Is It A Safe Bet To Say Pacquiao Is Greater Than Hagler?

[Wild Blue Yonda]

Im not here to argue that Hagler is the superior fighter...in fact I have no idea, and will wait until Pacquiao's career is done before I start judging that.

but imo Hagler's win over Hearns was better than Pacquiao's win over Marquez(by that I mean his first fight with Marquez, since I had him losing the rematch). And Hagler did beat many more top opponents than Pacquiao has.

its a quantity vs quality thing, and since the topic is 'Is it safe to say'...and I dont think, at this point, we can definitively say that Pacquiao is the better fighter, since you can make a fair argument as to why Hagler had the 'better' career.
It gets fairly subjective at this point.

It was your initial point to bring up that Pacquiao had a dearth of great fighters in their prime, though. I only asked the same question of Hagler --- that's not unfair.

Regarding the Marquez rematch, we will have to disagree. I actually scored it for Marquez, having sat down with the fight twice --- but each time, only by two & one points. That's just not a robbery, in my book. Did you really have it wide enough for Marquez for you to shun the official result? I think Pacquiao's case for winning, though I ultimately disagree, isn't weak enough not to be counted.

The fact is the man has victories over two prime rivals --- Marquez & Barrera. Hagler has, at best, one in Hearns (& we both lean toward Hearns not being in his prime there). Of course, there's more to judging than just whether a great fighter was specifically in his prime.

I still do not see a reasonable case that Hagler's best victories (in his natural weightclass) over Hearns, Antuofermo, Duran & Mugabi trump Pacquiao's successes (at various weights, often not his best) over Barrera, Morales, Marquez, Hatton, De La Hoya, Cotto & Margarito collectively.

I dunno, but the more I think of this, the clearer cut it becomes. Pacquiao is hands down ahead of Hagler all-time, IMO. I guess we just see it too differently.

[Steak]

It was your initial point to bring up that Pacquiao had a dearth of great fighters in their prime, though. I only asked the same question of Hagler --- that's not unfair.

Regarding the Marquez rematch, we will have to disagree. I actually scored it for Marquez, having sat down with the fight twice --- but each time, only by two & one points. That's just not a robbery, in my book. Did you really have it wide enough for Marquez for you to shun the official result? I think Pacquiao's case for winning, though I ultimately disagree, isn't weak enough not to be counted.

The fact is the man has victories over two prime rivals --- Marquez & Barrera. Hagler has, at best, one in Hearns (& we both lean toward Hearns not being in his prime there). Of course, there's more to judging than just whether a great fighter was specifically in his prime.

I still do not see a reasonable case that Hagler's best victories (in his natural weightclass) over Hearns, Antuofermo, Duran & Mugabi trump Pacquiao's successes (at various weights, often not his best) over Barrera, Morales, Marquez, Hatton, De La Hoya, Cotto & Margarito collectively.

I dunno, but the more I think of this, the clearer cut it becomes. Pacquiao is hands down ahead of Hagler all-time, IMO. I guess we just see it too differently.

No, I did not have the Marquez rematch wide for Marquez at all...I only had it by a point. it was close. I dont care what the judges said: theyre only three people, and judges score fights wrong all the time. Although a Pacquiao win is not out of the question, I simply cant give credit to him for a fight I saw him losing.
In situations like these where almost everyone is split down the middle in terms of judging, I just look at it as a draw. half wins, half losses: just go in the middle.

heres a question: do you think Marquez would be considered a 'great' without the Pacquiao fights? I dont. hes got some losses on his record, and when it gets down to it his biggest non-controversial win is probably Juan Diaz, who was coming off a loss to Campbell 2 fights before.
It would have been hard for a middleweight to become 'great' when someone has the division in their grasp like Hagler did.

I posted this earlier on, describing the top opponents each guy had beaten:
Hagler-
Mike Cobert
Bennie Briscoe
Willie Monroe
Hamani
Bobby Watts(Ive heard that Hagler was robbed in this fight)
Antuofermo
Antuofermo
Minter
Obelmejas
Obelmejas
Hamsho
Hamsho
Sibson
Scypion
Mugabi
Duran
Roldan
Hearns

Pacquiao
Cotto
Clottey
Diaz
Lebwadas
Sasakul
Hatton
Marquez
Barrera

DLH was way past it and not considered a top fighter anymore by the time Pacquiao beat him. Morales was unranked as well and coming off a embarressing loss to the average Zahir Raheem. Margarito, likewise, was not considered a top fighter when Pacquiao fought him...let alone being off for a year+ and coming off a bad KO loss.

Youre just overrating some of his wins. Although I too find it amazing how he has jumped up weight classes, you might be falling for the '8 weight class champ' BS. In reality, the only weight classes he was the 'lineal' champ in were Flyweight, featherweight, Super featherweight, and Light Welterweight. Damn impressive, no doubt. but still half as advertised.

like I said: quantity vs quality at this point.