Are Hagler's title challengers underrated?

Duran never recovered from the knockdown early on against De Jesus, never even got started after that.

Hagler was victim to some very controversial decisions in his career don't you agree? I also think he had better competition at Middleweight than Duran did at Lightweight.

No, Hagler fought better opposition and at better points in their career than Monzon, this makes him a better fighter...

 

Just for clarity, the De Jesus fight wasn't a lightweight fight and of course it wasn't for his title. So Duran didn't actually get beaten at his peak weight. There is also plenty of claims out there as to just how prepared he was for this fight.

Suffice to say it's fair to say Duran was not at his best, and i loathe a lot of the excuses made for him.

Monroe belted Hagler so there's no question of scoring in that one. I myself also had SRL over him for sure.

De Jesus (x2) for mine was better than any of Hagler's challengers excepting Hearns and SRL, and he lost to Leonard. Buchanan was also comfortably better than Hagler's 160 brigade.

Duran had some decent fighters in there. Hector Thompson was ok. Dig deep enough and they aren't a bad bunch at all.

Strongly disagree.

 

I have Monzon a smidge ahead of Hagler record wise. I also like him H2H.

P4P Duran is way ahead of them.

 

Of course they had diminished, in comparison to what he had at 135. The size disadvantage magnifies it even more. How do you think a past peak Hagler would go inside with Qawi?

Exactly.

Irrelevant. You are not going to even begin to convince me Duran was the inside force he had been previously.

Finally.

Disagree. I don't rate his inside fighting as good as peak Duran's. Of course there's no shame in that.

I'm not slicing it, what i posted was concise and correct imo.

Achievement wise maybe, but i see Duran as a better fighter.

Probably? Surely you jest.

As did Charles, Moore, SRR and 1000 other top fighters. Historically it has barely affected them.

As some in here would remember i have always rated Hagler a level below the mainstream. It's just my own personal judgement. I'm sure everyone has fighters they rate both above and below the mainsteam.

Hagler was great no doubt, but there are levels of great.

 

Not only do I agree with every single word here, I also fail to see how they're even slightly controversial.

And I retch at the Duran adulation you often get at this forum, and rank Hagler among the absolute top MWs ever.

 

Qawi was great on the inside too. Beating Hagler on the inside would be largely due to Qawi's skill of course. But that's hypothetical. Hagler's fight with Duran is real, and I can see Hagler using his skills.

I don't believe Hagler lost a lot of skill either. He lost speed. He looked slow against Mugabi and slower still against Leonard.

I know I'm not going to convince you. You clearly have a much higher regard for Duran's ability than you do for Hagler's.

I thought it was obvious I believe this.
I already said I make a hypothetical "equal size" Duran-Hagler prime-for-prime match a 50-50 fight.
And I can't give Duran more than 4 or 5 rounds for the 1983 match.
Therefore, obviously Duran is relatively better as a prime lightweight/welter.

But where we differ is that I don't reduce the actual 1983 fight to Hagler winning on strength/size and dismiss how much skill he displayed in applying himself.

Fair enough. But I include Duran's welterweight fights in his "greatest work".

I mean, I wouldn't have a fit if someone rated Hagler higher p4p. They are close.
But I've never given incredible amounts of weight to 'moving up divisions' as others do.
And as you can see I don't think of Duran as a "small" welterweight. The move to 147 seemed very natural to me.

They are all great fighters.

But Duran (as others do) has some losses among the period where he's still credited with being a force of some sort. I suspect you give Duran a pass more for his loss to Kirkland Laing than you assess Hagler's loss to Leonard.

Fair enough.
There are very few men who I'd feel comfortable putting "a level above" Hagler.
Maybe Armstrong, Robinson, one or two others. Maybe.

 

I believe the first Dejesus fight was at lightweight. It was a non-title fight.

 

I don't consider the statements controversial either but I do partially disagree with some of them.
I'm willing to accept difference of opinion and admit there are grey areas in almost all of these matters we've been discussing. In fact it's my starting point - and I try to make it the end point - to acknowledge these arguments as opinions v. opinions.

I didn't know it was written in stone that Hagler was not on the same level of greatness as Duran. I didn't know it was written in stone that Hagler had inferior infighting skill to Duran.
These matters are subjective, they are opinions.

No one has backed up much of anything with facts. It's just "I see it" and that's it. That's fair enough. I see Hagler as being on the same level as greatness as Duran. And I see Hagler very often displayed boxing skill on the inside that was absolutely flawless.

Lots of people on this forum have convinced themselves that opinions equal facts.

 

More opinions here ....


From Mike Katz's New York Times pre-fight :

Duran, a master at slipping punches, is an aggressive infighter. The book on Hagler has been to back him up, pressure him, just the sort of things Duran does best.



The book may be very wrong. Leonard called Hagler ''a great infighter.'' The champion's uppercuts on the inside are, well, marvelous. The reason Hagler does not like to fight inside is because he is afraid of butts.



Attack Inside, Move Outside
Leonard says he believes Duran's best chance is to attack inside and get out before the repercussions. But one of the keys to the fight is that it is unlikely that Duran can seriously hurt Hagler, except possibly to the body.



''There's no tinkle in Marvin's chin,'' said Goody Petronelli, the champion's co-manager and trainer. ''Roberto is smart enough to see how his punches are working. You may find a fighter's chin is strong, like iron, you start to hit him and nothing happens except you break your bones. If that is the case, you must be smart enough to box, throw punches, maybe not so powerful, but to score points.
''I think Roberto has better speed than Hagler, that's for sure.''



Duran was hit regularly with lead right hands while losing to Wilfred Benitez last year. Hagler, who frequently switches to an orthodox stance, is a better right-handed puncher. Even so, Duran could be ahead early. Hagler has always been a patient fighter. The champion probably will test Duran's strength and punching power early. If Hagler finds Duran cannot be hurt, he may wait for Duran to wear down a bit before taking control of the fight.

 

Hardly anything we discuss here is scientific fact.

But that Duran is greater p4p than Marvin is a bit of a no-brainer to me, seeing what he did above his best weight. Both are among the very greatest at LW and MW respectively, but Hagler did nothing above MW while Duran has two of boxing history's greatest wins all things considered above LW. Despite his losses, quite a few downright embarrassing, that cinches it for me.

As for skill, yes, that's even harder to prove. Duran's wins over Buchanan, Palomino, Leonard and Barkley contained skill I haven't seen from Hagler. But how to prove that objectively? I'm not even going to try. This thread has been going on long as it has.

 

Above lightweight, Duran's win against Leonard was great.

What is the other one?

Surely not Moore or Barkley.

 

For me it's closer. What Duran did moving up would put him a notch ahead for me too but it's close.
I actual respect champions who stay at the same weight and see off challengers. I had Hagler winning against Leonard in his last fight so there's even more of a neatness to his career there.

That's interesting that you see skill in a 37 year-old Duran at middleweight (a shell of Duran in JT's estimation and timeline, from what I can gather) that outshines Hagler's skill (in any fight?).
Definitely it's all subjective.
I'd err on the side of saying they were equals in boxing skill but had vastly different styles of boxing.

 

I've seen the Barkley win grossly overrated on this forum, to that kind of level.
And I do rate Barkley as a formidable middleweight.

 

Can someone give me Hagler's top five opponents as middle weights?

I think his resume has some depth to it, but no really good natural 160 pounders.

 

Barkley, of course. But feel free to name all other fighters about 8 years past their prime that beat world class opposition with that size advantage.

And Moore isn't a bad one either, of course.