What if Hagler never retired when he did?

Rocky Balboa · Post by **Rocky Balboa** » 20 Mar 2006, 10:14

Could Marvin have successfully carried on with his boxing career after the loss to Leonard?

Or would have age, all the hard-training over the years and tough fights have been a factor, had he not retired?

It would have been interesting had there been an immediate rematch with Leonard?

Interested to hear what you all think!

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 20 Mar 2006, 10:34

He would have fought Leonard but Ray would not agree to the rematch. Hagler would have won the rematch IMO. He might have given Tommy a rematch after that or maybe granted McCallum a super fight. BUT there were a lot of young bucks coming through and Marvin was old and fighting about once per year.

Rocky Balboa · Post by **Rocky Balboa** » 20 Mar 2006, 10:41

He would have fought Leonard but Ray would not agree to the rematch. Hagler would have won the rematch IMO. He might have given Tommy a rematch after that or maybe granted McCallum a super fight. BUT there were a lot of young bucks coming through and Marvin was old and fighting about once per year.

I was not sure if Leonard declined a rematch or not! I also feel Hagler would have won the rematch if it happened, he would have applied the pressure more early on, IMO!

A super-fight with McCallum would have been interesting, considering Marvin had been around a long time, was not young anymore and activity level was low. It's hard to call, maybe McCallum ou-points Hagler, do you reckon?

Hagler would have beaten Hearns again... Tommy would not have been able to stand up to his power.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 20 Mar 2006, 10:49

Rocky Balboa wrote:
He would have fought Leonard but Ray would not agree to the rematch. Hagler would have won the rematch IMO. He might have given Tommy a rematch after that or maybe granted McCallum a super fight. BUT there were a lot of young bucks coming through and Marvin was old and fighting about once per year.
I was not sure if Leonard declined a rematch or not! I also feel Hagler would have won the rematch if it happened, he would have applied the pressure more early on, IMO!

A super-fight with McCallum would have been interesting, considering Marvin had been around a long time, was not young anymore and activity level was low. It's hard to call, maybe McCallum ou-points Hagler, do you reckon?

Hagler would have beaten Hearns again... Tommy would not have been able to stand up to his power.

There's no doubt Marvin had aged significantly and with his 1 fight a year regime he'd have been 12 months to the rematch and 12 months to the next fight. I imagine he'd have gotten up for a 2nd fight with Ray and been in great condition but I can't imagine that he could have put it all in again 2 years after the loss to Ray. I think he beats Ray and would then probably drop a decision to the next top contender he faced.

bigzab · Post by **bigzab** » 20 Mar 2006, 10:57

Marvelous was always in great shape, and although he was showing signs of slowing down in his last three fights, he would have continued to be a force in the division for a few years, methinks.

(There is a comparison to be made with Hopkins here - long middleweight reign ended by a close decision. That's all the comparison there is.
Hagler was a WINNER, he never returned coz he knew he was past the stage where he could go into any fight knowing that he had 100% to give.
Hopkins, judging from the pace he fought Taylor, knew he had lost his edge, but still was willing to take a chance of losing the return (the payday might have eased the pain of loss, but can you imagine HAGLER thinking like that))

Do you think that a few people would have been interested in seeing a return with Hearns? I wonder......

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 20 Mar 2006, 11:50

bigzab wrote:Marvelous was always in great shape, and although he was showing signs of slowing down in his last three fights, he would have continued to be a force in the division for a few years, methinks.

(There is a comparison to be made with Hopkins here - long middleweight reign ended by a close decision. That's all the comparison there is.
Hagler was a WINNER, he never returned coz he knew he was past the stage where he could go into any fight knowing that he had 100% to give.
Hopkins, judging from the pace he fought Taylor, knew he had lost his edge, but still was willing to take a chance of losing the return (the payday might have eased the pain of loss, but can you imagine HAGLER thinking like that))

Do you think that a few people would have been interested in seeing a return with Hearns? I wonder......

