Marvin Hagler had one of the greatest title reigns in boxing history at any weight but he often comes off worse in all-time middleweight lists to Carlos Monzon. Most acknowledge that there isn't much in it and Hagler's loss to Leonard and Monzon retiring undefeated plays a big part in people rating Monzon that little bit higher. But Hagler's pre-title opposition in the mid-late 70s was pretty good. Do you think this tips things in his favour at all? He was still learning in the 70s but showed he was excellent in rematches and some of the guys he beat might have got title shots had they not met Hagler. What do you think of Hagler's pre-title opposition and is it enough to edge him marginally ahead of King Carlos in the all-time middleweight list?
If you consider the fact that Rodrigo Valdez and Hugo Corro both blatantly ducked him ...it tips it in his favor for me
It’s still very close between the two. Hagler has the edge in opponents prior and post getting to world title level. Monzons level of opposite prior to hitting the world scene is very hard to read, you would need to be sherlocks homes to discover who over 75% of them are and I can’t determine how good a lot of them were. But when he did win his world title you can’t really fault him. I would still edge Hagler overall, but if they fought I couldn’t call it.
I was looking at an interview with Carlos Monzon, from 1985, he appeared to have the utmost respect for Marvelous Marvin Hagler, when asked about a fantasy fight, his reply was Those Are Just Fantasies, He Was Great In His Own Time, it was in Spanish (Carlos spoke no English). Carlos had no respect for Hearns. On another interview Marvelous Marvin Hagler, also had respect for Carlos Monzon. Marvelous stated that he would have liked to fight him when he was champion. Hagler stated, I Was Still Too Green, My Management Felt I Was Not Ready. And By The Time I Was Ready To Fight Him, He Had Already Retired, But It Would Have Been A Very Tough Fight. Hagler stated that Monzon's right hand was harder than a Hearns right hand. I saw both interviews on You Tube.
Monzon did not explain, but I think it might have had to do with Hearn's strategy against Hagler, because in the past he was critical of the strategy used.
Carlos felt that Hearns should have boxed more, utilized his long left jab, boxing Hagler, pile up points, then setting up his right hand, instead of slugging it out with Marvelous Marvin.
To me it is very close. I might rank Monzon just a shade higher than Marv, but it's so close. Marv faced equally good opponents as those Monzon faced. Marv did get some bad decisions in his career, like with Leonard and Antuofermo. But an official loss doesn't make it a loss in my book. Hagler's 70s opposition was almost as good as Monzon's I think. Seales, Watts, Monroe, Hart, Briscoe, and Antuofermo were the best of the mid to late 70s and all relatively young aside from Briscoe.
Hagler could conceivably have had a 66-1 record. The loss to Willie Monroe is the only one that isn't disputed. The Leonard loss will forever be debated, but there is also the Boogaloo Watts loss, which was said to be controversial (must watch that one, it's on YouTube). The other two blemishes were a disputed draw against Sugar Ray Seales and the Antuofermo title fight, which most, including me, had Hagler winning. The impressive thing about all but one of those fights is that Hagler avenged them in rematches and all by knockout or stoppage (and twice in the case of Monroe). The one he didn't avenge? Leonard, of course, but Leonard didn't tend to do rematches.
Leonard and Hagler were also supposed to rematch. But Hagler divorced his wife after the first Leonard fight and wanted to wait until the divorce was final before he signed for the rematch (so she wouldn't get a cut). By the time the divorce was final, Leonard was ready to go, but Marvin wasn't interested anymore.
Yeah, he did but he lost to Duran in the first fight so had motivation to rematch him. The rematch with Hearns and third fight with Duran came well after Hagler had retired.