Are Hagler's title challengers underrated?

Well, he'd certainly outgrown 135 several years before. I'm not sure what you consider "natural 135" to be, I think Duran legitimately struggled to get to 135 because it was perhaps unnatural.

Hagler was definitely on a different skill level to Moore. Nice of you to recognize that.
I have no idea who was physically stronger. Moore looked big and strong, if nothing else.

He outboxed Duran with his boxing skills.

No one is born 160 pounds. Duran proved to be a decent middleweight. But I know what you mean.

If we scaled a prime Hagler down to 135 pounds and put him in with prime Duran, it's a 50-50 fight.

 

I think Hagler's title-challengers-the natural 154\160 ones- are often somewhat underrated nowadays.

They were a pretty monochromatic bunch, not that much variety, but other than Caveman Lee and maybe Scypion -who had a solid skillset, but often seemed to just go through the motions after killing Willie Classen- they were good fighters, usually in the slugger\brawler or pure punching domain rather than the boxer-puncher\pure boxer one.

Sibson was probably the most rounded in skill.An underrated fighter imo, but he was mentally inconsistent and had a tiny reach for a middle.

Lets stop with the "none of them could show they were more than solid contenders because of Hagler" or "they were reduced to also rans because of Hagler" narrative.

No, most(other than maybe the protected Obel) had more than enough fights against other solid opposition to judge their level\get another title shot and ultimately none were quite good or consistent enough to emerge as a Dejesus to Duran or a Laguna to Ortiz, a Castillo or Herrera to Olivares, a Winstone to Saldivar, a Sanstol to Panama Al Brown etc or maybe produce a Barrera vs Morales, pac vs Marquez type of closely contested trilogy

That wasn't just because of Hagler's undoubted greatness, but also the fact none of them quite had that kind of excellent\borderline great ability those aforementioned contenders did, well the american media did try and make Hamsho out to be a cut above the rest, but i don't really think he was.But they were mostly all solid challengers with one or two great traits each imo, a couple of notches above some of the genuinely mediocre or inept opp faced by Hopkins or especially Golovkin.

On the topic of the guys that came after Hagler...McCallum, Nunn, Kalambay, Toney etc i tend to agree with Bokaj overall.I favour Hagler over them, but tend to see them as being good enough that they would have not likely been reduced to the status of "also-rans" or "routine challengers" that we were unable to really judge or would be downgraded because of Hagler.

They would have been more likely to be tough foes who would be enough of a challenge to contest a series with.Especially depending on the timing of the speculated bouts.

The exception being maybe Nunn, i could see the lack of dedication and drug issues that started dogging him pretty quickly once he won a belt dragging him down pretty quickly after an initial title loss to Hagler, had he come up a few years earlier in the Marv era.Even if he does well in losing, he wasn't the type to come back from a loss as the lack of effort to even rematch Toney and subsequent out of shape performances at 168 showed.

Toney was also lacking in consistency and dedication like Nunn, but he was teak tough and more of the Olivares school that could effortlessly comeback and do well after a poor performance.I could imagine him offering himself as a worthy foe for multiple title shots Marvin, more so than any of his actual challengers did, but at the same time also getting Tiberi'd by a Hamsho or Roldan in between.

The late 80s\early 90s era was more like the late 50s\60s at middle, with a number of fighters that were good enough to have a fine chance at putting together a long run in a weaker era like the late 90s-00s\10s or yes, even the good but unspectacular 72-85 run that gave us Monzon and Hagler.Valdez i also put in that category of being good enough to have a longer run and he wasn't diminished as a "routine challenger" by having fought Monzon twice.I don't think being able to fight Marv and having to mix it in that era would have diminished any of these guys or seen them as being rated lower than we do rate them now, except maybe Nunn who as i said i don't think had the same ability to come back from a loss as the others, but then again no one cares about Nunn at 168 anyway so a few good contender wins, a loss to Hagler and then getting coked up and fat wouldn't be much different than what we did see.

 

Duran actually grew into 135 over a 3 year period. He then campaigned there for 7 odd years beating all and sundrey. He's considered one of the greatest lightweights ever (could well be the GOAT H2H) and is one of the best fighters in history P4P just on these efforts alone. Not bad for someone not suited there.

