont see how any MW in history could slug it out with Marvin Hagler and win........

Juan Roldan almost did.

How did he? Hagler slipped early on, I agree Roldan gave him a tough fight but didnt come close to winning.

No, but if both Juan and light-hitting Vito Antuofermo could slug with him and give him a decent run for his money, why is it impossible to envision an all-time great beating him in a slugging match?

I rate Hagler higher than Walker among alltime Middleweights, but believe Walker was clearly the stronger of the two. Also, while I definitely believe that Hagler won there drawn bout, Vito Antuofermo proved he was physically stronger. There is quite a bit more to the Sweet Science though.

Seamus wrote:I rate Hagler higher than Walker among alltime Middleweights, but believe Walker was clearly the stronger of the two. Also, while I definitely believe that Hagler won there drawn bout, Vito Antuofermo proved he was physically stronger. There is quite a bit more to the Sweet Science though.

Antuofermo never proved he was physically stronger. Hagler's aim was to box, move and use the jab. He wasn't trying to force Antuofermo backwards. It's not like there was a head-on collision and Antuofermo won. Hagler often let Antuofermo walk onto his short punches on the inside.

Look at the punches Hagler took in his fights against Hearns and Mugabi. I dont think many middleweights in history could have taken these, although not sure about Mickey Walker. Jake La Motta is one guy that springs to mind who could. I started watching boxing in the mid 80s when Hagler was probably a bit past his peak, and was more of a slugger than boxer. Ive never seen any better, as the Hearns and Mugabi fights signify, Hagler was rock hard and had as good a chin as any fighter. I remember him more for that than the outstanding boxing skills he also possessed.

dr_devious wrote:Look at the punches Hagler took in his fights against Hearns and Mugabi. I dont think many middleweights in history could have taken these, although not sure about Mickey Walker. Jake La Motta is one guy that springs to mind who could. I started watching boxing in the mid 80s when Hagler was probably a bit past his peak, and was more of a slugger than boxer. Ive never seen any better, as the Hearns and Mugabi fights signify, Hagler was rock hard and had as good a chin as any fighter. I remember him more for that than the outstanding boxing skills he also possessed.

Check out the Hart fight in 1976, too. Many say, including myself, that Hart hit harder than both Hearns and Mugabi.

You guys are unbelievable. You think Hagler is some sort of boxing god, or what? He was a plodding slow south paw who could bang. He was beaten out boxed by a fat ageing welter weight, and you guy still think he is great. No, no, no,..... he was an average MW in the history of boxing. Jake LaMotta would have beaten him up bad.

ringsider wrote:You guys are unbelievable. You think Hagler is some sort of boxing god, or what? He was a plodding slow south paw who could bang. He was beaten out boxed by a fat ageing welter weight, and you guy still think he is great. No, no, no,..... he was an average MW in the history of boxing. Jake LaMotta would have beaten him up bad.

You've only seen his later fights - what do you know?

Check Hagler out between '80-'83, then report back to us.

If there was anything a prime Hagler was not, it was plodding. Jesus. Get an education.

Ringsider fails to mention that Hagler was well past his best too when he fought Leonard. And Leonard was fat, was he? First time I've heard that one.

Leonard was a welterweight? I'm pretty sure he was a middleweight when Hagler controversially lost to him. It's not like Leonard had to spend months on end in the weight room to put on that extra weight, or eat MacDonald's twice a day either. He filled out naturally.

Hagler was plodding... Alright, so you've seen the Leonard fight, when Hagler was supposed to be retired - good for you.

Average middleweight? Check out those twelve defenses and seven year reign, chum. Look at the long line of solid fighters Hagler dominated.

MM

You're right. A cursory glance at Boxrec will show you that Hagler barely lost a round for the first few years of his title reign.

Hagler was not slow at all. He had great reflexes, great handspeed, good power and superb skills.

Come on you mean like when Hagler was fast?...say like when he fought Vito Antuofermo? You talking about foot work, and Hagler in the same breathe? Blasphemy!! Hagler was a plodder, he followed guys around in his goofy plodding style. He could bang and he was a south paw, that does not make him great.

ringsider wrote:Come on you mean like when Hagler was fast?...say like when he fought Vito Antuofermo? You talking about foot work, and Hagler in the same breathe? Blasphemy!! Hagler was a plodder, he followed guys around in his goofy plodding style. He could bang and he was a south paw, that does not make him great.

Alright then...

'LaMotta was a plodder, who couldn't bang. That does not make him great.'



You stupid man/woman.

Southpaws should be drowned at birth, and anyone who sanctions there bouts should be hung upside down while garbage is thrown at them.