Are Hagler's title challengers underrated?

Completely agree. Hearns tho was a top opponent imo and Tommy post Hagler probably wasn't the fighter he had been coming into the Hagler bout. Hearns beat a highly regarded Virgil Hill 6 years later at 175 so he is definitely a very noteworthy win for Hagler.

Hamsho, Sibson, Antuofermo, Minter, they'd win very few bouts in a round robin with the likes of Toney, McCallum, Nunn and Sumbu.

 

Yes, but they've become overrated.

 

Antuofermo seems to be talked up on here and Minter if anything talked down, yet Minter beat him to take the title and beat him up silly in the re-match.

 

Antuofermo's reputation is based on him being as hard as a coffin nail, elevated further by his undeserved draw against Hagler. That's not to say he didn't do well to tough it out to the end of that bout.

But, you're right - Minter's destruction of Antuofermo in their rematch is most often overlooked.

 

No, I think your on target ,Sibson was a terrific left hooker Hagler made him look ordinary, Obel was a strong ,tall guy,Roldan was a quick handed ,come forward slugger,Mugabi had excellent power,they were good contenders imo. Marvin was just a top 4 all time 160 pounder,who made them look a lower quality than they actually were.imo.

 

In fairness, most people around here to seem to hold Minter in much, much higher regard than Antuofermo (even though Antuofermo arguably won their first fight).

 

Sure, almost every fighter is overrated by at least some. Personally I think Nunn's poorer performances often get glossed over, and Toney has at least one downright embarrassing one (Tiberi) which should have been a loss. But both their resumes and film of them show them to be more than just contender quality.

For my money Kalambay and McCallum are among the most skilled fighters I've seen, any division. But that's me - can't say their resumes are anything like that good.

But again, clearly better than typical contenders.

 

I watched that fight live way back, and it still confounds me...what a blatant robbery it was...probably the worst I've ever seen.

 

Yeah, Hearns at 160 was vulnerable against brawler types, but I can see him being a nightmare for more pure boxers like Nunn and McCallum.

 

I think it was me that first mentioned Antuofermo. My point was that Vito doesn't really come up when discussing Hagler's fights, and yet, he should because he was a quality fighter in his own way. Just goes to show how deep MMH's resume actually is when you start rooting around.

 

Yeah, it was something else.

 

It could be so that the type of contenders Hagler had, rough tough fighters to a large degree, were well suited for him. He struggled more against his slickest opponents (Duran, Leonard and probably Monroe).

 

That's a fair observation. Marvin could take a bit of time to work out the skilled boxers with their own box of tricks - but he did work them out and, once he did, he took control (even if it required a rematch).

 

It was similar to Jorge Paez/Troy Dorsey

You have the champ who doesn't throw enough, but lands at a higher percentage and is better defensively, v. a less skilled non-stop punching machine. Who do you pick? The judges in both fights went for quality punching v. quantity.

 

Minter was jabbing Vito to death, but wasn't it a between rounds blood stoppage? Didn't Vito's corner stop it because his face was a mess?