Are Hagler's title challengers underrated?

It can happen because of styles and other factors, yes, but it's not the typical thing to expect. A fighter will generally have more problems with opponents A than with opponents B, if opponents A are better than opponents B.

This is not an unreasonable take if one look at their resumes. Resume wise Hagler's is clearly above even that of Nunn and Kalambay.

I personally think they're closer than that quality wise, but I also don't see Nunn or, especially, Toney duplicating his reign. Probably not McCallum either since he stepped up to MW so late. Kalambay might do it, but I have a feeling that he'd come unstuck against Hearns.

 

There has been NO champion of who's title reign an argument can be made that it wasn't the best. I dare anyone to name just one.

 

This, I cannot agree with. Whilst Duran was clever enough to capitalise on Hagler's relaxed start, I saw no fundamental change in Duran's approach (at around the 5th round, if memory serves), which explains why a bit of assertion and an upping of the pace from Hagler allowed him to take control and win several rounds, on the bounce, quite comfortably. The same again for why Hagler clearly took his foot off the pedal.

If you could provide a bit more of an explanation as to what it was Duran was doing to "confound" Hagler, I will be happy to take another look at the fight and consider any specific points you have highlighted.

No one is arguing it was a rout. The point being made is that whenever Hagler turned up the heat and asked some proper questions of 'Duran the Middleweight', Hagler wasn't finding it hard to hit Duran (as you've implied) and Duran really had few, if any, answers. The score bears out how the fight went.

Despite us disagreeing on why the Hagler/Duran bout transpired the way it did, there's really no need for mockery. Perfectly reasonable arguments and ideas have been put forward to support the theory that there were points when Hagler held back against Duran.

The Hagler/Leonard fight has no bearing on a discussion about Hagler/Duran. It was at a significantly different point in Hagler's career and a completely different fight, altogether.

Hearns is up there as being as equally smart and skilful as both Leonard and Duran, yet Hagler walked through him - the potentially most dangerous of the three. And, to take this back to the original point, your logic here cannot be applied so broadly, as to answer questions I posed, pretty much from the outset: Why did the Hagler/Duran bout go the distance? What problems did Duran cause Hagler for their fight to turn out this way?

So far, you have provided no real link between your impression of Hagler's performances against either Duran or Leonard and your idea that this begs the question of "how he'd do with the slick and fully fledged MWs that followed him."

I look forward to reading any specifics you can provide on how going the distance with Hagler was achieved by 'past prime, slickster, Duran'.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well, if you have seen my posts you'd surely have seen that I don't think Hearns is as skillful as Duran. You can read my thoughts about it in those posts.

You wonder why Hagler took more and more control as the fight progressed. That is what in most cases will happen when one fighter is substantially bigger, stronger and fitter than the other. And the weaker fighter tiring must not be very obvious to the eye, but can be just a little downwards shifts in feints, reactions, work rate, snappiness to punches etc. Doesn't have to be much at all to make a difference at that level.


That Marvin waited so long with the final push was probably because he didn't feel the time was right before that. If he had made it too early, when Duran was fresher, he'd run a larger risk of running into counters and could have ended up just tiring himself out. There was also always the risk of a crafty veteran like Duran feigning tiredness in order to lure Hagler into overextending himself. Boxing is full of calculations like that.

Actually I think Hagler boxed more or less as a fighter should when he has large physical advantages but disadvantages in terms of skill.

If he had pressed harder earlier he could have won more convincingly but he could also have run into counters and traps and made it more difficult for himself. I think he kept a tempo that felt right for him.

These are no strange things to boxing. I don't see why it must be made more complicated than that.

 

Duran didn't deserve to win more than 4 or 5 rounds against Hagler.
Hagler dominated on the inside, dominated on the outside.
It wasn't a shut-out but it was a very comfortable win. I'm not sure what the judges were smoking.

The main reason the fight is over-scrutinized is because Roberto Duran is such a beloved and famed warrior.
And at the time the fight was so different to what many had expected.

Yes, Hagler's performance can be faulted. But really not much.

 

Actually, I'm not sure I'd even give Roberto 4-5 rds.

I can to a sense agree that too much is made of this fight. But it stands out somewhat in the way that Hagler beat what quite possible were better MWs more impressively, and that Duran around these years lost to guys like Laing and was outclassed by Benitez and later Hearns.

 

I take your point about your view on Hearns' skill-level but, nonetheless, when you look at Hagler's approach to the threat of Hearns in contrast to his softly-softly approach to Duran, I lean towards this contrast being by Hagler's design and not necessarily down to Duran's superior skills.

No. I don't - because I have not suggested that Hagler took more and more control as the fight progressed. I have said there was a distinct shift in gears, both upwards and downwards from Hagler, during the course of the bout; each of these either allowing Duran into the fight or overwhelming him, respectively. I have argued that this demonstrated Hagler's ability to control the bout, in the way he saw fit, from start-to-finish.

Just a point re your reference to the size factor... ...when asked how it was that Hagler had been able to avail his will over Duran, Al Bernstein replied:

Yes, Duran tired at the end - naturally - but this does not change the fact that Hagler was in control of what he was doing, prior to the late stages of the bout, where he ended in his higher gear.

