Naa definitely not. Hagler had a lot more than just that. But yep, respectable power, enough to keep his opponents honest.
Certainly a hard puncher not in the same league as Jackson, Hearns, Barkley, Mugabe etc but definitely very effective also very strong and very tough, this all combined to make him champ, not the highest ring IQ but he had other tools.
About 8 out of 10. Maybe even a little higher. Heavy handed and sharp, great timing, and a murderous finisher to boot. Obliterated the naturally larger Obel with a single right hand in the second fight, dropped the iron chinned Hamsho twice and stopped him in three, had the equally iron chinned Antuofermo on the mat in the rematch. You don't accomplish this without having significant punching power at your disposal.
Not really Aaron Pryor had a very high KO ratio, I don't think many people rate him as a devastating puncher, but I get the point your trying to make. I would say Hagler has solid power 7.5/10 range ? Hes not the kind of guy to get you out of there with one punch like Jackson, Benn, Hearns, but he can hurt you with one punch, and punches very sharply and correct and also is a good finisher.
Seems he was pretty good at busting guys up, which is a component more of sharp punching than actual power, but he had some pop too. Mostly I think he just wore guys down and took them out. Which is of course an asset unto itself. Having an ATG chin didn’t hurt either, as he could wade through hell and break a guy down.
I believe Pryor's ko ratio was 87% but was a two time champ in the light welterweight division. The record Hagler has at 78 % was in the middle weight division.
Yes i'm aware of that the point i was trying to make, is that a high KO ratio doesn't always necessarily mean a fighter has devastating power. Stats don't always tell the whole story that's why i used Aaron Pryor as an example, he wasn't a big puncher but he wore people down with his relentless/non stop attack. Now i'm not saying Hagler couldn't punch, but i don't think his high KO ratio quite represents his actual power in the ring. He certainly had above average power and was a very sharp puncher, but he often broke down his opponents, rather than flat out KO'ing them with one punch like Barkley, Benn, Hearns, Jackson, could do.
As a finisher he was right up there. It is very telling that he retained his KO% against elite opposition.
Hagler didn't carry an eraser, but his power was quite noteworthy. The bigger problem for his opponents was the sheer variety in Hagler's armory and the consistently surgical precision, with which he could deliver it, in either hand. Hagler's offense was punishing.
Right. Stats don't always tell the story. Hagler was naturally bigger the Duran, Hearns, and Leonard, arguably his most famous opponents but each man did their best work a two or three divisions below and he only knocked on the them out. His completion level is another thing that affects Ko percentage and it a bit only above average vs. natural middles. Finally he didn't fight very old and dulling his KO% or losing because of it, retiring at age 32. When you look at it as is 78% is excellent. A big puncher. But when you watch the film and factor is who he's fighting it's not as impressive.