If 135 wasn't a natural enough division for him i'm not sure what was.

Duran often struggled to make any weight, he was reknowned for it.

How could one not recognise that? Moore was barely out of the ams and was winning on heart, courage and a rugged offense. He was like a very poor man's latter day Saad Muhammad which was a shame, because he had some skills in the ams but did not have a chance to develop them properly.

Hagler was stronger. He beat Duran when they were on the inside and this was due to strength and size as much as anything. Hagler is not more skillful on the inside than Duran.

He was actually more effective on the inside than the outside most times. Surprisingly to some Duran was forced to mainly do his bidding from the outside against a taller guy with miles more reach. This was always going to be tough. Outmuscled on the inside and trying to box against a 9" reach disadvantage on the outside.

I don't recall many 135's with 9" of reach advantage allied to a height advantage over Duran, do you?

Of course size and strength had a huge impact on the fight, it's glaringly obvious.

I'm sure you know what i mean. 135 was the division Duran was born to do his greatest work at. With Hagler it was 160. With Holmes it was heavyweight. Monzon was 160 etc etc

Whether we scaled Duran up or scaled Hagler down it's Duran for me all day long. The guy was devastating and a level up in class from Hagler, and Hagler's rather high.

 

If what they did at higher weights is relevant Toney gets a different status.

But who says Hearns wasn't legitimate at 160 or above?

 

Nice post. Clearly well thought out.

I understand why you might think that using the term "also-ran" should be dismissed but this was made in reference to the threads title: Are Hagler's title challengers underrated? This, as well as to, a) Marvin being the undisputed champ, with there being no other route challengers could take to a World Middleweight Title and, b) the speculation that, had Hagler faced the likes of McCallum, Nunn, Kalambay and Toney, he would have beaten them in much the same fashion as he did his actual challengers (save perhaps McCallum).

You might believe that they were worthy enough to run a series against Hagler - fair enough. However, even if that were the case and they were given more than one shot at Hagler, I do not think it unreasonable to suggest they would have been beaten again and assessed in much the same way as Hagler's actual opponents have generally been, over time.

The timing of when all of these speculative bouts happened, as you allude, would indeed play a part; not only because of the period during which they'd have had to stay busy and wait it out for a rematch with Hagler but also because there were limited options up until '87/'88, by which time Hagler would be verging on retirement, if not already retired.

The Super Middleweight division would not have been a readily available option until around the same time, leaving the 175 division as their alternative - as it was the case for Hagler's challengers. It is feasible that both McCallum and Toney would have taken this option. But, would their time in this higher division have been as fruitful, with the likes of Saad Muhammad; Qawi; Gregory; Spinks; Johnson and a prime Williams around?

All four of the Boxers mentioned benefited from the increased exposure of having the Middleweight titles being split, after '87 (As did Hearns and Barkley, I might add). There were, during their time, no unified Middleweight Titlists; just switching between straps, vacant or otherwise - or moving up to the then established 168 division.


Does this take away from their observed skills? No - leaving it to the subjectivity of the observer to decide how they compare with Hagler's past challengers.

Did it give them something to aim for and receive continued exposure, even after respective defeats? I think so - and I think it adds a lot of weight to the way in which these Boxers are viewed today, in contrast to those during Hagler's reign.

 

He was natural enough at welterweight by the age of 27 too.

Hagler was as skillful on the inside as Duran was. Hagler was landing sharp punches on Duran whenever they closed, accurate uppercuts and body punches, and keeping himself covered too. Skillful infighting, not just strength/mauling.
You can frame it your way if you don't want to credit Hagler with the skill.

Yes, Hagler outboxed Duran on the inside and was under little threat from Duran on the outside.

Hagler skillfully applied his size and strength.

Similarly, and (in my opinion) more impressively, than Lewis did against Holyfield, for an example.

Obviously more impressively than Nunn did against Starling.

etc.

I think Duran looked as great at welterweight until New Orleans. Arguably much of his greatest work exists at 147.

Hagler was as great and accomplished at 160 as Duran was at 135.

 

If what they did AFTER (hypothetically or really) losing to Hagler at middleweight is relevant at all.
I'm not saying one way or another.

