Srl Goat

[wpink1]

Would have beaten both of them. Nunn I think would pose a serious stylistic problem but hagler would hve attaked the body then ko'd him. McCallum would have met fire with fire, and been doing pretty well. The problem is you cant hurt hagler, and all you can do is get him going better and better the way McCallum fought.

[wmute]

Would have beaten both of them. Nunn I think would pose a serious stylistic problem but hagler would hve attaked the body then ko'd him. McCallum would have met fire with fire, and been doing pretty well. The problem is you cant hurt hagler, and all you can do is get him going better and better the way McCallum fought.

I think Nunn would have been a lot of trouble early on for Hagler, but I would expect Hagler to wear him down. BUT,As proven by the first four rounds of the Leonard fight, Hagler was capable of incredible tactical mistakes, those would cost dear rounds against Nunn, so the W would not be a certain conclusion here.

Hagler-McCallum would have been one for the ages IMO. Hagler would certainly come out on top, but god... what a fight!

[wpink1]

Hagler IMO was a tale of two very different fighters no matter what stage in his career. One when you stood in front of him or led vs him, and allowed him to get off the brilliant and powerful counters with hooks, crosses, uppercuts, and allow his very brutal workman like approach to get going and in rhythm no one I know including leonard had a chance.

However, when you confused Hagler, got inside his head not to psych him out,he was a tough mother, but to get him off of game plan, as Duran did, as Leoanrd did, I think he was a very different fighter. It seems like he always had something to prove, and thus he switched up things vs just doing what made him great. Leonard sufferd this having to prove somthing syndrome when he fought Duran. Thus my point, it can happen to anyone, and hagler as tough and domnant as he was when he came to fight that way, when he was crossed up a litle he became different. Why else the orthox stance to start off the fight vs leonard. Also i do believe that a prime leoanrd (as you do a prime nunn) offers mobilit and speed that Hagler has not had to deal with, and until you see a fighter face a Leonard, Camacho, Jones...it is difficult to ascertain exaclty what they would do vs that style. It imploys cutting off the ring, somehting hagler has never done from my memory, it emplys being able to time when the mobile fighter is in range to punch or you will simply be lunging all night as Hagler was vs Leonard and many consider the lunging blows as evidence of his slowing even more, when in fact hagler who usually if fighting someone right in front of him and landing short crisp punches, these longer missing lunges do appear to make him look very slow. Actually it was the movement of Leonard.

I think the biggest challenge Hagler would have had to face would have been Roy Jones. At middleweight I know of no one,,hmm possibly Monzoon and McClellan who I think could seriously challenge a prime Roy. Simply too quick, and I think it would take the size, power and punishment that these two can offer, to beat Roy at middleweight. A fighter like Hagler would be left looking like Toney was all night long.

[wmute]

Hagler IMO was a tale of two very different fighters no matter what stage in his career. One when you stood in front of him or led vs him, and allowed him to get off the brilliant and powerful counters with hooks, crosses, uppercuts, and allow his very brutal workman like approach to get going and in rhythm no one I know including leonard had a chance.

However, when you confused Hagler, got inside his head not to psych him out,he was a tough mother, but to get him off of game plan, as Duran did, as Leoanrd did, I think he was a very different fighter. It seems like he always had something to prove, and thus he switched up things vs just doing what made him great. Leonard sufferd this having to prove somthing syndrome when he fought Duran. Thus my point, it can happen to anyone, and hagler as tough and domnant as he was when he came to fight that way, when he was crossed up a litle he became different. Why else the orthox stance to start off the fight vs leonard. Also i do believe that a prime leoanrd (as you do a prime nunn) offers mobilit and speed that Hagler has not had to deal with, and until you see a fighter face a Leonard, Camacho, Jones...it is difficult to ascertain exaclty what they would do vs that style. It imploys cutting off the ring, somehting hagler has never done from my memory, it emplys being able to time when the mobile fighter is in range to punch or you will simply be lunging all night as Hagler was vs Leonard and many consider the lunging blows as evidence of his slowing even more, when in fact hagler who usually if fighting someone right in front of him and landing short crisp punches, these longer missing lunges do appear to make him look very slow. Actually it was the movement of Leonard.

I think the biggest challenge Hagler would have had to face would have been Roy Jones. At middleweight I know of no one,,hmm possibly Monzoon and McClellan who I think could seriously challenge a prime Roy. Simply too quick, and I think it would take the size, power and punishment that these two can offer, to beat Roy at middleweight. A fighter like Hagler would be left looking like Toney was all night long.

I 100% agree with the bold

I think we will disagree forever on what Leonard vs Hagler would have looked prime vs prime, so I will entirely skip that even though I would have a couple of things to add.

Jones would have proved a nightmare for anyone at 160. Hagler included. Hagler was also sensibly smaller than Jones His only weakness at the weight, might be that he didnt completely develop his smarts yet, but that might just be masked by the fact that his speed/reflexes/power at the weight simply never put him in the situation. I don't think McClellan would have been the one beating Jones, McClellan was gifted and had a hell of a chin, but he was not a smart fighter. You better be smart to take Jones.

Monzon... now that's a different story. Monzon was tall, powerful, tough as nails and smart. In fact, I would say he was the ultimate "concrete" fighter, as opposed to "flashy". Who other than him to beat the ultimate "flashy" fighter?

[TheGreatA]

I don't think it's 'hating', a lot of people had noticed Hagler's decline (including Leonard himself). Obviously a great win for Leonard but it was a fight that happened a little too late.


Hearns comments on Hagler - Leonard.



http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.c...03/1/index.htm



http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/box...ory?id=3546644

I found this Marvin Hagler interview very funny and somewhat ironic. Hagler complains that Leonard and the other top names will only fight him when he grows grey hair and looks bad in a fight. He also talks about retiring, he did keep his words about retiring with his health.


Here's the Hagler - Scypion fight before the above post fight interview (1983).

[apefar]

I disagree, I don't think Robinsons competition was as good as Leonards. I could care less how many wins or losses he's got.

You forget that Robinson fought the toughest man in history, Jake La Motta, that outweights SRL's whole career. No, but seriously, go to boxrec and check all of his opponents and research their ranks while he fought them.
Im sure you will conclude with SRR beeing better than SRL.

[wpink1]

Jake Lamatta better than Hagler...Smoking.. Just because he may be "tough" does not mean better. I do think SRR is better, and yes may have overall more top opponents that he beat. However, SRL beat 4 top opponents, that I dont believe too many people can boast a tougher reseme of wins over hearns, benetiz, hagler, Duran. Wow that is simply amazing.