why is hagler rated sooo highly?? :/

[Sam Donald]

i like the dude for real but...

i think hes overrated

please enlighten me

school my aŁ$ on why hagler was the man at 160 and is ranked like top 3 of all time as a middleweight

his most notable win was against hearns who was coming up from 147 in a great war

he beat duran who was a killer at 135 lol

he lost to srl who was a natural 147, yes the fight was close but he lost

he had a solid fight with mugabi which he won...but what else

the rest of his resume is unknown and he lost twice early on...he kinda reminds me of joe calzaghe excluding the two early losses

please tell me whats up with this guy cos i wanna be a fan of his like majority of you are lol thanks

[Mr.MojoRisin']

i like the dude for real but...

i think hes overrated

please enlighten me

school my aŁ$ on why hagler was the man at 160 and is ranked like top 3 of all time as a middleweight

his most notable win was against hearns who was coming up from 147 in a great war

he beat duran who was a killer at 135 lol

he lost to srl who was a natural 147, yes the fight was close but he lost

he had a solid fight with mugabi which he won...but what else

the rest of his resume is unknown and he lost twice early on...he kinda reminds me of joe calzaghe excluding the two early losses

please tell me whats up with this guy cos i wanna be a fan of his like majority of you are lol thanks

Hagler went through everybody to get the title and fought everybody once he got it. He was ducked for a little bit by Corro, who Hagler would have gone right through. The draw with Antuofermo was a robbery, Hagler clearly won that fight and should have been crowned champ then and there. The referee for that fight said he puked after hearing the decision.

Hagler clearly beat Duran but was nearly robbed by the judges. Duran wasn't even close to beating him and had a couple good rounds towards the end if I remember right. Hagler's problem in that fight was he was weary of Durans power and figured out that Duran wasn't **** at middleweight until too late. If you watch the fight towards the end Hagler nearly knocked Duran out.

There isn't really anything wrong with his resume. He was robbed in his first loss. After that he lost Monroe but went back to knock both of those guys out. He didn't lose again until the Leonard fight and it is clear as rain that Leonard knew Hagler beat him. He ducked him until Hagler retired then came out of retirement.

Hagler had power, speed, chin, could box, could brawl. Pretty much everything you want in a fighter. Only thing wrong was his foot speed but imo it wasn't that bad.

Overall Hagler was probably the most avoided fighter in Middleweight history. GGG has nothing on him in that respect.

[Ray Corso]

'''this just gets more & more boring, last time for Marvin..

Not sure how you discuss a mans record without knowing the competition on it!
Clearly you have no clue of the men on Hagler's record or your ignorance wouldn't lead to form such a dumb question.
Why not study the man's career before coming here and posing such a ridiculous question.
If you don't know who Antuofermo, Mintor, Monroe, Seales, Watts, Geraldo,
Brisco, Hamsho, Lee, Sibson, Scyprion, Roldan.........

anyone could see Duran, Hearns, Leonard.............
Duran and Hearns were 85ish and close to his end. Leonard waited till 87 far past Haglers best!
We have young fans here who haven't a clue when a fighters youth to prime to end starts and stops.
Study a career and learn instead of asking idiotic questions.

GGG has an ok record because the best of his era refuse to fight, Hagler fought everyone from his era and some of the best twice!

In a heads up with GGG I'd favor Hagler because of his pro experience against much better competition and his heart and soul. He also switched southpaw to conventional as well as any fighter in boxing history.

Go study................
Ray

[rightsideup]

Yeah Marvin fought the killer Philly middleweight s and other before getting a well deserved shot at the title

[watchayouhead]

The Hagler / Mugabi fight was excellent, i watch it about once a year to this day, along with Holyfield /Bowe trilogy, Holmes / Norton, Pryor / Arguello and a Camacho fight here and there. Hagler / Hearns was damn good too.

I'd take Hagler against ANY middleweight in history in their prime.

Mugabi was never the same after Marvin got done with him.

I think Hagler / GGG would look a lot like Hagler / Scypion. Marvin would stop GGG mid-fight.

[them_apples]

i like the dude for real but...

i think hes overrated

please enlighten me

school my aŁ$ on why hagler was the man at 160 and is ranked like top 3 of all time as a middleweight

his most notable win was against hearns who was coming up from 147 in a great war

he beat duran who was a killer at 135 lol

he lost to srl who was a natural 147, yes the fight was close but he lost

he had a solid fight with mugabi which he won...but what else

the rest of his resume is unknown and he lost twice early on...he kinda reminds me of joe calzaghe excluding the two early losses

please tell me whats up with this guy cos i wanna be a fan of his like majority of you are lol thanks

he fought some rough guys and you forgot he did blow a prime Hearns out, who was a natural ww but massive. But other then that I agree...his resume is lacking if you do a p4p comparison. Duran for example is a lot greater. Duran beat better guys at 135 and dominated them. Moved up and smashed Leonard and Palomino....got in with Hagler at 160 and made it a tight fight (A hella sharp Duran might have even won).

