Marvin Hagler Overrated Legacy?

[Burning Desire]

He never fought McCallum. Thats why his greatness will always be questioned. If he really was the greatest middleweight, he shoulda fought McCallum.

Mike McCallum is one of my favorite fighters, but in his first fight at Middleweight. He got beat handily by Sumbu Kalambay, which set him back awhile. Which is why he missed out on the fab 4, but he still had a great career he beat some very good names, giving the best young upcoming fighters a shot. And giving some of our best British fighters a shot aswell. Mike McCallum will always get my respect, a top class fighter who would of beat Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, IMO.

[BigMacFoster]

Don't bother providing facts to that clown he can't understand them.It's true that you can't really accuse Hagler of ducking McCallum as Hagler had long retired before McCallum officially moved up to middleweight

McCallum-Hearns on the other hand could have and should have been made.While Fred Hutchings was a good fighter and a ranked highly,McCallum was the greatest contender in the division by that time,Same with Mark Medal in 1986 when Hearns made his last stop at the division,Medal was a good ranked fighter but McCallum was a champion by this time

[JAB5239]

Men like Fulgencio Obelmejias and Mustafa Hamsho got second shots at Hagler despite beating both men decisively and yet deserving challengers like James Kinchen,James Shuler and Herol Graham never did

Marvin Hagler fans are welcome to come here and refute what I said because I unlike some do not put those who disagree with me on ignore

Your time line blows. When exactly did Kinchen, Shuler and Graham distinguish themselves from the from Hamsho and Obelmejias at the time of these rematches? Better yet, when did they become more worthy than any fighter Hagler defended against in 1984, 85 and 86?

Your ignorance is amusing as usual.

[BigMacFoster]

Your time line blows. When exactly did Kinchen, Shuler and Graham distinguish themselves from the from Hamsho and Obelmejias at the time of these rematches? Better yet, when did they become more worthy than any fighter Hagler defended against in 1984, 85 and 86?

Your ignorance is amusing as usual.

No,Your responses blow as usual as you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

My point was that Hagler had no problem given rematches to two unworthy challengers in Hamsho and Obelmejias,who had already been soundly defeated yet he gave no oppurtunity of such to the likes of James Kinchen,James Schuler and Herol Graham

Technically Schuler and Kinchen were higher ranked than Hamsho was at the time of his rematch and Graham was his mandatory challenger throughout most of 1986

And yes I'd rate those three fighters above John Mugabi

[Sir_Jose]

Bob Watts,Eugene Hart and THE WORM are not stand out quality fighters in which ever era you place them,Hart was a crackhead with a punch who lost to any decent fighter he fought

John Mugabi is without question the most overhyped prospect in boxing history and I have never seen a hagler fan deny that Hearns wasnt his greatest victory

Yeah your right they were'nt tough as nails Philly fighters*rolleyes*

Mugabi was a hell of a fighter and Hagler ruined him that night, That night Mugabi beats alot of guys


no one is saying it was'nt a great win pay attention jr

[TheGreatA]

No,Your responses blow as usual as you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

My point was that Hagler had no problem given rematches to two unworthy challengers in Hamsho and Obelmejias,who had already been soundly defeated yet he gave no oppurtunity of such to the likes of James Kinchen,James Schuler and Herol Graham

Technically Schuler and Kinchen were higher ranked than Hamsho was at the time of his rematch and Graham was his mandatory challenger throughout most of 1986

And yes I'd rate those three fighters above John Mugabi

Obelmejias was a WBA mandatory at the time of the rematch.

"Hagler had whipped Obelmejias in Boston on Jan. 17, 1981 in his first title defense; he indeed battered Obelmejias around and wore him down before winning on an eighth-round TKO. Going into that bout, Obelmejias was an undefeated mystery—30-0, with 28 KOs—a politically well-connected fighter who had risen to No. 1 in the WBC and WBA by crushing tomato cans. When Hagler whipped him, Obelmejias automatically dropped to No. 4 in the WBA rankings, but he climbed back to No. 1 in the WBA this year by remaining undefeated while two contenders above him lost and the other moved up to light heavyweight. The WBA mandated that Hagler defend against Obelmejias, but the prospect of a rematch was so unattractive that Bob Arum, the promoter, couldn't get a network to buy it. He finally sold the fight to HBO, but only as the first of a three-fight package that is expected to include Hagler's defenses against Sibson and Fletcher."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...82/2/index.htm

Hamsho too was number 1 ranked when they fought again due to his recent wins over Wilfred Benitez and Bobby Czyz.

