Originally Posted by ushvinder
Duran was able to fight 5 weight classes past his best weight, whitaker was able to fight all the way up to 154, leonard fought all the way up to 168, but hagler wasn't meant to move up, sorry not buying it. Hagler was a great fighter but to me, if I were to rank the 5 best fighters from 1960 and onwards, hagler wouldnt even get a mention. Ali and Duran are far greater than him, leonard, whitaker and pac rank higher, as does napoles for me. Roy Jones would beat marvin at any weight class. I would also rank carlos ortiz above him.
Don't buy it all you like, means jack squat. It's a commonly accepted common sense notion that Hagler's height and body type weren't suited to him putting on another stone in weight whether you agree or not. Unlike Duran, Hearns, Leonard and Hopkins. Not all fighters are physically the same funnily enough, and God like geniuses such as Duran and Pea are hardly a normal barometer anyway. Still, if Hagler had had the luxury of moving up to face someone a champion as historically mediocre as Tarver and not an ATG master like Spinks, he might have entertained it.
Out of the career/mainly career middleweights, I'm struggling to think of one who could step up to 175 and have anything like a fair chance against Spinks. You're the first person I've heard slag Hagler off for not fighting him and that speaks for itself. Marv knew where his ceiling was, like Monzon did when he didn't tackle Foster, Galindez or Conteh and like Robinson did when he didn't tackle Moore (yeah, I know he fought feather-fisted Maxim, which is my point). And like Hopkins did when he never bothered to tackle Jones a second time when it mattered despite them being a similar size, which seems to have bypassed you.
Hagler paid his dues for years on his way up, probably for relative peanuts. It took a ****load of toil for him earn the title and the division was full of solid, worthy challengers to keep him occupied as well as potential blockbusters against Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Curry or Leonard should they choose to challenge him, with Tommy, Ray and Don being physically well suited to do so. Why challenge Spinks for financial **** all only to get your block knocked off? Don't bother answering, that was a rhetorical question. It's called high risk/low reward, or futility in this particular case and doesn't affect Hagler's legacy negatively, especially when he ruled all and sundry with an iron fist.
I agree that all the fighters you mentioned are greater than Hagler. They're greater than Hopkins too.
Can we leave it at that?