I would, and I think Tommy had grown into the division by the time of the Shuler fight. I think its a close call. hagler would have been 3 years older than the first fight and would be unable to set that kind of pace again. If Tommy's right hand doesn't break then I think we'd have a great fight on our hands again.

bigzab · Post by **bigzab** » 20 Mar 2006, 11:55

Rocky Balboa wrote:
He would have fought Leonard but Ray would not agree to the rematch. Hagler would have won the rematch IMO. He might have given Tommy a rematch after that or maybe granted McCallum a super fight. BUT there were a lot of young bucks coming through and Marvin was old and fighting about once per year.
I was not sure if Leonard declined a rematch or not! I also feel Hagler would have won the rematch if it happened, he would have applied the pressure more early on, IMO!

A super-fight with McCallum would have been interesting, considering Marvin had been around a long time, was not young anymore and activity level was low. It's hard to call, maybe McCallum ou-points Hagler, do you reckon?

Hagler would have beaten Hearns again... Tommy would not have been able to stand up to his power.

Spot on. I think McCallum would have been the man to outpoint Hagler at that point.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 20 Mar 2006, 12:12

Hagler done the right thing. Retired with his brains intact and his reputation and status achieved and unquestioned. He won the Leonard fight end of. I still think he would have retired even if he had won. A fight with McCallum at that stage of his career would have been tough. Definately would have gone to points. I would say McCallum may just edge it. In their primes Hagler without a doubt but it would still go to points. McCallum was a great fighter. A bit underated in IMO. He doesn't get the pluadits or credit he deserves.

mattyp151 · Post by **mattyp151** » 20 Mar 2006, 12:15

bigzab wrote:
Rocky Balboa wrote:
He would have fought Leonard but Ray would not agree to the rematch. Hagler would have won the rematch IMO. He might have given Tommy a rematch after that or maybe granted McCallum a super fight. BUT there were a lot of young bucks coming through and Marvin was old and fighting about once per year.
I was not sure if Leonard declined a rematch or not! I also feel Hagler would have won the rematch if it happened, he would have applied the pressure more early on, IMO!

A super-fight with McCallum would have been interesting, considering Marvin had been around a long time, was not young anymore and activity level was low. It's hard to call, maybe McCallum ou-points Hagler, do you reckon?

Hagler would have beaten Hearns again... Tommy would not have been able to stand up to his power.
Spot on. I think McCallum would have been the man to outpoint Hagler at that point.

I think unless he got a rematch vs Leonard, he was done. Had he gotten a rematch, I think he would've beat Leonard next time around, not waiting til the 4th to start fighting.

I think he takes on Hearns in a rematch, and it would've lasted a bit longer, not saying much. I think Hagler still KO's him, but maybe towards the 10th round.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 20 Mar 2006, 13:01

Arsenal wrote:Hagler done the right thing. Retired with his brains intact and his reputation and status achieved and unquestioned. He won the Leonard fight end of. I still think he would have retired even if he had won. A fight with McCallum at that stage of his career would have been tough. Definately would have gone to points. I would say McCallum may just edge it. In their primes Hagler without a doubt but it would still go to points. McCallum was a great fighter. A bit underated in IMO. He doesn't get the pluadits or credit he deserves.

I was getting ready to say the same thing but you beat me to the punch. Espescially with all of the fighters who stayed in the game to long. Now at least Marvelous Marv gets to enjoy his life, as he seems happy. Hagler was always devestating in rematches so I think he stood a good chance had it happend.

I also agree McCallum was underated, but as far as his age I had heard he was a bit older than was stated so if that was true he might have been as old or older than Hagler. Like I said it was something I heard.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 20 Mar 2006, 18:05

Great minds think alike!

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 20 Mar 2006, 19:15

kick asner wrote:
Arsenal wrote:Hagler done the right thing. Retired with his brains intact and his reputation and status achieved and unquestioned. He won the Leonard fight end of. I still think he would have retired even if he had won. A fight with McCallum at that stage of his career would have been tough. Definately would have gone to points. I would say McCallum may just edge it. In their primes Hagler without a doubt but it would still go to points. McCallum was a great fighter. A bit underated in IMO. He doesn't get the pluadits or credit he deserves.
I was getting ready to say the same thing but you beat me to the punch. Espescially with all of the fighters who stayed in the game to long. Now at least Marvelous Marv gets to enjoy his life, as he seems happy. Hagler was always devestating in rematches so I think he stood a good chance had it happend.

I also agree McCallum was underated, but as far as his age I had heard he was a bit older than was stated so if that was true he might have been as old or older than Hagler. Like I said it was something I heard.

