Could Marvin Hagler have been a HW champ in the pre-Dempsey era?

Exactly

 

A future light heavyweight champion who was nothing more than a middleweight at the time, who had moved up from welterweight.

It is actually more reasonable to pick Hearns over the heavyweights of this era, than it is to pick Haggler, because he at least proved that he could adjust to light heavyweight!

 

This is the very essence of a bad prediction, because it makes a whole raft of assumptions.

Unless a middleweight, even a great one has fought at light heavyweight, you don't know how they will handle the transition.

Haggler might have been completely out of his depth against guys like Burns and Root, while Hart was essentially a cruiserweight by the standards of his day, meaning that he would be stepping up two weight classes.

As for picking him over Willard, that is completely insane given the available information.

 

Who the hell is Haggler?

 

To be fair Igor Vovchanchyn was also north of 200lbs for most of his fights, and the reason he couldn't make a fist anymore was all the bare knuckle fights and throwing those weird ass thumb down hooks. Broke his hands to the point of no return.

Otherwise great post.

 

Unless someone thinks the particular era was weak as ****.

 

I wouldn't call it a "whole raft of assumptions", although of course I'm making assumptions.
It's FAIR to assume that a man who is one of the very greatest and most durable middleweights ever would be able to beat SOME super-middles and light-heavyweights, and some mediocre cruisers maybe. Then it comes down to where you draw the line. What level of fighter you credit him with beating.

Tommy Burns lost to Jack Twin Sullivan in his fight prior to beating Marvin Hart.
I doubt Hagler would be "completely out of his depth" against Burns.

 

The era may or may not have been.
Personally I don't think it's fair to say it was.
But the question of the thread is specific: could Hagler have been HW champion?

I don't believe some of those champions were the best of their era, at all. Not by any means.

 

You never heard of El Marvoloso Haggler? The terror of the marketplace?

Damn, he used to show up and the other traders used to dodge him like hell. They knew that they were getting out-traded and that he would out-land his goods every time. Haggler was a true legend of commerce.

Educate yourself!

 

No.

Even then, it still requires a huge raft of assumptions.

The laws of physics still apply in a weak era, and there are always some dangerous contenders around.

There has never been a champion so great, or an era so weak, that the champion didn't find himself in the cauldron at some point!

 

No, that is absolutely not a fair assumption, on any possible level.

Some fighters who are monsters at their own weight, hit a brick wall vary quickly, when the step up in weight.

Sometimes their success at their best weight, is based on their ability to make that weight easily, while their opponents have to kill themselves to make it.

Hagler would be a good candidate for benefiting from this, while Burns would be a good candidate for being shackled by the need to make 160 lbs.

Some light heavies and mediocre cruisers?

Marvin Hart might have been one of the weaker lineal heavyweight champions, but he was the only person to beat Jack Johnson over a 15 year period, and he beat a pretty darn good version.

Tommy Burns could drain himself down to middleweight, but he was wrecking people at light heavy and above, and he was a pound for pound great in his own right.

Probably had a better pound for pound argument than Hagler to be honest.

 

I don't wish to be mean, but this is why I see the advocates of the "bigger is better argument", as being completely hypocritical.

They base their entire thesis on the assumption that size matters, but they actually make the most absurd predictions of smaller fighters beating bigger fighters, when the size dynamic works against them!

The only, repeat only, qualifier for beating Willard in their eyes, is that you be an elite fighter who fought in a significantly later era!

 

Highly unlikely. Hagler was great, but he doesn't have the firepower to favorably compete with most of the HW belt holders between Dempsey and Sullivan. Many who were great champions, including Burns.

His best chance would be against Hart, and that would be a tough win.

 

Sometimes their success at their best weight, is based on their ability to make that weight easily, while their opponents have to kill themselves to make it.

Hagler would be a good candidate for benefiting from this, while Burns would be a good candidate for being shackled by the need to make 160 lbs.
[/QUOTE]

You keep talking about rafts of assumptions but seriously, how much assuming is involved here? For all we know almost all of his opponents may have had no more trouble than Hagler himself making the weight. We sure know Hearns, Duran, Mugabi and Anuofermo aren't in that fictional basket. Loads of others spent years at 160 and i don't recall a lot of press about many of them struggling to make weight.

Hagler himself trained like a spartan.

 

Essentially in your argument you are saying Hagler should be a clear underdog against Roldan, Hearns or Obelmejias too, if they were to rematch him at 168 pounds, say.

The idea that Hagler would possibly beat ZERO super-middles and light-heavies seems way off, imo.