"Hagler got ready for Hamsho, who as No. 1 contender (his record: 38-2-2, with 22 KOs) was a mandatory challenger, in typically Spartan style in Provincetown, Mass. He didn't meet with the New York media until the day before the fight, when he announced, "I'm feeling especially mean." That condition was brought on by his acute antipathy for Hamsho, who had incurred Hagler's ire in escalating stages. First Hamsho said the Duran fight proved " Hagler is coward, he has no heart." The Roldan fight, Hamsho added, taught him that Hagler "knows how to thumb." Retorted Hagler, "Hamsho was better off when he didn't speak English. I don't want to see this man's face anymore. I don't want to hear his name. Eliminate."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...2761/index.htm

Mugabi was number 1 ranked by all the title organizations (the WBC, WBA & IBF) as well as the Ring Magazine.

[BennyST]

Men like Fulgencio Obelmejias and Mustafa Hamsho got second shots at Hagler despite beating both men decisively and yet deserving challengers like James Kinchen,James Shuler and Herol Graham never did

Hagler was finishing up his career by 1985, fighting only big money fights and only once a year in 85, 86 and 87. Now, while I don't think you are correct in your views I'll only point out some misconceptions on your part about possible fights. You forget to mention that Hagler fought these guys in the early eighties ie. 1981/1884 for Hamsho and 1981/1982 for Obelmejias.

James Kinchen: in the early eighties when he might have been able to fight Hagler he was still just a young prospect with no experience. In 85, his first big fight that would have led him to proper contender status he lost to James Shuler then also lost his next big fights to Iran Barkley and Juan Roldan whom Hagler had already destroyed, which ruined any chances of him getting a shot at Hagler. Never could have happened at all.

James Shuler: He was also still building up his record in the early eighties and feasting on non ranked fighters for the better part of 83, 84 and 85 though he did beat the very good fighters Kinchen and Green in 85, which set up his first big fight against Hearns. In his first major step up it was already 1986 though, but this would have led to the big fights possibly with Hagler if he had been able to beat Hearns. He got knocked out brutally in one round and this was after Hearns had already lost to Hagler. Again, the timing is all wrong and the fight never could have happened.

Herol Graham: He was more likely than the other two but again, during the main part of Hagler's reign from the late seventies through the early eighties Graham was only just starting his career. In 1980/81/82/83/84 and 85 Hagler was an active fighter going through all the champs and top contenders. Graham only began his career in 1979! He was still nothing more than an unranked, young prospect for the most of Hagler's reign. You forget to mention things like the fact that Graham during Hagler's reign was fighting as a light-middleweight only moving up to middleweight at the very end of 1984. So, he wasn't even a ranked middleweight when Hagler was having his third last fight with Tommy Hearns. He also didn't have a big enough win and wasn't highly ranked enough by any of the alphabets to warrant a shot until he beat Ayub Kalule in 1986. The fact is that Graham was not even in his peak years until the late eighties and nineties so again, you are missing the point entirely.

You remind me of all the people that say Leonard ducked Pryor without knowing that Pryor did not even move up to WW until the late 80's, I believe it was 87 or 88 and that he was also not a big enough name until he beat Arguello for a fight with Leonard who in 1980, when Pryor first won his title at 140 and was not even on the radar, was fighting massive superfights at 147 with Duran. By the time he was a big enough name to get a shot when he beat Arguello it was 1983 and Leonard had already moved up to 154 and won a title, then moved back down and beat Hearns in the great fight in 1981, then was basically retired from the start of 82 until he fought Hagler in 87. He had one fight in between during 84 which was at the light middleweight limit and Pryor was still fighting as a 140 pounder then. It's just laughable when you look at it.