Hagler is listed as DOB May 54 when in fact he is May 52. For the Hearns fights they siad they lost his Buirth Cert then a new one turns up May 54.

Why couldnt they ask his mum or look for his driving licence?

Hagler won the title in Sep 1980 aged 28 and lost it in April 87, just before his 35th birthday.

He fought Antuofermo at 27

Minter at 28

Obel at 29

Hamsho at 30

Duran at 31

Hearns at 32 (nearly 33)

Mugabi at 33 (nearly 34)

Leonard at 34 (nearly 35)

And may more good fighetrs icluding Sibson, Obel again and Hamsho again. Caveman Lee, Scypion. Hagler was the best MW ever IMO

He felt robbed. If he felt he would have got a fair shake he would have stayed and KO'd Hearns and Leonard.

Hagler was like Larry Holmes in that he wasnt meant to be champ

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 20 Mar 2006, 21:52

I feel his last fight would have been the rematch with Leonard, he retired at the right time, not necessarily on a good note. Think about his last three matches: Hearns, Mugabi, Leonard.... would you rather retire against three really good fighters or getting old and your butt beat by 2nd rate fighters? I'm surprised he did fight the temptation unlike alot of fighters do...

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 20 Mar 2006, 23:32

If he fought McCallum(one of my all-time favs) it would have been tought, but I think Marvin was still too strong and McCallum just wasn't elusive enough.

cybox · Post by **cybox** » 21 Mar 2006, 06:19

With Leonard vacating the belt I could see the WBC giving Hagler first crack like they did Hearns and letting him win it back against Roldan. Then either a rematch with Hearns or a showdown with Barkley with the winner fighting the winner of McCalllum-Kalambay and then a unification with Michael Nunn.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 21 Mar 2006, 22:41

McCallum would have taken everything Hearns could throw at him, and then he'd systematically wear the Hitman down with his body attack before stopping him late.

Prime Michael Nunn looked like he was going to be an alltime great. With his two inch height advantage, he'd put Hearns in the unique position of being the smaller man for once. Nunn by KO in 4.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 22 Mar 2006, 06:42

Nunn...what an enigma! Looked to be on the verge of being all time great and then...well nothing really.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 22 Mar 2006, 07:20

The Hagler Ray beat wouldn't have beat my mother had he not retired. That's how bad he was and how much on the slide. No way he would have beat younger hungrier Middles. He was useless V Leonard

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 22 Mar 2006, 09:15

Decagon wrote:Am I the only one thinking that Hearns wouldn't get past McCallum and Nunn? One of them would have beaten him at that point.

I think Tommy would have knocked Nunn out like a sack of spuds. McCallum vs Hearns would be very very close, either McCallum by KO at some point or Hearns via close decision.
I also think Hearns would have had a decent chance in a later re-match vs Hagler, if he chose to box rather than blast Hagler out. Hearns won the Leonard re-match IMO, although both were past their best.
As for Hagler, I think he would have out-pointed or knocked Leonard out in a re-match, he won the first on points IMO. Again, very close call against McCallum, narrow points decision to Hagler, but the later it went e.g. late 1989 early 1990 McCallum would have more chance.

rufus payne · Post by **rufus payne** » 22 Mar 2006, 15:45

KO Artist wrote:
kick asner wrote:
Arsenal wrote:Hagler done the right thing. Retired with his brains intact and his reputation and status achieved and unquestioned. He won the Leonard fight end of. I still think he would have retired even if he had won. A fight with McCallum at that stage of his career would have been tough. Definately would have gone to points. I would say McCallum may just edge it. In their primes Hagler without a doubt but it would still go to points. McCallum was a great fighter. A bit underated in IMO. He doesn't get the pluadits or credit he deserves.
I was getting ready to say the same thing but you beat me to the punch. Espescially with all of the fighters who stayed in the game to long. Now at least Marvelous Marv gets to enjoy his life, as he seems happy. Hagler was always devestating in rematches so I think he stood a good chance had it happend.

I also agree McCallum was underated, but as far as his age I had heard he was a bit older than was stated so if that was true he might have been as old or older than Hagler. Like I said it was something I heard.

