Hagler vs Walker

Like other Hagler opponents Leonard and Hearns Walker started
off at 147 lbs and unlike Leonard and Hearns who best weight
seemed to be 147/154 lbs Walker was 160 lbs and he even fought
at HW at one stage. However Walker was a crude strongman and
wasn't a great technician . The Hagler of the Antuofermo fight
in 79 loses but the improved Hagler of 83 would have too many
tools for Walker and would win the fight in a rugged , mauling
fight on pts.

 

Brutal fight, and Walker would take Hagler to place he's never been before. That said, Hagler is simply too good for Walker overall

 

This content is protected

 

Walker would be just too tough for Hagler. Mickey would stop him late in the fight.

 

A wide UD to Hagler, in my opinion.
Walker was teak tough, as was Hagler. But, Hagler's skill level is the difference, here.

 

Like previously said, Walker might be too tough but Hagler is just as tough. Probably ends in a draw.

 

This is probably the most even middleweight match up I've seen.

 

[/QUOTE]

Odd statements. Walker beat Rosenbloom and lost to Loughren by SD so he can deal with the skill of two of the finest LHW technicians in history but would be baffled by the refined prowess of a 5'9 MW who is a lesser technician?

I am not denigrating Hagler's chin or toughness they're as formidable as it gets at 160lbs but there's a big difference between proving it at your own weight versus doing it while facing men as much as 40lbs heavier than you.

Imagine Hagler facing the 86 version of Holyfield from the 1st Qawi fight. That would be comparable to what Walker did against Sharkey and Schmeling......if Evander was a better one punch hitter.

 

You make it appear that Walker versus Loughran was a close run thing, when it was anything but. Both Judges gave it to Loughran, whilst the Referee voted for Walker. In short, Loughran won easily, staggering Walker several times along the way.

With regards Rosenbloom:- He is considered to have been a great defensive boxer (despite varying reports on how much punishment he took in almost 300 fights) but with no offense to speak of. He had already beaten Walker easily in '33. Following this bout, Slapsie Maxie went 5-3-4, over the course of 18 months. And, by reports, he was lucky to get a couple of the Draw verdicts, as well.

Walker beat him following that run, in '34, in a 10-rounder, which Rosenbloom had gotten off to a bad start in but was making ground in, during the second half. Rosenbloom would then lose his Light Heavyweight Title, later that same year and would never regain it.

I don't see these bouts as indicative of Walker being very capable of dealing with technically superior fighters. I also would challenge the idea that Hagler was a "lesser technician" of either Loughran or Rosenbloom.

 

Rosenbloom was getting quality wins 5 years later right up to the end of his career and two wins over JH Lewis the year after losing to Walker so he may not have been peak but was hardly a diminished force. One could deride Hagler by saying he lost to a Welterweight who had been retired for three years prior to their fight.

I was going off what i remembered from the footage and after rewatching it i hold the same opinion. No one can watch that and pretend Micky was lost at sea against Tommy. He was consistently able to get in range and land quality shots and people in here claiming Walker was crude or incapable of dealing with skillful opponents is rather indefensible in my mind.

Walker is rated as the 12th greatest boxer in the history of the sport on McGrain's list and the case could certainly be may for top 10 inclusion. The categorization of him by some in here would leave one thinking Walker was just another contender or title holder in a weak era or something. SRL was #16 btw, food for thought.

 

I can't see how you've extrapolated so much from my initial statement, which was: Hagler's skill level is the difference, here. You've commented that this (amongst others) is an "odd" statement to have made. I can't see why you think this, unless you believe Hagler was particularly unskilled or you think Walker's brand of bull-rushing rallies would just be too much for him.

Either way, I haven't implied, in that statement or any subsequent comments, that "Walker was just another contender or title holder in a weak era".

Walker was beaten soundly by Loughran. I didn't say Walker was "lost at sea". But, Walker made little impact on Loughran, with his rushing in and wide swings. Loughran was just too good for him, in what was, again, a predominantly defensive 'Jab and Move' effort.

I've pointed this out, because you mentioned it was a Split Decision, implying it was a close-run affair. It wasn't (despite a few chants to the contrary from Walker fans).

I also highlighted Walker's loss to Rosenbloom, prior to his later win over him that you cite, as well as point out that Walker's victory was over 10 rounds. All this is doing is placing your reference to this bout into a better context.

Let's also not forget that the speculation being asked for in this thread is one, in respect to a Middleweight Championship contest over 15 rounds. Walker might be higher up the All Time Pound-for-Pound ratings than Hagler but he's generally not be found in a Top-10 All Time Great Middleweights listing.

Hagler is ahead of both Loughran and Rosenbloom, Pound-for-Pound, and regularly listed as a Top-5 ATG Middleweight.

You might think it odd (though, it really isn't), but I still think Hagler has too much in the way of skill for Walker and beats him wide, in a 15-Round Contest at Middleweight.

I have not derided Walker in suggesting this but, it seems, you like to mock Hagler for his loss to Leonard. I'm Not sure why.