Al Bernstein later describes the last six minutes of action, as follows:

This is a fair speculation. I neither necessarily agree nor disagree with it - in part or fully. Though, it was obvious to all observers that during the middle rounds, starting from around the fifth or sixth, Hagler had begun to impose himself on Duran. So, that theory doesn’t seem to entirely fit with what actually happened. Maybe Hagler took a tactical decision to lay off and draw Duran on a little further.

With the above you have, to some extent, moved away from your original point and emphasis on Duran having given Hagler trouble. In your opinion, Hagler fought the fight he should have against a fighter with Duran's skills, as a defensive measure. And, I note from another of your posts that you don't believe Duran won many rounds.

In any event, whether or not Hagler was at 'skills disadvantage' is highly debatable, given what was being observed in the fight itself. For example, Hagler’s work did most of it’s scoring when he was fighting short and at close range. This not only gave Duran his best chance to 'out-skill' Hagler but it also took Hagler's height and reach advantage out of the equation.


All-in-all, from my perspective, the Duran bout turned out to be a double-edged sword for Hagler. On the one hand it brought with it Duran's legendary notoriety and a big payday. The win also more or less secured Hagler The Ring Magazine Fighter of the Year (1983).

On the other hand, it would attract criticism from Hagler detractors and observers more interested in thrills, spills and KOs than top-class Boxing. Duran hadn't been given a chance of winning but, through a combination of his character, innate toughness and skills, along with Hagler's unusual reticence, the fight had been a chess match, with Hagler somehow deciding not to press an advantage he'd gained through the mid-section of the bout.

That much I’m prepared to state. But it’s this ‘slicksters and skillsters troubled Hagler' angle - stated as if de facto - that I thoroughly reject (always have and always will).

 

This is what I've said about Hagler against "slicksters":

"He had problems with arguably the three slickest fighters he met (could be wrong about Monroe's boxing prowess, but I've heard he was a slick, technical fighter). That's not great empirical data, but about the same as Ali's difficulty with pressure fighters is based on."

So in essence, since we're talking about only three opponents it isn't conclusive by any means, but it could be an indicator. Like Ali and pressure fighters, more or less.

As for him going all out against Hearns it makes sense since Tommy was murder on the outside by vulnerable on the inside. Marvin probably concluded that he needed to get close to have the best chance to win and to do that he really had to press hard early.

Duran on the other hand was more or less as comfortable at any range. In fact the older Duran was probably at his most comfortable at close to mid range since his feet had slowed down. So it just didn't make as much sense to rush him as it did Hearns - wouldn't yield at all the same dividends.

As for more skilled - Hagler had very solid skills, but Roberto was more or less a master boxer. I think he was more skilled and don't think that's very controversial. But Hagler was of course the superior MW.

 

Not wanting to split hairs but, prior to your statement in bold, above, you suggested the following:

I think Hagler demonstrated how he can deal with highly skilled, elite Boxers and that those considered as such, from the late '80/early '90s, would not have been too much of a danger to him.


As far as the rest of your post goes - all very valid points and not greatly controversial. All I would say is that, at the highest level of boxing, lesser/superior skill-sets become harder to distinguish - with plenty of thin grey lines.

 

Yep. Do you find something contradictory there?

I think it poses the question, but not a definite answer by any stretch.

In an earlier post I gave my thoughts about match-ups between Marvin and Nunn, Kalambay, McCallum and Toney. But those are of course purely hypothetical.

But what my eyes tell me are that those are all more overall skilled boxers than any natural MW I ever seen Hagler against.

 

For what it's worth, here's what Duran is quoted as saying about Hagler in another thread:

"BEST CHIN

Marvelous Marvin Hagler: I hit Hagler with a lot of punches and he just kept coming. I didn’t find him as skillful as some of the opponents I faced but he was the toughest." http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=572022

This could be Roberto being less than generous to someone who beat him, but it is fact that he told Leonard "If you box him, you beat him" after the fight with Hagler. After watching Hagler against Mugabi (when Marvin already had started to fade tbf) Leonard felt there was truth to this and proved Duran correct a year later.

 

Not contradictory; just the added allusion to Hagler/Duran and Hagler/Leonard bouts as indicators of how Hagler would do against skilled, natural middleweights - which you have subsequently explained your view on.

It's a fair enough position to take. But I'll go back to one of my previous posts, where I suggest that, despite whatever skill level Nunn, Kalambay, McCallum and Toney had, an emphatic Hagler victory over each of them would have effectively seen them demoted to also-rans.

How would we consider their skill levels then? Would they be lauded over or even discussed in the terms they are today or would we still be talking about Duran and Leonard as the most significant of Hagler's contests?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

With all due respect to Mr. Duran and to be honest, I think I'll stick with what I saw with my own eyes and with the objective observations of Leonard Bernstein. Everyone who knows anything about Hagler, is aware of Hagler's iron chin - Duran was giving little accolade to Hagler there.

I have heard the Leonard story too. But that's a whole can of worms I really don't want to get into right now.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Depends on what they achieved before and after that significant loss. Let's put Hagler in instead of Toney against Nunn. That should then be counted as Hagler's most significant win, I'd say. Nunn was an undefeated champion with 5 defenses, I think, and really became the top dog in the division after beating Kalambay.

 

I agree with all of this.