MARVIN HAGLER-I don't think so

Not unless it’s Ivy League or MIT level.

Many state schools are better than private schools.

 

Agree

 

Ok .. Pernell vs Ray and now Hagler?? .. We are starting to get into some pretty big mismatches here .. Pernell fighting at 160 is unrealistic, especially against one of the best middles of all time

 

I guess I would need to see the employment statistics, but I tend to agree. I disagree that spending a lot on education only makes sense at an elite school like Harvard or MIT but I've never fully understood why so many families spend so much money for degrees from certain run-of-the-mill private colleges. It works out for some students but it's hard for me to believe that it's a winning proposition for most.

 

Even what you call a "legit sized Welter", he was still at physical disadvantages at that weight. There were a great number of excellent fighters that were taller than him and had a longer reach as well. So let's not act like he was big for the weight or even above average, he wasn't.

You act like he's just gets excuses for his losses and all the praise for his wins. That simply isn't true. The reason he gets so much credit for the wins past LW, is because he was past his prime when he got those wins. In some cases remarkably so, and way north of way he started. There is nothing over the top or unusual there, he's given credit because he wasn't prime nor in his best division. When stating those same things for his losses, doesn't all of a sudden make them excuses. They are facts, just as they were facts when he won. It's like I told Pea, when Jack won the Masters in 86', he didn't all of a sudden become prime again, nor did he continue to win after that. He was given so much credit for the win because he was so far removed from his Prime, and beat guys in their prime. When he lost other tournaments that year, would you call it excuses when you cite his age and how far past his prime he was? No, those aren't excuses, they are facts.

 

It is about styles. Hagler liked the styles to come to him so he could work them over in someways similar to Duran, and the only thing I see trouble for Pernell is size. Hagler was so much bigger and his reach 75 inches and southpaw, but yeah I could see Pernell outboxing him. The style seems to hurt Hagler, where he sit back and fights his fight and knows where he is at all times and watches everything Marvin does.

 

the reason I do not think the Leonard fight is significant is because if Benitez fought Duran again and again, I think he wins again and again.. Ray fought that style and lost, but if Ray boxed Duran each time he wins again and again,, I don't think there is a doubt, and Duran's limitations are seen with Benitez-so the Ray boxing aspect was not a fluke..Duran wanted that 154 pound title only a little over a year after the 2nd Ray fight. I think Duran had trouble with guys who watched his foot positioning and moved when he moved and countered over his punches rather than punched and let him counter when he was inside in range. I don't think it is about weight, since Duran was ok with 154 as early as 1978..

 

Yes, of course he was past prime at some point.
It's where that point that's the question.

Of course he wasn't a big welter, but nor was Jack Britton, nor was Jose Napoles. To name just two.

 

What middleweight fights would you point to that would lead one to favoring Whitaker over Hagler?

 

I think more pertinent to the discussion is that he was 27 and had been a pro for 11 years and 66 fights before he even sniffed welterweight after starting all those years before at bantamweight. People exact like he is some exact contemporary with Hearns and Leonard. He came from a wholly different school.

 

Exactly...it’s absolutely incredible that a man whom dominated the 135lb division in his 20s was able to jump up to 147, knock off 2 champions including one of the greatest fighters who ever lived, then in his 30s go up to 154lb win a world title, then in his mid 30s push hagler to the brink of defeat, then win a world title in his late 30s at 160lb


Guy was one of a kind.

Name me an ATG lightweight champion who could beat sugar ray Leonard at 147, go 15 close rounds with Marvin hagler at age 34, then win a world title at 160lb over Iran Barkley at age 37?

No one even comes close

 

I think Hagler had problems with motivating himself with smaller guys.. He did at times want the big fights and yet looked down on the smaller guys moving up.. Duran or Leonard, he took them for granted a little and came out counterpunching. With Hearns, Tommy was cocky and got Marvin mad, and I think Marvin saw Hearns as a bigger threat than Duran and Leonard, so he came out smoking and more motivated. I think that was his best performance because he was good when he was mad and pumped up.. So I think with Pernell, granted Pernell is still skilled, he would think I have this small guy who I can beat and he might come out counterpunching and Pernell would get the rhythm and maybe win a decision.. Marvin did his best when he was aggressive. The first Vito fight was also Marvin being a little cautious, but he said later, he wouldn't leave it to the judges anymore.

 

Leonard in 1980 was not the greatest ever. He became that with this fight, learning how to put it all together outside and inside the ring, and Ray fought Duran's fight, but if Duran is given credit for beating Ray, then he should be given the same responsibility for losing badly to Benitez not long after and Leonard in the rematch. The Benitez and Hearns fights were not an old Duran. 30 and 32 years old to a guy who fought until he was 50. I think he fought 35 times after the Hearns fight and 17 years. I can show you a welterweight who beat an undefeated light heavyweight with 10 title defenses Thomas Hearns over Virgil Hill. Michael Spinks over Holmes, and changing his style and beating him twice... And if Duran is given credit for beating Barkley in 1989, well then Hearns beat him at a lower division and 5 years earlier. so it was a legit win over Duran, if the win over Barkley is legit. And if going 15 with Hagler is such a big deal. why not give Roldan more credit. He knocked Hagler down and gave him a rougher fight than Duran did. Duran is given credit for beating Moore and Barkley in the same years he lost easily to Benitez and Hearns... actually those guys were half a decade before he beat Barkley. I think many fighters have had the same or better wins than Duran.. Since I do believe Ray fought his fight and fought a stupid gameplan. Thinking he could beat Duran at his game.. Sort of like Hagler wanting to outbox Ray and coming in right handed.

 

I think also. fighters see how Ray beat him with speed, and then others use the same tactics and see how to beat a guy.. The blueprint was found. Even if lesser guys are watching it later. When Hearns was beaten by Hagler, guys started to swarm Hearns more. It was the blueprint.

 

Can't agree with you here..Here's why this is unrealistic ... You can't just throw 25 pounds on a guy's natural weight .. or 13 on him from 147 and assume he is going to be able to carry that weight and move the same and be the sweet pea we all know at 135 .. It just doesn't work that way .. It is probably physically impossible for him to get to 160 .. And we saw this with Duran who moved completely different at 154 than when he was 135 ... just lost some quickness as expected .. Yes Pernell will still be skilled but a completely different moving fighter and going up against all the adv. against him , size , strength, stamina, etc.. ... Way to big of a mismatch here .. It would be the same as the Napoles Monzon matchup