Where would Hagler be ranked had he beaten SRL?

Most of the time I do switch over after the final bell.

Official results matter officially but neither of our rankings our official so they shouldn't matter.

Tommy won the rematch by any competent scoring. It makes no difference to leonard's legacy because he was past prime and we all saw what happened when they fought in their prime.

 

i think Hagler was greater. Undisputed middleweight champion for almost 7 years. 12 successful defences.

(i think he narrowly beat SRL in 1987. and also Antuofermo for the title in '79. for what its worth)

Leonard was great too. but i dont see how hes greater than Hagler.

 

Leonard is hard to rate. He doesn't have the longevity of most greats, but he beat probably more top rated greats than most fighters-and in a short period of time. On his wins I would rate him the best of the fab 4-and 5 including Benitez. Hagler was a hard worker andwith the hard work he improved and peaked with experience and physical strength as champion. But I do not think he ever could be the great Leonard was. He was not as versatile. His win over Hearns did not show his skills as much as his drive and motivation to be great.

 

the decisions add an argument to the greatness. The knowledge of a win on paper has some meaning. And that fighter who won or gets a draw goes on to defend the title. That draw Ray had in 1989 with Hearns meant he could go on and fight Duran in December and defend his title. Had Hearns won there was talk about Hearns and Duran fighting a rematch. So it did mean something whether conscious or unconscious.

 

i think Hagler was just as versatile. he outboxed boxers, outslugged sluggers, outboxed sluggers, outslugged boxers etc.

i think his win over hearns was more convincing or emphatic rather than Leonard's. and i think Hearns in 1985 was a bit better than in 1981.
technically, leonard and hearns looked "less skilled" than hearns but beat him anyway

 

Hearns was moving up in weight to middleweight in 1985. Had Hearns been a legit middleweight in 1985 I doubt Hagler would have tried to brawl the way he did. He gambled. But I think Leonard, and especially Hearns proved that even when moving up they could fight and beat better guys who were bigger. Hagler never did.

 

they never gave up much weight at all.
Nor did they give up any significant size. its a bit of a myth.
especially Hearns, who was 6'1 and broad shouldered.

 

How can it add an argument to greatness?

Consequences within the boxing world have to be largely based on official results but ranking after the fact should be based on subjective observations.

Well after ray lost to hearns he beat duran in a fight that meant nothing.

Roberto should have retired on a high after beating the man who iced hearns. The meaningful fight would have been a unification with sumbu.

Let me ask you this mag, had tommy been given the nod against ray in 89 and won by md, how would it affect your rating of him?

 

Defences, Defenses, D-F#s...

Being a World Champ over an extended period of time is a great route to ATG status, but not the only one.

Langford has an argument as the greatest p4p fighter of all-time and he didn't win a world title. Ezzard Charles has an argument to be in his company and in addition, a more than worthy claim as the greatest light heavyweight there ever was and never held the title. Charley Burley can be found among the the top 15 all-time and was arguably the most avoided fighter in history next to the aforementioned Langford. Two of these guys never held any title. Charles held one in his 3rd best weight class. All are undisputed ATGs and it's because of who they beat.

This is Leonard's argument over Hagler. He defeated 3 HOFers and a fourth lineal champ in a higher weight class and they had a combined record of 178-1-1 at the time he beat them. Some people view that as a better accomplishment than beating the Sibson, Hamshos, Braxtons and Jacksons of the day of the middleweight division. Granted, Hagler also beat Duran and Hearns. However, Duran was already approaching mid-30s at this point and was about 25lbs out of his best weight. Hearns, while arguably a better fighter at 154 than 147, was making his first appearance at 160 when he faced Hagler. On top of it, he was favored to beat Leonard in their first encounter and hadn't tasted defeat yet, coming in at a ready 32-0 (30).

I see where you're coming from. This is the flip side.

And then there's that little H2H meeting they had out.

 

I just wish Hagler and Leonard had fought a few years earlier. It's no secret that Ray waited until he thought he had a good chance against Marvin before fighting him. The Mugabi fight showed that Hagler had slipped quite a bit and that's when Leonard knew that he could beat Hagler. Ray was as good a business man as he was a fighter and often made fights on his own terms and this was no exception. Thier fight in '87 was seven years after hagler won the MW belt and fourteen years after he first turned pro. By that time Hagler was shopworn. I would've loved to have seen them both fight around '82 or '83. That would've been something. For the record I scored the '87 fight a draw.

 

argument in favor or not? I cannot measure how much it means, but it does mean enough. It adds to it. Say in a basketball game that a team wins the championship by one basket. To win that ring or title makes a difference regardless of the basket being lucky or not. Had Hearns not beaten Benitez in 1982 for the 154 pound title, he wouldn't have beaten the great Benitez, and regardless of anything beating him officially is better than not beating him. He could have beaten Davey Moore or Buster Drayton for a title, but that wouldn't have meant as much.