So, to put it simply, you're wrong. Now, when you look at Hagler's record and not the biased 'what ifs' and forgetting all his early great wins over the likes of Bennie Briscoe, Bobby Watts, Sugar Ray Seales, Geraldo, etc etc, and look at his title shots he beat Antuofermo (160 champion), Minter (160 champion), Obelmejias (undefeated top 160 contender and future 168 world champion), Hamsho (top ranked contender who beat Parker and Alan Minter to get the number one spot for the Hagler fight, and the second time around beat the undefeated Bobby Czyz and Wilfred Benitez for the Hagler shot), Lee (who I can understand as being not worthy but this was not up to Hagler. He was meant to fight Micky Goodwin, the top ranked 30-1 contender who was injured and Lee was the stable mate of Goodwin, both under Emmanuel Steward, who thought Lee was the best replacement and wanted him to get the shot considering he was ranked and had beaten highly ranked Locicero), Sibson (160 champion) Scypion (got the shot by beating Frank Fletcher for the USba MW title thus was the top ranked contender), then fought Duran, Roldan, Hearns, Mugabi, Leonard.

What you, and most people forget, is that Hagler and his team had a lot of trouble getting fights in his early title days. All through his early reign he struggled to get fights against the big name fighters because he was a high risk/low reward fighter and it was until Duran stepped up and fought him that he became the big money fighter and then everyone wanted to fight him of course because Duran had shown some holes that made him look vulnerable and then by the time the Leonard fight came around he had not fought in over a year and had slowed down greatly and Leonard was able to outbox him. I had Leonard winning by the way.

All wrong sorry mate.

[BennyST]

Also, the difference between Hagler's big wins over supposedly smaller guys and him getting credit for them are because he was not necessarily the smaller guy. Sure, he had been at MW for longer but Leonard was taller with the same reach, while Hearns was much taller with a longer reach and not only did he win titles at middleweight but he also won them at SMW, LHW and Cruiserweight so in all reality Hearns was bigger than Hagler and by some amount. In the Leonard/Hagler fight Leonard is certainly not smaller.

In the fights with Tito and Hopkins for example you can see the size difference is quite significant and the strength is very obvious. Hopkins is a natural LHW and is a huge MW, but he still gets a lot of credit for his wins against Tito and Oscar. But, Oscar was never a middleweight champ really and started at 130/135 whereas Leonard and Hearns started at 147 and quickly moved up, Leonard winning titles from 147 to 168, and supposedly 175 though that is not really true as he never fought above 168. Hearns of course won titles from 147 to 190 so that argument is moot. The only smaller guy that Hagler fought who was genuinely smaller was Duran who started at 118 and was great from that weight up to 147 and then won titles from there to 160 but was not really the same at those weights that he was as the natural lightweight he was.

[StarshipTrooper]

James Kinchen,James Schuler and Herol Graham

And yes I'd rate those three fighters above John Mugabi

More proof, as if any was needed, that you're an idiot. A case can be made for Herol Graham but the other two were "never weres".

Poet

[BigMacFoster]

Obelmejias was a WBA mandatory at the time of the rematch.

And that makes him any less deserving how?

Fighters were able to avoid mandatory challengers alot during the early to mid 80's.Hagler could have easily avoided such pointless rematches

Mugabi was number 1 ranked by all the title organizations (the WBC, WBA & IBF) as well as the Ring Magazine.

With one win over a ranked Middleweight

James Kinchen: in the early eighties when he might have been able to fight Hagler he was still just a young prospect with no experience. In 85, his first big fight that would have led him to proper contender status he lost to James Shuler then also lost his next big fights to Iran Barkley and Juan Roldan whom Hagler had already destroyed, which ruined any chances of him getting a shot at Hagler. Never could have happened at all.

