Probably the greatest southpaws since 1980. Yes I'm aware Pernell is a southpaw. I think Pacquiao is at that point in his career where he's been out of his prime long enough that the craze has died off. But not long enough that he's turned into a classic legend. Kind of in limbo land right now. Here's my take. Pacquiao is a slightly greater fighter than Hagler. Marvin has the best singular win. I think his destruction over Hearns is superior to Pacquiao's annihliation of Barrera. But the fact that Hagler had Hearns moving up and Pacquiao moved up to face Barrera evens the gap a little. Pacquiao though closes that gap and takes the lead when you look at depth. Hagler dominated the MW division which wasn't weak or strong. Same with Pacquiao who dominated 122. But I think Pacquiao starts taking the edge when you look at his overall resume. FW and SFW was stacked while he fought there. He moved many weigh classes and the highlight of his higher weight class campaign was the Cotto destruction. Very impressive stuff. So Pacquiao I think is greater than Hagler. Thoughts?
Let's see. Time to compare best wins. Pacquiao: Barrera, ATG in his prime Morales, ATG exiting his prime but still formidable Cotto, future HOFer with a size advantage but poor preparation at a catchweight Bradley, maybe future HOFer in his prime, otherwise undefeated Hatton, possible HOFer not at his overall peak but still effective at his best weight; 2 weight world champion Disputed series with JMM. I had Marquez winning all 4 but Manny's performances were commendable. Honorable mentions: Ledwaba, Margarito, drained old DLH, shot Mosley. Hagler: Hearns, ATG moving up in weight but showed he wasn't even maxed out at MW Duran, past-prime ATG who could still hang with top contenders at MW Mugabi, HOFer undefeated in his prime, universal #1 contender Alan Minter, former MW Champion Bennie Briscoe, consistently rated MW contender Briscoe might be exchanged with Antuofermo. Disputed loss to SRL. --- To me it looks close, I think Hagler's top wins push him over the edge. If you scored the Leonard fight in his favor (I had it a draw) then it helps his case a bit. But as of now I think Hagler takes it. Hearns is the standout best win. Duran, even past prime, is also better than any win Pacquiao has. At least roughly equal to the Barrera win. Cotto is better than Mugabi but the circumstances weren't as favorable for Hagler. Hagler was starting to age himself. Then guys like Bradley and Hatton aren't much better than Briscoe and Minter. So yeah, I'll vote Hagler.
Good post. One thing I will disagree on though is Pacquiao did beat Marquez. the second fight especially can not be called a robbery. You can say that Marquez won and score the fight for Marquez, but since it could have gone either way we have to go by the official cards. Which means giving the win to Pacquiao. So while Hagler has the best singular win (which means a lot) Pacquiao makes up for it with more overall depth IMO. But it's close either way. Good post.
Thanks. I think if everyone is ranking on their own evaluation though, we can use our own cards. I've scored the 2nd fight so many times, I always come out with 7-5 Marquez. Always, the same rounds every damn time. I've even memorized a lot of them which kind of defeats the purpose of trying to re-score them with fresh eyes, but at least I've settled on my concrete evaluation. I still give him credit for his performance in that competitive 1 point loss against an ATG though. Pacquiao does have more depth, but I tend to value single wins a bit more. Everyone is different. But I think when you KO a prime ATG, it's hard to top. (Pac did that to Barrera too, awesome win, but it was Hearns!) For me to overcome a big win like (in this case Hagler has 2 legitimate wins against 2 of the Fab 4) that you need not just better depth but way better depth, which in this case I don't think tips in Manny's favor. Definitely had to think about it though. Good thread :good
How lethal do you consider Duran to be H2H at 160? He was a natural Lightweight and clearly had no problems at 147 as evidence by Montreal. But it's got to be hard to maintain full effectiveness from 135 all the way up to 160? Also I would say that Barrera H2H is better than he's given credit for. I'd say the only two men to beat him in his prime were Morales and Pacquiao. And Pacquiao was the only one to do it convincingly as he shutout Barrera for 11 rounds. (bogus first round KD) Additionally, a shopworn Barrera took Marquez life and death. I think prime for prime Barrera does beat Marquez. Pacquiao did lose to Morales when he was at his best. Though it was a 7-5 loss, hardly a blowout. But as great as Morales is he's not a Duran or Ray Leonard type fighter. And Hagler never did lose to a fighter when he was on top. Clearly the Hearns and Mugabi wars damaged him. He did not look sharp against Leonard. At that point it's safe to say that wasn't vintage Marvin. The first Vito fight is the biggest black mark of his career, but it's softened because he avenged that draw. Not a whole lot of holes to poke at with these fighters.
Well, full effectiveness is foregone. Duran wasn't prime. But because he was so great, Duran at 160 was still a force to be reckoned with. The fact he competed with Hagler so well alone speaks to that, his skill was incredible. Couple this with the fact he outdid Hearns, a fighter who would move on and win a title at LHW, against Barkley. As to Barrera, I think that's a really top win for Pacquiao. I don't know if Barrera beats Marquez in his prime though. If you think about it, Barrera was coming off a great run against Pacquiao when he first got beaten, right? Then he beat Morales, fought Marquez in their competitive battle. Then Pacquiao rematched him, and Barrera didn't do worse, he did better. So I don't think Barrera had much of a super noticeable decline to speak of; I think his boxing skill compensated for his lack of youth. This is a random aside though. Barrera's jab was great. Agreed that neither of their losses at the top are really anything to be embarrassed about at all.
