How good Hagler really was?

i've been thinking about this lately.
I'm a big hagler fan, and I think he's a terrific fighter. But, when you think about it, while the guy was a very dominant mw, his oppositions at that weight was'nt too special (Hamsho, Minter, Roldan, Antufuermo, Briscoe and Mugabi were good fighters, but far from great). The way he butchered them for the most part was impressive, but greatness is made by beating A fighters, not destroying B fighters. The 3 best fighters he faced were definitively Hearns, Duran and Leonard.

The way he destroyed Hearns was very impressive. He fought like a man possesed and simply made Hearns look like a fragile frontrunner. If that was the only fight you ever saw from Hearns, you'd think the guy was a bum, and that's a huge credit to Hagker cause we all know how good Hearns was (personally, I rate Hearns higher than most, and I think that a onpoint Hearns is one of the best (if not the best) fighter ever).

His fight against Duran was far from impressive though. He had a close decision against a much smaller fighter than him, who was probably on the way down. Sure Duran was a legend, but the one of the best MW ever should have dominated one of the best lw ever. I know a lot of people say that Hagler went deliberately soft on Duran cause Duran was his hero, but I wonder if there is any truth to that.

And then, there is the Leonard fight. The leonard fight is for me a huge blemish on Hagler career. Sure Leonard is a legend, but so is Hagler, and he's a bigger man. And while Hagler was getting long in the tooth, he was far from washed up, and Leonard had fought just once (against a nobody) in the last FIVE years. Yes the decision is controversial (I tought Leonard edged it, but I haven't seen that fight in a decade) but considering the advantage he had coming in, Hagler should have annihilated him. What would we think of Bhop if he lost to DLH, or of Monzon if he was beaten by Napoles (sure, Leonard was better than these 2 guys, but that's not the point)?

Amyway, I guess I could have skipped writing this whole texte and just asked: How much of an impact do the Leonard loss have on Hagler career? ::

 

awful topic. ban this guy

 

Hagler's opposition looks much better now than it did then, as historical names always sound better than contemporary ones.

I remember reading an article in KO magazine in 1987 ( yes I'm that old) where immediately after the Leonard loss the writer was criticizing Hagler's resume saying that Hearns was his only good win and yet Hearns was a former welterweight who was already stopped by Leonard. He was given no credit for struggling with a fat and old former lightweight like he is now.

Minter, Briscoe, Hamsho, sibson and those guys were seen as bums at the time.

Fact is Hagler was a great fighter in that he dominated a weak division like a champion is supposed to, but when your biggest wins come against former lightweights and welterweights let's not pretend he had some kinda Ali resume.

 

At worst one of the three greatest Middleweights ever

Horrible "analysis" from bonhomme and Sly Mayweather

 

Hamsho, Briscoe, Minter seen as bums at the time?

This guys boxing knowledge is severely lacking.

I swear, Sly is like a mainstream fan.

 

But he read something in KO magazine!

 

Hagler was shit, guys. He was shit. He was a SLIGHLY better version of Kassim Ouma, that's about it. Ya happy?

 

Guys... Bennie Briscoe was a Joe Lipsey level fighter and Tommy Hearns was 5'6 and 129 pounds against Hagler

 

Historical names always look better which is why Floyd Patterson's title reign is so revered today

 

ok ok "bums" is an exaggeration , I was typing lazily . They were seen as mediocre fighters. Nothing special.

Point is, the way you and cdogg talk about them now, people weren't talking about them that way then.

Hagler is most certainly a top middleweight all time. He's one of the top 5 along with Robinson Hopkins Monzon and Greb. What order we should place them in is debatable .

 

lets not get excited now. Don't get " noivous"

 

Mediocre fighters... By a guy in KO magazine in 1987... 7 years after the Minter fight and what 9? 10? years after the Briscoe fight ... Great source

 

Minter was a decent British fighter but nuth'n special. Benn, Eubank, Watson and Graham were all better than him and I'm just listing British middleweights. Of course you'll try to pump him up to make Hagler look better, but come on we're all reasonable men here, we don't need assurances as if we were lawyers. ;)

 

Minter was the undisputed World champ

 

This is actually about flash and nothing more ... If Hagler threw unnecessary Bolo punches and was called "Money Marv", he'd be a legend to Sly

 

Baldomir was the undisputed Welterweight champ.

 

Basically, Sly fears American Black men like Hagler Foreman and prefers smiley, cute ones like Leonard and Ali

Sly is racist

 

So why am I one of the biggest Tyson fans? And foreman fan? And Chavez fan? Oh yes, I remember why now...those guys threw bolo punches with great frequency. Lol

Insane Irish

 

You're lying! You prefer lightskinneded chaps like Ishe Smith!

 

Mayweather is decidedly dark and you seem to think I have the hots for him. So at least be consistent you relentless paddy

 

Like I said... He's "money" ... "Money Marv" you would like

 

Lol

Dude, I'm a fan of skills not nicknames.

Mayweather's skills are badass. Y'all hate him because of his personality and nicknames etc. I couldn't care less about any of that, just the skills on display.

Yes, I'm hard on Duran and Hagler but that's because people like you overrated them and makes excuses for their shortcomings simply because they were exciting and you liked them personally. I exist on this forum to keep everyone in check. I can't let you and Xplosive dominate the scene with your biases rhetoric . If I don't do it, no one will. Lol

 

You don't keep anyone in check by attempting to bend reality to your wishes ... Your collective assessments of these fighters are comedic and always have been

 

I'm not even a particularly big fan of Duran or Hagler

 

:scratcher:

 

on the contrary, my assessments are spot on and filled with brilliance.

 

Ban him

 

I can agree with that

 

For the most part beating up A caliber opposition is an overrated affair mainly because it is pretty rare to have an abundance of A caliber fighters in the same division while both fighters are in their prime. Look at Hopkins who had nobody, and in his prime had to take on Roy Jones. After that he had to pick on welterweights who moved up to Jr middle just to get some big names and big dollars.

ODLH was one of the few guys to have a lot of big names to go through although it was rare they were both in their primes at the same time. His only real A listers were Tito and Mosley, both of which he lost. People are always trying to downplay a fighter's B level fights but in reality that is most of what you have to go off of when judging a fighter's greatness.

I do think a great fighter like Hagler who struggled with Duran and Sugar Ray who were older A listers that also moved up in weight, should get penalized. I mean Hopkins destroyed ODLH and Tito but look at how ODLH arguably lost to an old Sweet Pea.

 

Hopkins "destroyed" DLH? LOL