Did Marvin Hagler dare to be great?

If you remove agenda from both sides, what are you left with?
1. GGG's resume is lacking, more so than Hagler's.
2. Hagler is seen as a Top 50 ATG.
3. Hagler's resume was lacking, too. Other than a non-prime, 160lb version of Hearns and a past prime duel with SRL, there's only 2 A grade wins on his resume (Minter and Vito). That's all. The rest were several B+ to B graders.
4. Golovkin is 34 years old, almost 35. He's got 2.5 years at the top left. In that space of time, he'll have Jacobs, Canelo on his resume, and some more B graders (possibly another A grader).
5. Golovkin has been so dominant that he looks like one of the very best middleweights of all time.
6. It is entirely up in the air as to how great he'll end up, but a win over Jacobs will put him with Kostya Tszyu IMO in resume. Thus, HOF bound (especially because of point 5).
7. Golovkin may end up moving up to 168 at the end of his career, something he certainly does not need to do.

 

There was no fully established Super Middleweight division in those days. For Hagler, moving up would have involved putting on 15 pounds! That's a lot, and to face Michael Spinks who was no easy mark. Hagler proved his greatness plenty of times. This whole crap about having to move up in weight is ridiculous. The reasons people move up are usually lousy: laziness about dropping weight, and/or greed. Staying dedicated to your natural size and weight is smart, and Hagler was wise to stay and dominate his division. And by the way, he'd have killed McCallum had they fought.

 

Did you not see where I said the Joppy bit was a joke? Thought you would read the post properly.
Click to expand the bit below

Still to the serious part which were the 6ft fighters. Oh I see you focused on the wind up as a get out and didnt answer the rest lol

 

As like the previous post where you replied to me. You dont tend to read them properly and get all confused. As shown in my previous reply.
This is why it would have been repeated, as you dont pay attention
You'll be alright now

 

I was hoping someone would say that as Hearns was a former WW, What was Monroes and Watts best win? Seales was one fight removed from a first round loss.
There were not many top big MWs I dont think then and I just couldnt imagine Hopkins having struggled with Duran (who was a great fighter), due to Hopkins natural size

 

* Hearns was a former welterweight who would go on to win world titles twice at LH. He was still a big middleweight...just not as freakishly big for the division as he was at WW.
* The only first round loss that Seales suffered in his career was to Hagler. But he was an undefeated Olympic gold medalist when Hagler defeated him the first time.
* Aside from Hagler...? I'd say both Monroe and Watts other big win would have been over Cyclone Hart, I think.

As for Hopkins-Duran...It took a while for Hopkins to completely figure out DLH and I think Duran fared better at the weight than Oscar did. I think I'd favor Hopkins, too. But he'd have to box more at range than he usually did at that point in his career. But while Hopkins would be favored, I would pick '89 Duran to beat a fighter like Holmes (who had a tendency to switch off and get outworked in close), and Echols (who probably isn't landing big on his more cagey opponent). Sometimes, it's less about size and more about levels and even then I think Duran was a level above those two fighters.

 

168 didn't exist until the last or 2nd last year of haglers career.

 

Then you'd be wrong. Hopkins would definitely struggle with the Duran that fought Hagler or Barkley. Barkley was a huge middleweight as well. And as far as Hearns is concerned, he was most certainly better than Holmes, Echols or Eastman.

 

It was a joke that really didn't work well. Your mentioning it served no purpose, wind up or otherwise. As for "a get out" is concerned, I didn't feel it was necessary but obviously you've no clue so let's educate you. Seales, Watts, Monroe and Hearns were all 6 feet or above. And Hart was a shade under at 5'11" and 1/2. Funny part is, Hopkins lost twice to Taylor, who was 2 inches shorter than him at 5' 11", just before Bernard moved up to lightheavy.

 

Lol. Nice try. However, you still avoided the fact that a past it, old Duran beat a huge middleweight in Barkley, who beat Hearns, who beat your boy Virgil Hill. But you still insist that you doubt Hopkins would have struggled with that Duran. Right.

 

Well, I think Hopkins beats Duran too...I just don't think he vaporizes him like Hearns did.

 

At middleweight, I agree of course. But Bailey insists that Hopkins wouldn't have struggled with the version that fought Hagler and Barkley, which I couldn't disagree with more.

 

Good points, apart from the one regarding Mike.

Mike was a class act. A wonderful fighter. There's no way Marvin would have killed him.

 

Haha totally exposing the dumb logic by GGG haters that he has to move up to become great

 

Fair enough