Same copout argument time and time again,Using later fights to use the argument that he was never in such a position to begin with,His first big fight was against Murray Sutherland in november of 1983.By the time Hagler was defending his title for the second time in a pointless rematch with Hamsho,Kinchen was 33-0-2 and by the time Mugabi fought Hgaler he was 25-0 so I'm not sure with this no experience nonsense comes from.

So had Kinchen beaten Schuler then he would have been elevated to proper contender status would he? If that was the case then why was James Schuler never elevated to such status?

James Shuler: He was also still building up his record in the early eighties and feasting on non ranked fighters for the better part of 83, 84 and 85 though he did beat the very good fighters Kinchen and Green in 85, which set up his first big fight against Hearns. In his first major step up it was already 1986 though, but this would have led to the big fights possibly with Hagler if he had been able to beat Hearns. He got knocked out brutally in one round and this was after Hearns had already lost to Hagler. Again, the timing is all wrong and the fight never could have happened.

So had Kinchen beaten Schuler then he would have been elevated to proper contender status would he? If that was the case then why was James Schuler never elevated to such status? You are the one using wrong timing,Stop using later losses to fit you own time frame

Herol Graham:He also didn't have a big enough win and wasn't highly ranked enough by any of the alphabets to warrant a shot until he beat Ayub Kalule in 1986. The fact is that Graham was not even in his peak years until the late eighties and nineties so again, you are missing the point entirely.

Which is funny because Herol Graham happened to be Hagler's mandatory challenger for the WBA belt.

You remind me of all the people that say Leonard ducked Pryor without knowing that Pryor did not even move up to WW until the late 80's, I believe it was 87 or 88 and that he was also not a big enough name until he beat Arguello for a fight with Leonard who in 1980, when Pryor first won his title at 140 and was not even on the radar, was fighting massive superfights at 147 with Duran. By the time he was a big enough name to get a shot when he beat Arguello it was 1983 and Leonard had already moved up to 154 and won a title, then moved back down and beat Hearns in the great fight in 1981, then was basically retired from the start of 82 until he fought Hagler in 87. He had one fight in between during 84 which was at the light middleweight limit and Pryor was still fighting as a 140 pounder then. It's just laughable when you look at it.

Yes and Leonard and Pryor are relevant to this argument how? It doesn't take a genius to realise that one no namer in a lighter division calling out the biggest name in boxing and a champion in a heavier weight class is a laughable accusation

I leave that **** to the fools who take HBO legendary night's seriously

So, to put it simply, you're wrong. Now, when you look at Hagler's record and not the biased 'what ifs' and forgetting all his early great wins over the likes of Bennie Briscoe, Bobby Watts, Sugar Ray Seales, Geraldo

good wins over good fighters and don't ever call Marcos Geraldo a great win either

Obelmejias (undefeated top 160 contender and future 168 world champion)

I suggest you look closer at Obelmejias glorious title run at 168 before making such a comment,The man was a bum

Lee (who I can understand as being not worthy but this was not up to Hagler. He was meant to fight Micky Goodwin, the top ranked 30-1 contender who was injured and Lee was the stable mate of Goodwin, both under Emmanuel Steward, who thought Lee was the best replacement and wanted him to get the shot considering he was ranked and had beaten highly ranked Locicero)

At what point was John LoCicero ever ranked? The man was a bum and Micky Goodwin wasn't ranked either,This is the same man who just a couple of years earlier lost to some bum with a 2-9 record
Sibson (160 champion) Scypion (got the shot by beating Frank Fletcher for the USba MW title thus was the top ranked contender), then fought Duran, Roldan, Hearns, Mugabi, Leonard.[/QUOTE]

t was until Duran stepped up and fought him that he became the big money fighter and then everyone wanted to fight him of.

Hagler never become a big money fighter until after he fought Hearns,Hearns was the main draw going into that fight,Hagler had never been a draw prior to that

More proof, as if any was needed, that you're an idiot. A case can be made for Herol Graham but the other two were "never weres".

Poet

That's funny,They had been ranked in the top ten by ring magazine for a great while,And if you think Schuler was a never was then you are quite simply an idiot

More proof that pedopoet looks at a big puncher like John Mugabi and thinks he was a great fighter