Why didn't Hagler ever move up in weight

He would have definitely held a belt during the post-Spinks era of light heavyweights which was awful and probably the all-time low for the division. Failed middleweights like Bobby Czyz made their mark and Hearns beat two of the better light heavyweights of the era.

 

Ok, say for instance Leonard didn't come out of retirement and Hagler moved up after the Mugabi fight....Spinks was long gone by then.

Ring rankings around that time have the following as top 5:-

1. Marvin Johnson
2. Bobby Czyz
3. Dennis Andries
4. Slobodan Kacar
5. Eddie Davis

Obviously he was starting to show signs of slowing by this point, but how do you see him fairing against these 5?

 

I would rather see a great boxer dominate the one original division for a few years, then to either drain weight and pick up a belt in a few lower divisions then move up to their natraul weight or just go up or down to pick up a peice of the belts in those division then pick and choose who they fight.

The top guys for me are the ones that clean out a division, just like Hagler did. The problem is that you will not be able to fight as many name fighter as they will not be able to make a name for themselves in a division with one king ruling his kingdom as Hagler did.

 

Yes,we are in agreement:good.During his reign,Hagler even expressed a desire to break Monzon's then record.

 

There are a few bad marks against Hagler:

- Changed his name to 'Marvelous'
- Made some bad movies
- Pronounces names funny; 'Vito Antiformio' and 'Manny Packy-oh'
- Did that little dance at the end of the Leonard fight

Not moving up in weight is not on the list. Neither is thumbing Juan Roldan (because it was an uppercut).

 

...

 

Because marvin was'nt a dumb punch drunk idiot with a overblown ego.... He is demonstrating clear level headed logic,..... let's face it Hagler was intelligent,,,,, not exactly a LaMotta or Graziano (in the brain matter department)...... Chances are the lustre would have worn off and Hagler left with a lower ranking here...... M. Spinks would have whipped him bad.

 

Are you from Carrick,by any chance?

 

As to the original question.......you must be a younger fan.

In Hagler's time (which seems such a short time ago, but there we are) fighters didn't have to go looking for weight-class hopping to enrich their supposed legacies. That could just as easily (and perhaps with more flair) be done by being a dominant champion in your given weight class.

It has to do with the idea that being a world champion meant something once upon a time. If you're a new fan, you'd have no idea what I mean, and that's too bad.

 

I have my suspicions that Marvin Hagler stayed at middleweight because.........he infact was a middleweight :think

 

Hagler was the same height as James Toney and David Tua.....How tall do middleweights have to be?

 

Geezus....... you've nailed it...... 1st prize.

 

Even shorter , but not by much .

 

About 5'8 and 1/2 I'd say