I did not say the official result is everything, but it plays a factor. I agree that is it not everything and shouldn't be. But there is a factor-unfair or not. The amount that factor plays is not quite clear. Had Hagler won that decision against Ray in 1987, regardless of anything it would have probably affected Ray's legacy a little. He would not have gotten his 3rd title in 3 weights. As it was Ray just fought Lalonde to beat Hearns to the 5 titles but doing some cheating. Did beating Lalonde help Ray's legacy? Sure it did.
Official results do make a difference. Peterson would not be champion now if the official result did not matter. If it did not matter the official result then being champion wouldn't matter. But Khan is going to get his rematch.

I do believe that fight with Duran in 1989 meant something. Not as far as legacy as much as showing how Ray's style would always beat Duran easily when Ray fought his fight. Ray solidified the trilogy.

Tommy getting the nod would not affect my rating of him, but it would give him an official win against another legend, and objectively that does add to his legacy. How could it not. He would get a win against Sugar Ray Leonard when Ray was champion, regardless of it being the title he won from Lalonde.

The official stuff matters. That is why Hearns or Jones or Duran wanted to add on the titles in so many weight classes. No one really cares that Hearns won his 3rd and 4th titles against Andries and Roldan, or that Jones won a heavyweight title against Ruiz. They know the historical aspect of it.

 

Hearns was not yet a natural middleweight in 1985.. As a matter of fact his first fight where he looked natural was when he fought Shuler in 1986. He looked more filled in and his upper body was built up from all the heavy bag work he did for preparation.
Being 6-1 does not mean he was a natural middleweight. In that case Leonard and Tyson were the same weight because they were the same height. The problem with Hagler and Hearns is that Hearns fighting Hagler (who was southpaw) had to throw his punches more straight down the middle, and Hagler had a strong neck which absorbs power better when hit from the front than the side - the power of Hearns punch might have broke his hand in the rematch again. He would have always had to be careful. Hearns punched that hard and Hagler took a good punch, but I do think Hearns could hurt and stop Hagler. It was a matter of Hearns power against Hagler's head. Hagler's head won the first fight.
I do believe had Hagler come in righty against Hearns, that Tommy might have stopped him. Hagler would have always had to fight Hearns southpaw when Hearns was throwing the big right. The fact Marvin came out righty in the 3rd round was after Hearns broke the hand, so Tommy was not throwing it to full effect by that point.

 

Its all who you beat, man.

If Hagler beat SRL, he could say he beat everybody worth anything around his weight range, beat his two biggest rivals moving up, thwarted the crafty and dangerous Duran, and might have even decided, **** it, I'll give 175 a try.

As it stands, he became the last little bit of padding to an already amazing resume, cementing SRL as one of the best 20 or 30 fighters ever.

Thats a BIG flip on one fights outcome. I had Leonard winning, but with that much riding on it and a fight that close, I can see why not getting that nod ruined Marvin.

 

I had peterson winning the fight.

Uno mas at smw tells us nothing about a lw and a ww.

Getting the nod for tommy makes not a blind bit of difference to me because in my eyes he already won.

 

Langford and Burley never got the chance to fight for the title. Charles never got the chance in his best weight class.
They had lots more fights and wins over top opposition than did ray Leonard.

well i guess it boils down to how much you value a win over Benitez or over the quitter Duran, for example, against wins over Mugabi, Sibson, Minter, Hamsho etc.
The argument sometimes seems to suggest that a win over a Benitez somehow equals an infinite number of wins over a Mugabi. That 3 or 4 high quality wins can outweigh 15 or 20 wins over solid fighters of a degree or two less skill and repute.
i dont buy that argument. in this case (especially since Hagler beat two of the big names that leonard did also)

Duran was coming off the win over Davey Moore. I dont buy that he was a lightweight fighting a middleweight in 1983. he'd outgrown the 135 lb division in the late 1970s. he was probably a blown up welter, thats all.

Hearns was better in 1985 than he was in 1981 in my opinion. The wins over Benitez and Duran proved his greatness. he was more seasoned, more experienced. Being unbeaten in 1981 and favored to win and score a KO was probably as much of a hindrance to Hearns as an advantage. He was a big man at middleweight. he fought over 154 pounds a couple of times before. he was excellent at 154 pounds. Hagler was only a little heavier than that. Some of the great middleweights weighed 154 pounds.
I seem to remember Hearns ended up as a slight favorite to beat Hagler too, though the odds were close.

Yes. i appreciate that. I dont object to anyone having Leonard higher than Hagler. but i disagree that he "must" be