Who was a more exciting fighter Marvin Hagler or Prince Naseem Hamed?

I dont know about entertaining but p4p prince naseem was the better fighter, he was just awsome to watch when in his prime.:boxing:

I gotta go with Hagler.

For people that don't really follow boxing it would be Prince Naseem. They would love how entertaining this guys is. But inside the ring Hagler is far more entertaining. Hagler was like a welterweight Joe Fraizer who never backed up and was packed full of action. Watch his fights against duran, hearns :lol1::lol1::lol1: Did you just own yourself?

Hagler was an entertaining fighter and at times wildly exciting, im thinking of the hearns fight here. Loved the Mugabi fight too. It must be said tho the Hagler of the Hearns fight was not typical Hagler tho, he'd normally box more. Naz tho IMO is one of the most exciting fighters ever, from his pre fight talk, entrances 1punch KO Power, insane style, unpredictablity and vulnerability Naz was more exciting than Marvin

apples and oranges naz is more appealing to the casual boxing fans though

OBVIOUSLY I'm biased! Of course the Prince's entrances were unique but he was also a very exciting fighter in the ring with his ferocious knockout power. I grew up watching the Prince in the 90s which first attracted me to boxing. Hagler was a bit before my time so I haven't seen a lot of his fights to comment enough on him.

Great post. I learned something new right now. I didn't know Hagler had the ability to adjust like that. I pictured him strictly as a hard hitter and brawler who fought on the inside Cool. My bad if I was an azzhole at first, but you seemed kind of condescending with your original post. Anyway, I think two fights, one early and one late, in Hagler's career show his effectiveness at different styles/ranges. The Briscoe fight shows how Hagler was very respectful of Briscoe's power and strength early on. He spent so much of the early going on the move, using his better outside skills and agility. Once Briscoe was able to close the gap, Hagler used his infighting skills. In the Mugabi fight, Hagler started off boxing from the outside. By then, Hagler's legs and defense had diminished. Leonard said it was Marvin's decline in this fight that made him want to come back and challenge him. You still see Hagler's great jab, but he was more stationary and easier to tag. Still, Hagler had great in-fighting skills and chin, and busted up Mugabi up close.

He spent much of the Duran fight boxing, in fact, people criticized him afterwards for not being aggressive enough against a smaller man. In the latter rounds, he turned it up and fought more on the inside. Those judges were drunk or something, having Duran ahead after 13. Hagler had to fight that way against Hearns, because Hearns was so damn difficult to beat from the outside. He outboxed Leonard and Benitez from the outside. Also, Hearns was most devastating at long range when he got full extension on the right hand. If you've seen the version of it with Al Michaels & Al Bernstein commentating, you'll hear Bernstein exclaim with surprise "it was HAGLER who initiated it, not Thomas Hearns!". It was a shift from his normal style. Hagler was basically a complete fighter who could excel at long, mid, and close range, but the Hearns fight was the only one when he just went balls out and attacked. He had one of the best southpaw jabs ever, along with really long arms for his height, so he usually boxed in the middle of the ring behind it, moving laterally, and then opened up with bigger shots. Despite it not being his best win due to the level of opposition, the Sibson fight is probably him at his best. And shows the style in which he fought much more frequently than the attacking brawler who faced The Hitman. Great post. I learned something new right now. I didn't know Hagler had the ability to adjust like that. I pictured him strictly as a hard hitter and brawler who fought on the inside

Well put. Bullsh*t. To each his own really. You're basically suggesting that the folks that would prefer to watch NAZ don't know sh*t about boxing. Being entertaining has nothing to do with someone's boxing acumen. . No I mean that the majority of the people that don't know boxing would find Naseem more entertaining due to his funny act, the way he used to clown around with his opponents and stuff. People that were into watching elite fighting and real competition would now doubt about it find hagler more entertaining. Naseem was definitely a good technician and skilled boxer and fun to watch but his skills and ring action was in no way compared to hagler.

Hard one. I would say Naseem entrances is out of this world, but Hagler is just an amazing street brawler when hes in the ring. He was a versatile, complete fighter, who boxed more often than brawled. It's amazing how much both Hagler and Leonard have had their styles misrepresented because of a couple of fights. I think they both deserve much credit for his completeness and ability to be effective in different styles.