MW doesn't have a lot of great resumes though, Hopkins fought average comp for 10 years straight, lost to taylor, Jones and racked up a few nice wins at 175 later on in his career. I mean h2h if you got by that Hagler probably beat B-hop because Hagler did walk through his competition at least, even if they were sub-par. Monzon clearly has a better resume, dominating wins over prime Briscoe (old fat Briscoe gave Hagler a solid fight) and also Beating Valdez who was a monster - at the end of his career as well.

so at MW hagler is great in comparison, but p4p I wouldn't say so. Indeed both Hagler and SRL were past it, the fight was 50/50 and could have been a draw, but SRL was coke addicted and out of his prime and weight class - Hagler was just out of his prime.

EDIT: Mugubi was indeed rined by Hagler, who had leagues more experience than him and also Mugubi was a natural 154 lb fighter...people forget.

[yngwie]

'''this just gets more & more boring, last time for Marvin..

Not sure how you discuss a mans record without knowing the competition on it!
Clearly you have no clue of the men on Hagler's record or your ignorance wouldn't lead to form such a dumb question.
Why not study the man's career before coming here and posing such a ridiculous question.
If you don't know who Antuofermo, Mintor, Monroe, Seales, Watts, Geraldo,
Brisco, Hamsho, Lee, Sibson, Scyprion, Roldan.........

anyone could see Duran, Hearns, Leonard.............
Duran and Hearns were 85ish and close to his end. Leonard waited till 87 far past Haglers best!
We have young fans here who haven't a clue when a fighters youth to prime to end starts and stops.
Study a career and learn instead of asking idiotic questions.

GGG has an ok record because the best of his era refuse to fight, Hagler fought everyone from his era and some of the best twice!

In a heads up with GGG I'd favor Hagler because of his pro experience against much better competition and his heart and soul. He also switched southpaw to conventional as well as any fighter in boxing history.

Go study................
Ray

It's funny how you act like that only because the man doesn't know things about Hagler, he is asking because he wants to know more about him and that all right, there is no problem on wanting to have more knowledge about a fighter, but you know, i think is important to prove how much you know.

[Ray Corso]

Most of what I know about Hagler is from READING about him. My point was to LEARN about his competitors and one of the important issues is that if a fighter has 10 looses in 50 fights that doesn't mean he is a WEAK fighter.

I have a little more depth on Hagler because I had worked on a few of the cards he was on. When you see a man work in person you have a much more personal appreciation for his character.

" i think is important to prove how much you know".
Yesterday 08:27 PM
This is the typical response I get when I give my opinions because I'm very direct and my opinions are based on my life working in the sport. Novice participants and novice fans are intimidated by my directness and when you read as opposed to witness in person my directness seems harsh like an authoritarian.
When you run a gym for as long as I did and are in charge of a hundred fighters consisting of a amateur teams and pro's you have little time to beat around the bush. You need to be prepared and precise !!! If some questions asked here by new OP where searched out in the forums archivers they would have educated themselves and may find the answers to their questions.
When boxing historians have Hagler high in the top ten at 160 a newbie boxing fan could start there and then research why he's considered so high.

Ray

[The Old LefHook]

Most of what I know about Hagler is from READING about him. My point was to LEARN about his competitors and one of the important issues is that if a fighter has 10 looses in 50 fights that doesn't mean he is a WEAK fighter.

I have a little more depth on Hagler because I had worked on a few of the cards he was on. When you see a man work in person you have a much more personal appreciation for his character.

" i think is important to prove how much you know".
Yesterday 08:27 PM
This is the typical response I get when I give my opinions because I'm very direct and my opinions are based on my life working in the sport. Novice participants and novice fans are intimidated by my directness and when you read as opposed to witness in person my directness seems harsh like an authoritarian.
When you run a gym for as long as I did and are in charge of a hundred fighters consisting of a amateur teams and pro's you have little time to beat around the bush. You need to be prepared and precise !!! If some questions asked here by new OP where searched out in the forums archivers they would have educated themselves and may find the answers to their questions.
When boxing historians have Hagler high in the top ten at 160 a newbie boxing fan could start there and then research why he's considered so high.

Ray

Ray, I think what the young man may be requesting in an indirect manner is that you should educate people rather than always advising them to get an education. Yes, this is not your responsibility, but your pedagogical experience could be of great use. So many juvenile trolls on here probably stalled and diverted your natural instincts for a while. Now it is trime to give these youngsters a technical education.

My advice (and hope) is that you will start a thread of your own for educational purposes, using specific fighters as examples of particular techniques. You know you cannot keep the trolls out. There would be some good responses to the all around enlightenment anyway.

Lef

[Joe Beamish]

The OP raises a pretty good question. Why? Because today's critics of Golovkin would evaluate a fighter based on 1) resume/quality of competition, and 2) whether the fighter moved up in weight with successful results.

If these are your only criteria, then Hagler doesn't look as awesome as many, many guys, before and since -- particularly the ones from the lower weight classes who moved up in weight and won championships.

But if you look at dominating your own weight class, fighting everyone including some pretty bad mofos, and looking almost totally invulnerable while doing it -- Hagler was amazing.