Why didn't Hagler challenge himself

[Teetotaler]

Yes because 168 and 175 are totally the same, Hagler was as big as todays MW's and there's loads of ATG fighters moving to MW to challenge Golovkin isn't there?

GG's team said anybody from 154 to 168

Don't play dumb stumpy.

GGG is already a top 5 fighter in history p4p and top 3 if not #1 mw fighter in history deal with it

[TonyGe]

Did you not see where I specified weight? Same day weigh in fighters were smaller than the weight classes today in weight. There is no denying it. Taller don't always translate to bigger... is Paul Williams a "bigger man" than Mike Tyson?

Paul Williams being bigger smaller or the same size as Mike Tyson has nothing to do with these two. Spinks is a naturally bigger man than Roy Jones.
Same day fighters. Ok so Pacquiao is bigger than Ray Leonard and Tommy Hearns. Thanks for clearing that up.

[TonyGe]

Is Hagler an atg? MOst definitely.

Should he be ranked as highly as he often is (as I did myself)? I do not think so.

I brought this point up some months back. Hagler was THE guy at mw and his 3 best opponents were guys moving up in weight multiple times. He had the perfect foil in THE guy at lhw but he did not take it. Which is why Leonard, Duran and Hearns should be ranked higher. The former 2 mostly are.

I stress however that none of this takes away from his skillset, toughness and the fact that he beat good mws and 9/10 times looked levels above them.

Hearns and Duran are my two most favorite fighters but are they the best challengers he ever had? They are amoung the most famous but the best at middleweight? Not so sure about that.

[TonyGe]

Look at the ***ing size difference even with them being older in this photo:



Just wasn't realistic at the time so the demand never came for that fight even though Spinks did call him out partly because Hagler was the man at the time so yeah by mentioning Hagler it got writers and fans attention I'm sure but it was never realistic

Wow! It's hard to put into words how talented and incredible those two guys were. I remember the left uppercut Spinks hit Marvin Johnson with. I was afraid that Johnson was going to die.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Monzon's was much more impressive.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Yeah really wasn't a challenge at all going overseas and smashing Alan minter, or walking into the hellfire that was tommy hearns power shots..


Easy stuff,,, What a hype job

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Monzon's was much more impressive.

How???

Name me monzon's best wins defending his title..

[Tony Trick-Pony]

How???

Name me monzon's best wins defending his title..

I'd say Emile Griffith, Nino Benvenuti, Rodrigo Valdez, Jose Napoles, Bennie Brisco, Jean-Claude Bouttier.

I probably shouldn't say much more impressive. It wasn't a lot more impressive. I just think Hagler's reign was a bit overrated. I don't have a problem with him fighting smaller guys. It seems to be part of holding the middleweight title. It happened with Hopkins, Monzon, Robinson, etc. It's just the way it is. And Duran(although he was a natural lightweight) and Hearns and Leonard are all fine names to have on a cv at any weight.

I never though much of Hamsho who he fought twice. Mughabi gave him a war and that was a classic no doubt. But Alan Minter was a very weak champion. He fought Obelmeijas twice for reasons I can't figure out while never giving Duran or Hearns a rematch. And the Leonard fight was either fixed or he's one of the dumbest champions ever. I just see a lot of praise for Hagler sometimes like he was much better than he actually was. I mean, he had a great chin and solid power and good skills but Duran and Leonard made him look like a simpleton in there IMO. I may just prefer Monzon's style more really. Never will be a Hagler fan although I'm a big fan of Duran and Hearns and Leonard(sometimes). he just seemed a step behind while having them all come to him at the higher weight.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I'd say Emile Griffith, Nino Benvenuti, Rodrigo Valdez, Jose Napoles, Bennie Brisco, Jean-Claude Bouttier.

I probably shouldn't say much more impressive. It wasn't a lot more impressive. I just think Hagler's reign was a bit overrated. I don't have a problem with him fighting smaller guys. It seems to be part of holding the middleweight title. It happened with Hopkins, Monzon, Robinson, etc. It's just the way it is. And Duran(although he was a natural lightweight) and Hearns and Leonard are all fine names to have on a cv at any weight.

I never though much of Hamsho who he fought twice. Mughabi gave him a war and that was a classic no doubt. But Alan Minter was a very weak champion. He fought Obelmeijas twice for reasons I can't figure out while never giving Duran or Hearns a rematch. And the Leonard fight was either fixed or he's one of the dumbest champions ever. I just see a lot of praise for Hagler sometimes like he was much better than he actually was. I mean, he had a great chin and solid power and good skills but Duran and Leonard made him look like a simpleton in there IMO. I may just prefer Monzon's style more really. Never will be a Hagler fan although I'm a big fan of Duran and Hearns and Leonard(sometimes). he just seemed a step behind while having them all come to him at the higher weight.

Any long term champ, probably fighting in a weak division..

Hopkins
Monzon
Wlad
Etc

Long term champs are usually only long term because they don't have legit rivals.. not their fault, but is the reason for longevity..

I don't care how good a guy like ray Leonard or Ali was, they couldn't be long term champs because they had nothing but fellow greats to go against.
Same thing with manny, Marquez, morales, Barrera
Or Oscar, Tito, Shane, Forrest,Vargas, winky

[Vlad_]

Because his head was too small...

I mean seriously look at that head size difference.




...