What if Sugar Ray Leonard and Thomas Hearns had swapped resumes.......

No he wouldn't be quicker than Leonard, but I never said that. He didn't look sharp at all, but he looked a lot better against Hearns. Leonard himself says after he saw the Hagler-Hearns fight, he had no intentions of coming back. When he saw how much Marvin had slipped in year against Mugabi, that' when he felt confident in making a comeback

Again, Leonard himself said that Mugabi was a slugger, and he could see him outboxing Marvin at times, Hagler from the Roldan or Hearns fight would not have struggled that much with Mugabi, who wasn't a great fighter, nor was he quick or as defensively adept as Leonard or Duran.

What other evidence is there? Listen to Leonard himself, he even states he could see how much Hagler had slipped by '87. Watch the fights themselves, if you can't see the difference in how much worse for wear Marvin looked, then there's not much more to say about it. I can only add that you're not going to find many people at all who agree with you.

Would a younger Leonard have grown into a legit MW?

I think if Hagler and Leonard had fought anytime up to '85, Hagler would beat him decisively. I still think Hagler beat him in '87 anyway, but the judges saw it as a win for Leonard and I give him full credit for the win.

Every fighter and his fans has an 'excuse train'. The reality is, any objective observer can see how much Hagler had slipped by '87, just read around and I'm sure you won't find many who agree with you

 

The Hagler from the Roldan fight looked exceptionally mediocre against a one-eyed,unrefined slugger - the type of fighter that Hagler is generally supposed to look good against,so using that as an example is amusing in itself.And how the hell do you know he wouldn't have struggled against him? Hagler did look a tad rusty,but Mugabi fought a far more intelligent fight than Hearns did,which is why the fight was more competitive and he lasted longer.His tactics weren't too far removed from Duran's attempts to lure Hagler out of his counter-punching role and into traps himself - the obvious difference being that he came to actually win and engaged more(to his own undoing,in the end).





And you're entitled to your own opinion,but your opinion is wrong.A younger Leonard stops Hagler with a body shot.

 

Go and watch the fight again, Roldan was tough and applied constant pressure, and Hagler picked him apart and stopped a tough contender, without absorbing the kind of punishment he did against Mugabi

He did fight a better fight than Hearns, he was also more durable than Hearns. Still, look at the way Hagler countered Hearns and landed his straight left and right hooks against Hearns, he looked a lot sharper. If you ever wanted an illustration, look at what Leonard himself said after watching Hagler against Hearns, he wanted no part of him. After watching Hagler against Mugabi, he announced he wanted to challenge Hagler. Why do you think that is? Leonard wasn't getting any better himself.

The general feeling then, and now is that Hagler showed Duran too much respect. It was his first super fight, and he fought cautiously. When Hagler needed to, he stepped up and won the last two rounds big, and hurt Duran a few times towards the end. Mugabi wasn't a great fighter, and Marvin really struggled with him. If you want an example of Hagler's skill set, go look at his fight against a solid contender in Tony Sibson.

I agree Mugabi fought a good fight, but the reality is that wasn't near Duran's level, and Hagler struggled. He'd slipped considerably by that point.

We'll respectfully agree to disagree, this is a very subjective sport.

 

Roldan was putting the Argentinian wood to Hagler before he got thumbed.

 

A younger Leonard would have gotten stopped by a younger Hagler .
D older Leonard knew y he needed Hagler using dem heavily padded gloves and Y he demanded 12 rds and a larger ring .

Hagler is over8ed but Leonard is even more over8ed .

Stating that Leonard would have stopped Hagler had they fought some 5-7 yrs earlier is ridiculous .

 

I agree, he wasn't shot, a shot fighter wouldn't be so highly ranked P4P and still be legit MW champion. Very few gave Leonard a chance going in. However, I still believe Hagler had slipped considerably, I think a fresher Hagler would have beaten Leonard more decisively.

 

Hagler simply wasn't a ring-general you could trust in a huge profile superfight, especially if it's against one of the sports great ****s like Duran or Leonard who could get into his head.

He SHOULD beat Leonard in a prime vs prime earlier fight, but i have reseverations about him fighting the right kind of bout even then.

 

Hagler didn't really look much sharper against Duran than he did against Leonard. So either he had an off night against Roberto and was past it against Leonard, or the two most skilled boxers he met just posed him some puzzles he had a hard time solving.

These are just two fights, but for me the most reasonable conclusion is that Hagler needed big physical advantages against fighters of that calibre, since his ring generalship just wasn't quite on that level.

 

Nah,don't need to.Go and watch Hagler against Marcos Geraldo.If you're going to use the Mugabi fight to highlight Hagler's dramatic decline,don't go and use the Roldan fight to highlight the significant difference.Roldan fought to Hagler's strengths,clocked him with regularity and did so while spending most of the fight with only one functional eye.


And that consensus is one shared by lazy analysts and Hagler apologists.In hindsight,it shouldn't come as a shock as to why he performed in such a mediocre outing against Duran.He fought the same way he'd always fought.