I don't know hagler like that cause I'm not from that era but I've watched a few of his fights and highlights and he was definitely more of a brawler and puncher than a boxer and had a very exciting style The two of his legendary fights which i have wattched against Duran and Hearns he looked like a straight up brawler. He spent much of the Duran fight boxing, in fact, people criticized him afterwards for not being aggressive enough against a smaller man. In the latter rounds, he turned it up and fought more on the inside. Those judges were drunk or something, having Duran ahead after 13. Hagler had to fight that way against Hearns, because Hearns was so damn difficult to beat from the outside. He outboxed Leonard and Benitez from the outside. Also, Hearns was most devastating at long range when he got full extension on the right hand. If you've seen the version of it with Al Michaels & Al Bernstein commentating, you'll hear Bernstein exclaim with surprise "it was HAGLER who initiated it, not Thomas Hearns!". It was a shift from his normal style. Hagler was basically a complete fighter who could excel at long, mid, and close range, but the Hearns fight was the only one when he just went balls out and attacked. He had one of the best southpaw jabs ever, along with really long arms for his height, so he usually boxed in the middle of the ring behind it, moving laterally, and then opened up with bigger shots. Despite it not being his best win due to the level of opposition, the Sibson fight is probably him at his best. And shows the style in which he fought much more frequently than the attacking brawler who faced The Hitman.

Hagler BAR NONE, HANDS DOWN, BY a mile.

This seems kinda random. But Prince. He was crazy and unpredictable. Hagler was steady and just very good at everything.Well put. For people that don't really follow boxing it would be Prince Naseem. They would love how entertaining this guys is. But inside the ring Hagler is far more entertaining. Hagler was like a welterweight Joe Fraizer who never backed up and was packed full of action. Watch his fights against duran, hearnsBullsh*t. To each his own really. You're basically suggesting that the folks that would prefer to watch NAZ don't know sh*t about boxing. Being entertaining has nothing to do with someone's boxing acumen. If you wanna watch a high wire act, then NAZ's matches are the ones to watch. If you wanna learn something then Hagler's fights are the ones people should watch. Anything can be entertaining, to each his own, really. No one is more correct than the other. For me, when NAZ what at the peak of his popularity, he was very exciting to watch, the stuff that he does, I've never seen anything like it up to now. Even comparing him to fighters from older generations. He remains truly one of a kind. I don't consider him an ATG like Hagler. But, watching NAZ in n' out of the ring was like watching a circus act.

Hard one. I would say Naseem entrances is out of this world, but Hagler is just an amazing street brawler when hes in the ring.

No he wasn't. This "Hagler was a brawling pressure fighter" myth really needs to stop. Hagler (A middleweight, not a welterweight) was a boxer-puncher who used lateral movement, his jab, and then opened up with combinations. He'd jump on his opponent when he had them hurt (Scypion, Lee, Hamani), but he was much more of a patient boxer who used lateral movement, or in the case against Briscoe, boxed on the backfoot, than some Joe Frazier-esque pressure fighter. Mayweather walked Judah and Mosley down behind a high guard. Was Mayweather a pressure fighter? No, that wasn't his usual style. Much like the Hearns fight wasn't Hagler's usual style. It was perhaps the greatest display of a fighter switching from his usual style, and doing it to perfection, against an ATG in Hearns. I don't know hagler like that cause I'm not from that era but I've watched a few of his fights and highlights and he was definitely more of a brawler and puncher than a boxer and had a very exciting style The two of his legendary fights which i have wattched against Duran and Hearns he looked like a straight up brawler.

Hamed was more colorful, especially his entrances. But in the ring, during the fight, Hagler wins hands down. I'm sure most will agree with that.

For people that don't really follow boxing it would be Prince Naseem. They would love how entertaining this guys is. But inside the ring Hagler is far more entertaining. Hagler was like a welterweight Joe Fraizer who never backed up and was packed full of action. Watch his fights against duran, hearns No he wasn't. This "Hagler was a brawling pressure fighter" myth really needs to stop. Hagler (A middleweight, not a welterweight) was a boxer-puncher who used lateral movement, his jab, and then opened up with combinations. He'd jump on his opponent when he had them hurt (Scypion, Lee, Hamani), but he was much more of a patient boxer who used lateral movement, or in the case against Briscoe, boxed on the backfoot, than some Joe Frazier-esque pressure fighter. Mayweather walked Judah and Mosley down behind a high guard. Was Mayweather a pressure fighter? Was he a "walk you down behind a high guard" type of fighter? No, that wasn't his usual style. Much like the Hearns fight wasn't Hagler's usual style. It was perhaps the greatest display of a fighter switching from his usual style, and doing it to perfection, against an ATG in Hearns.

Hamed was more colorful, especially his entrances. But in the ring, during the fight, Hagler wins hands down.

For people that don't really follow boxing it would be Prince Naseem. They would love how entertaining this guys is. But inside the ring Hagler is far more entertaining. Hagler was like a welterweight Joe Fraizer who never backed up and was packed full of action. Watch his fights against duran, hearns

I've watched a few Hagler fights, and he's pretty exciting. I'm maybe biased due to the fact that I grew up with the Prince. I gotta go with the Prince though.