Are Hagler's title challengers underrated?

Why take it from the perspective of Hagler as challenger? In the spirit of this thread (Are Hagler's title challengers underrated?), no one would be champion with X number of defenses, without having gone through Hagler.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well, how significant a hypothetical Hagler win over Nunn would be depends on the timing. But in most cases it would be significant, given that Nunn's career otherwise panned out as it did.

Say that Hagler takes on a relatively unproven Nunn in 1987 instead of Leonard. He beats him routinely and then retires. Nunn picks himself up after the loss and beats Tate, Roldan, Kalambay, Barkley etc before losing to Toney and moving up.

This would by many be seen as a tremendous win for an aging Hagler, while some might say that Nunn still was too green. But certainly one of his best wins however you splice it, quite possibly the best.

 

I see the logic. In that hypothetical scenario, where Nunn reprices his stocks by recovering well from the loss and taking some good comeback scalps, it would be seen, in retrospect, as a good win.

However, there are intangibles, such as the manner of victory Hagler has over Nunn (I'd have predicted an early KO for Hagler), as well as how the loss effects Nunn as a boxer going forward, from thereon. Would he retain his marketability and his supreme confidence?

The more tangible effects would be that Nunn's career would likely have lost some of its momentum. Add to this that Hagler's retirement would have left three major titles in the offing and Nunn might not necessarily get many of those matches, with all of the top Middleweights benefiting from a title feeding frenzy; an advantage not made available to previous Hagler victims, I might add. The division would have effectively been reshaped and look very different to Nunn, in that situation. This relates to the reality that the effect of a loss to Hagler usually meant you were demoted to an also-ran, having had your shot.


Nonetheless, even in the beneficial scenario you present, I am not sure those subsequent victories you mention and the eventual loss to Toney would turn the tables as far as you think. I don't think it could ever be seen as Hagler's best win, based on that run (no more than the majority of people consider Vitali Klitschko as the best win ever for Lennox Lewis).

Most of the kudos would arise from Hagler having beaten a young up-and-comer, at that stage of Hagler's career. Would Nunn's hypothetical comeback trail outweigh the source of that original acclaim? I'm not so sure.

The standout victory for Nunn, in that win-streak, is the Kalambay KO1. Tate could be seen as a good but a routine win; Roldan is a good name but, given the stage he was, in his career (his next step being retirement), having been soundly beaten by Hagler, four years earlier, and I think this sits as a good comeback win but not great.

The Barkley bout would not have helped his case; a fight, which he could have lost, at a point when Barkley was pretty much done at the weight. Personally, I think the close decision against Barkley and the Toney loss put Nunn's overall rating into a more sensible perspective.

Thus, rating the Nunn win for Hagler, retrospectively, on the basis of my prediction of an early Hagler KO of Nunn; Nunn returning with some routine wins, a big KO victory, followed by a close battle that shouldn't have been and another KO Loss, does not, I don't think, make for the sort of impact you suggest - Certainly not to the extent that it could ever overshadow Hagler's destruction of Hearns and probably not take away entirely from the clinical cutting down of Minter and dominant display over Sibson. It would, however, be up there in the debate.

 

His opponents are definitely overrated IMO. He fought in a very weak Middleweight era.

 

*Duran had 15 rounds to exploit Hagler's alleged lack of skill.
You said yourself you're not sure Duran even deserved 4-5 rounds.

*Duran outpointed Leonard over 15 rounds, and gives no credit to Leonard for the rematch.

*So something doesn't add up. Unless we figure Hagler won 10 rounds or more against Duran on chin/strength alone.

* Personally I don't think Leonard even outboxed Hagler over the 12 rounds in 1987, but that dispute will carry on for an eternity.

 

But it you make that argument, surely Hearns is a counter argument.

Arguably Thomas Hearns achieved more after losing to Hagler (and in clear decline for most those years.) than Michael Nunn ever achieved.
At the very least he achieve a comparable amount.

Hearns destroyed rated middleweight James Shuler, beat middleweight Doug DeWitt, won the WBC light-heavyweight title against Andries, won the WBC middleweight title against Juan Roldan, beat James Kinchen, arguably beat Ray Leonard, won the WBA light-heavyweight title from undefeated Virgil Hill,

 

Duran fought Hagler 3 1/2 years after he fought SRL and a full two divisions up, (against a natural Middleweight) how could it not add up?

He was no longer the fighter he was against SRL, his weight and size disadvantages were worse than they'd ever been and Hagler was around his peak. Simple.

 

Well, that is if you go even further in hypotheticals.

You can as well same something similar about Hagler and Monzon. What if Hagler had challenged him and been duly dispatched and it crushed his confidence?

With hypotheticals like that you can make anyone look ordinary.

 

What does it matter what credit Duran gives Leonard for the rematch? He also think he beat Hagler more or less, should we accept that also? Incidentally, if you're all for what Duran thinks, Roberto says Leonard is the best he fought and that Marvin was strong and durable but not that skillful.

And Duran was a much better WW in 1980 than he was a MW in 1983. I'm surprised I even have to say this.

And, yes, you can win 10 rds with advantages in size, strength, chin, stamina, power and probably speed.

 

You left out that he lost to Barkley.

Taking Hagler out of the equation Hearns is 3-1 against ranked opp at MW, and something like 5-1 at MW overall. Nunn is 5-1 against ranked opp I think, did better against their two common opponents and is something like 30+-1 overall at MW.

So I'd go for Nunn at MW. Overall, it is perhaps close if you think it's relevant what they did at other weights. Nunn won the SMW title and made 4-5 defenses of it.

So as I said, he'd have "quite possibly" the best resume of Haglers challengers (actually clearly the best at MW).

 

Which is why I went on to fully address your scenario, at face value.

I find it interesting that you've focused on the two sentences referring to what I clearly termed as 'intangibles' - and, specifically, the single word "confidence".

By no means was that the crux of my response.

 

Duran didn't look much smaller than Hagler.
The size difference between Duran and Davey Moore looked much greater, and Duran had done well there.

Having viewed the fight, do you believe Hagler won on chin/strength and size alone?

 

Only so far as I'm trying to ana1yse Duran's statements.
Presumably, in rating Leonard's boxing ability clear over Hagler's, Duran made his high assessment of Leonard's skill based on the 15 rounds he bettered Leonard in, rather than the time Leonard ran like a coward and clown (Duran's thoughts on that fight, not mine).
I'm simply saying we can eliminate the Leonard rematch from Duran's thought process.

So, it looks a lot like giving credit to the man you beat and taking credit away from the man who beat you.

No, maybe you misunderstood me. I don't reckon we should give much weight to anything Duran says.

 

I don't consider that much of an achievement, to be honest.

Yes, I think what they did at HIGHER weights is arguably relevant, if any of this is relevant.

The point is, we're generally treating Thomas Hearns as if he wasn't quite legitimate at 160 and above anyway, and most of his post-Hagler career he's past his prime anyway.
And yet what he did there and then is close and comparable to what Nunn achieved in total.

 

Well if he didn't look much smaller the fact that he came all the way from a natural 135 ceases to matter then.

Strange that, who would have thought Hagler and Moore were on different levels, or that Hagler would have been a physically stronger foe.

Hagler won mostly due to natural size, strength and peak quotient. He was a better middleweight than Duran was ever going to be.

If Duran was born to campaign naturally at 160lbs i would take him over Hagler without any reservations at all.