Hagler is listed as DOB May 54 when in fact he is May 52. For the Hearns fights they siad they lost his Buirth Cert then a new one turns up May 54.

Why couldnt they ask his mum or look for his driving licence?

Hagler won the title in Sep 1980 aged 28 and lost it in April 87, just before his 35th birthday.

He fought Antuofermo at 27

Minter at 28

Obel at 29

Hamsho at 30

Duran at 31

Hearns at 32 (nearly 33)

Mugabi at 33 (nearly 34)

Leonard at 34 (nearly 35)

And may more good fighetrs icluding Sibson, Obel again and Hamsho again. Caveman Lee, Scypion. Hagler was the best MW ever IMO

He felt robbed. If he felt he would have got a fair shake he would have stayed and KO'd Hearns and Leonard.

Hagler was like Larry Holmes in that he wasnt meant to be champ

yup

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 22 Mar 2006, 17:04

If you all remember, McCallum was susceptible to lead right hands. Not a good punch to be open to vs a fighter like Tommy Hearns, who made a career out of shattering iron chins(see Cuevas, Duran). Hearns was much faster, so he'd beat Mike to the punch.

Remember that right by Donald Curry that almost put Mike on his butt? Now imagine if that were a Hearns right. Or several.

And also remember well how Hearn's stablemate Milton McCrory gave Mike a good fight.

jedijojo · Post by **jedijojo** » 22 Mar 2006, 17:57

I think Hearns at 147-154 in a 12 rounders could possibly beat everybody in history, SRR included...

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 23 Mar 2006, 03:43

Could being the right word. His chin was far too susceptible though.

McCallum was never stopped, was very tough and wasn't KOed by big punches like Jones or Jackson so I doubt Hearns would do it. By the way I think McCallum struggled against good technical boxers more than someone throwing a lead right hand. McCallum would be too tough for Hearns and win by middle to late rds TKO.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 23 Mar 2006, 05:17

Nero3000 wrote:If you all remember, McCallum was susceptible to lead right hands. Not a good punch to be open to vs a fighter like Tommy Hearns, who made a career out of shattering iron chins(see Cuevas, Duran).

But Duran was a lightweight and Cuevas was a welterweight, McCallum was a fully fledged middleweight in the late 80s, who at 40 took Roy Jones' punches in a light heavyweight title fight.
McCallum's chin cannot be faulted, I dont think Hearns would have stopped him, maybe but not likely. I think the fight would have gone to points with Hearns getting the decision, if the fight was stopped more likely that McCallum would KO Hearns, especially in the post Hagler era of the late 80s, remember the Hearns-Barkley, and Hearns-Kinchen fights in 1988? Roldan had Hearns going at one point in their WBC middleweight fight in 1987 as well. McCallum is at least two notches ahead of Roldan, Barkley and Kinchen were

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 23 Mar 2006, 13:21

Arsenal wrote:Could being the right word. His chin was far too susceptible though.

McCallum was never stopped, was very tough and wasn't KOed by big punches like Jones or Jackson so I doubt Hearns would do it. By the way I think McCallum struggled against good technical boxers more than someone throwing a lead right hand. McCallum would be too tough for Hearns and win by middle to late rds TKO.

Watch the films of McCallum. I saw almost every fight of his from David Braxton on and the punch he is hit with most frequently is a lead right hand. Plus he was a give-and-take kind of fighter. Not a good thing vs. Hearns. Watch the McCrory fight and just imagine a larger, stronger, faster and more powerful fighter(Hearns) in there instead. Milton gave Mike all he could handle for several rounds, and he didn't have even half the firepower, speed or durability as Tommy.

Jones was not a puncher in Hearn's league. Not even close. Jackson was, but couldn't get his china chin past the first round. If so he may have had a chance of really testing Mike's chin. Hearns is twice the fighter that Jackson was. He had a longer reach, a rapier jab and was much faster.

If Milton McCrory could take McCallum's best for 9-plus rounds, I have no doubt that a prime, 154 lb Hearns could. And he would be detonating big, right-hand bombs on McCallum's chin the whole way(Curry hurt Mike with a right. Imagine what Tommy's would do to him). McCallum punched well, but was not some big-time banger who's power Hearns would have to be cautious of.

BTW....Cuevas and Duran had never been stopped, either.