Is Michael Spinks a greater fighter than Marvin Hagler?

Hagler's résumé is underrated, there's a reason he's ranked so high.

He's beat Briscoe Antuofermo, Monroe, Hamsho, Finnegan, Minter then has Duran, Mugabi and Hearns.
He also should probably have 2 wins over Antuofermo and Minter, he also obviously has the argument of having the Leonard fight.
Hagler has a better résumé than Spinks by quite a bit imo, especially considering more of them were prime than Spinks's were (Cooney, Lopez, Holmes and Johnson all weren't prime imo).
Personally I think Spinks is a better fighter skills wise but it's close.

Spinks definitely was a bigger LHW imo, 6 foot 1 an half is a big LHW imo.
Johnson is a small LHW and there was a massive difference between them 2.

 

I think Hagler was the better fighter and he has the deeper resume. Spinks got the close fights that Hagler didn’t get and perhaps that makes it closer than it should be.

Both were tremendous though.

 

Agree completely. A lot of it is to do with timing and perception. True crossover stars or genuine megafights are relatively rare in boxing and Hagler (as well as a couple of his higher profile victims in Duran and Hearns) benefits from being linked inextricably with the sport's biggest and most marketable star of that era in Leonard. Hagler toiled throughout the seventies, but in the eighties had a gateway to the wider public which relatively few fighters are afforded.

Naturally this made him superfight material and in Hearns, another fighter whose profile was boosted because of his rivalry with Leonard and own thrilling style, he had the perfect dance partner to produce a fight which could appeal to the masses and penetrate that audience who might only watch a couple of fights per year. To this day Hearns-Hagler is still synonymous with excitement and a byword for ferocity amongst the more casual fan base. This kind of stuff, along with Halger's fan-friendly style, makes his career and achievements a little easier to regard with nostalgia and reverence.

On the other hand, Spinks suffers from his association with the sport's next major crossover star post-Leonard. To the casual observer or the mainstream media, he's just a cog in the 'PRIME TYSON WAS INVINCIBLE!' machine. If he's ever brought up in these kind of circles, it's usually only to show how good his vanquisher was, rather than how good he was himself.

But if you take emotion and dollar signs out of the equation and look at both men's careers dispassionately, there's no reason why Hagler should be ahead. They're comparable at their most noted weights (I have them both at #3) but Spinks made significant history in a higher division. Yes, Holmes was past his best, but Spinks did legitimately beat him as an underdog (first fight in any case), whereas Hagler stayed put and lost his title to a past-his-best Leonard in a fight where he was favourite.

Hagler has often complained that he never got the respect he deserved, but to be honest from a 2019 vantage point I think history has been pretty generous - maybe a shade too generous - to him. On the other hand, Spinks is way too readily underestimated and underrated by a lot of publications. No doubt in my mind that he deserves to outrank Hagler. Not by a landslide, but enough to broker no real argument in my opinion.

 

Spinks had those great wins over Marvin Johnson, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, and Qawi. He also had two wins over Larry Holmes, which are great, no matter how you feel about Holmes' form at that point or the judging. So I would say if you weighed Spinks' top wins in the ring with Hagler's marquee wins, they would at least be comparable.

But Hagler's less famous wins are definitely better. I'll take wins over Tony Sibson, Hamsho (X2), Seales, Briscoe, Cyclone Hart, Sypion etc. over beating Eddie Davis, Murray Sutherland, and a washed up Gerry Cooney any day. For being a two-division titlist with a lengthy title reign at 175, Spinks' resume is fairly shallow. I think people would be more forgiving of his loss to Tyson if he'd fought legit contenders instead of treading the waters at hw against Tangstead and Cooney. There were plenty of credible, ranked opponents that Spinks would have been likely to beat.

 

Good post and good thread. I have not done a list in about 5 years? But had both in the 30-50 range? But have always rated Hagler higher.

Not sure what I think after this thread. I think it is a narrow separation on a cursory glance, but need to think about it more.

 

Spinks packed alot of quality into his record. Hagler fought at the Championship level longer and his record his deeper. His wins in the 70s were impressive. Going to Philly and beating Watts, Monroe and Briscoe etc.
Spinks gets a slight edge for me for moving up and winning the Heavyweight Championship + Winning a Gold Medal.

 

To answer the direct question question I rate Hagler higher.
Everyone talkes about Spinks beating Braxton. Braxton couldnt get out of first gear in that fight and it had nothing to do with Spinks. Spinks is great and I enjoyed his fights back then followed his whole career but Hagler is better in my book.

 

Agree with @PhillyPhan69 need to think it through. different weight class, different style. 1 fighter got starched, but in his last fight, the other never got starched but lost questionable fights. 1 guy moved up, the other fought whole career at same weight. Very tough to compare the 2.

 

I love both, but I will say this. I think Spinks had more versatility than Hagler to change a style to compensate for a fighter and a weight, which is why moving up in weight does prove something. The Holmes fight proved a lot and to me shows a versatility in Spinks which Hagler did not have. Hagler had that style which could beat most guys, but that versatile fighter with a good game plan (Leonard perhaps on good timing) could beat him. Could Hagler have moved up and beaten Spinks like Spinks beat Holmes? Probably not. Hagler was great, he was strong physically, southpaw and orthodox both. Good jab long reach 75 inches and a great chin. He always had the advantage that way during his reign. So guys could not really brawl with him since he would take it and land- the way to beat Marvin was to box him. And that happened with Ray, and he would have fights were when if he could not dominate exchanges or he was not aggressive he would struggle. Hagler's claim to fame is Thomas Hearns. The fight itself and winning in that fashion by letting it all hang out put him in a rare class. He has a greater fight than Spinks on his resume, and that helps his standing. Without the Hearns fight, who would look better in history? The Hearns fight might put Hagler over Spinks. And Spinks record for a great fighter. He didn't have too many fights which hurts Michael.

 

Nothing in it really and the personal criteria would be the main story IMO. Having said that Spinks should get an immense amount of mileage out of beating Holmes. That was a HUGE achievement.

 

Marvin's pre-title set of bouts is off the scale compared to Spinks. And he frequently went into the other guy's backyard even. Spinks tried that against who? Spinks did nothing approaching that kind of thing. If it took him 45 or 50 bouts to get to the bigtime, his knee's give out. He sure did not have Marvin's durability.

The other thing with Spinks is he came along when all those other guys were on the other side of the mountain. Most had turned pro from that 1972 timeframe. The only contemporary was Qawi. When Spinks was older as the champ the pedigreed up and comer was Hill. And that was a bout we never got. So some old names, but hardly a long list of A#1 guys.

 

Hagler wasn't exactly a huge middleweight either