Generally, I tend to go with my feelings based on witnessing the actual fights , assess them as they were at the time of the fight, and give a lot less weight to what they did after but still consider it.

So, perhaps for me, Hagler hypothetically beating Nunn in 1987 wouldn't impress me quite as much based on what Nunn did after Hagler's retirement.

Hearns is Hearns and was built to move up the weights. But he is a lot more "ordinary" at 160 and above, imo.

 

He went after the big names and the big money at 147. Immortality. When a rubber match with SRL wasn't there he went straight to 154, certainly not out of necessity. As soon as he beat Moore he went racing up to 160 for the big money.

Duran was a lightweight first and foremost. This is where he peaked. This is where he spent most time etc etc.

Peak Hagler was as skillful as Duran on the inside when Duran was way way past peak and miles above his greatest fighting weight.

The Duran of the Hagler fight was a shell of what he was at lightweight. Less speed, less snap, less reflexes and at a distinct disadvantage weight division wise.

Hagler was not as skillful as peak Duran on the inside. Duran is reknowned for his ferocity and skill inside, Hagler isn't.

Sure, Hagler was an excellent inside fighter but peak for peak he is not as effective as Duran.

Yes, and this size and strength aided him greatly.

His greatest win is at 147 because he had the opportunity there. He never had the opportunity to achieve such a feat at 135. Scalps don't come much bigger than SRL at the time Duran fought him. He had been built up to the stratosphere.

The wins over Palomino and SRL are considered greater because of where Duran come from (long long term lightweight) than they would have if he were a natural welterweight.

This does not mean he is as good a fighter at 147 as he was at 135. For me there are definitely less fighters that would beat him at 135 as compared to 147.

I don't think Hagler was as great a fighter. Duran was something else.

 

Yes, I was re-affirming that aspect of your post.

Leonard's version has him watching Hagler's next 4 fights before seeing a ch1nk in the Hagler armour though, and barely squeaked past Hagler when they met (I think Hagler did enough to win anyway, by not by much at all). That was 3 1/2 years after Hagler-Duran.

In fact Leonard had his chance to box Hagler in 1983, and said it would NEVER happen.
Duran had his shot and won maybe 4 or 5 rounds on a fair score card.

I give Leonard all the credit in the world for what he did in 1987.
But to me Hagler look incredibly skillful and formidable in 1983, and the Duran fight or what Duran said doesn't dent that at all.

 

I'm not convinced Duran had "lost his skill" at all in 1983.
Even in 1989 he looked skillful against Barkley, who was bigger than Hagler, strong, and a decent inside fighter himself.

Yes, he's relatively not as good at 32 and at 160 pound. That's why Hagler won clearly.

If Hagler isn't, he should be.

Whatever way you slice it, people do consider "Montreal Duran" to be an absolute animal at the weight.

For me, Hagler's exclusively middleweight career and his peak level stands out in the same way as Duran's lightweight career does, at the least. Maybe better.
Duran probably deserves to be rated a notch above for going up the weights and having success. But the flipside would be that he fought on too long, and had some poor defeats even long before he was completely shot.

I guess we just rate them slightly different.
I can't say you overrate Duran, but perhaps I think you underrate Hagler.

 

Hagler was never dropped and defeated like Duran was at his best weight, I reckon their careers at their best weight are pretty similar tbh....

 

I agree 100% as you can see from my previous post.
In fact I think most people do tend to agree.
Hagler is often cited as a top 3 middleweight of all-time. Sometimes rated as the greatest. Duran has the same status in lightweight ratings.

Hagler's record is truly remarkable. 63-3-2, never KO'd, rarely even stunned, with one dubious knockdown against him. 12 successful defences of the undisputed middleweight title.
At least one of his defeats is hotly disputed.

 

Hagler was defeated 3 times at his best weight along with a couple of draws.

Duran moved on from lightweight as the unified champion, Hagler lost his crown to a fighter moving up.

There are many different ways to look at it.

As for being dropped, Monzon was dropped at 160, does this make Hagler a better fighter?

Neither Monzon or Duran were ever in danger of being stopped, and barely hurt.

 

Hagler, Monzon and Duran are all on the same level.