Prime Hagler - Would He Have Battered SRL?

While I would favour prime MMH, in my opinion, nobody batters a prime SRL between 147-160 lbs. Beat him you could do, dominate him, no way. Always would be competitive even if not favoured.

 

I have no idea how you got that from my post but overrated is relative, like everything.

 

LOL Cmon

 

Don't like to get involved in hypotheticals, but in this case there is good reason to be confident that a prime Hagler would do better against the Leonard that ageing Hagler fought. Over 15, maybe stop him.

Still think Leonard's speed and trickiness would cause Hagler problems, though.

 

As just about always, you can just as well have a completely different take on this: Imagine if that was prime Leonard in there with Hagler instead of a well past his best Duran.

There's of course no way to know for sure with these hypotheticals, but if the past prime versions of Hagler and Leonard had a very close fight, the best guess is probably that prime versions of them would have as well.

 

Yeah but stylistically they didn't really pose a problem to Hagler, my point was boxers/movers seemed to be more problematic for Hagler. So based on that Leonard should still give any version of Hagler stylistic problems.

 

I really don't see the "pattern" you are trying to form here. The basis of your "boxers/movers seemed to be more problematic for Hagler" analysis appears to be that Hagler didn't fight many "slick boxer types" and citing Seales and Finnegan.

- Seales was well-beaten by Hagler in their first encounter, fought on more even terms in their next for the Draw and was KTFO in their third. In other words, Seales never registered a win against Hagler.

- Finnegan? Sure, Finnegan was as tough as they come with solid fundamentals but wasn't really a 'mover' - more a traditional boxer-puncher and he actually struggled with Hagler's movement. Moreover, Hagler cut Finnegan to shreds in both their matches and won by stoppage on both occasions.


I also think separating Hagler from "slick boxer types" when a prime Hagler demonstrated great movement and a range of all-round skills himself is quite strange.

 

Well the pattern is that all of Hagler's losses or struggles, especially before he become champion were against boxers/movers/slicksters that's not a coincidence.

Hagler didn't really have to fight that type of style as champion, the only two fighters who resembled that during his reign Duran, Leonard, well Duran not really boxer/mover but hes slick. And Hagler looked beatable in both fights, and infact lost to Leonard is that a coincidence ? I think not.

As for Seales and Finnegan well Finnegan by all reports was coming on very strong until cut, and the 2nd fight he took rematch too soon and his cuts hadn't healed properly.

Seales gave Hagler close fights in 2 of their meetings, Seales himself believes he won 2 of the fights I don't know how true that is though.

My point is look at Hagler's challengers during his reign, I don't really think it means much stylistically how Hagler would do vs Leonard at any point in his career. The fact is Leonard always poses a stylistic challenge for Hagler that's the point I was trying to get across.

All in all I think Hagler would've struggled more in the late 80s vs the likes of Nunn, Kalambay, Graham, etc. Who present more of stylistic threat than pretty much all of Hagler's title challengers.

 

Hagler was veritably robbed against Watts and made Hart retire on his stool after dominating.

 

- Monroe didn't win by using movement.
- Watts was gifted a decision.
- Seales was clearly beaten on two of the three occasions he met Hagler.
- Antuofermo was neither a slickster nor a mover.

You seem to be, on the one hand, equating competitive bouts amongst up-and-coming middleweights in a talented scene as "struggles" and, on the other, forgetting bouts which do not really map to your perceived pattern.

Despite being a good contest Hagler beat Duran comfortably.
Hagler forced his fight on Hearns, himself a consummate boxer.
Hagler had slowed up significantly by the time he met Leonard and Leonard's tactics exploited this.

The true lack of coincidence here is that Hagler, Duran, Leonard and Hearns were peers and in a class of their own, as elite All-Time Greats.

I've briefly covered the Seales bouts above already - but to clarify - only one of their bouts was close. Seales conceded that Hagler had been too strong for him in their first match. Both had a case for the second and the third fight was not a matter for the scorecards. So this breaks the pattern, for mine.

I don't know how Finnigan having a couple of good rounds constitutes Hagler struggling. Hagler was ahead on all cards and only one of the judges had it looking close. The other two judges scored one round between them to Finnegan.

Also, as mentioned, Finnegan wasn't a slickster or a mover so I don't see how he fits into the pattern to begin with.

Or maybe Leonard presents a challenge at any time in Hagler's career - and vice versa - because they were both ATG elites capable at operating at the very highest level of the sport.

I disagree with your premise of there being a "stylistic threat" for the reasons already given.

Hagler's biggest challenge by the mid-to-late '80s was ring-wear. Sooner or later he was going to be overtaken by the new crop of up-and-comers. That's just the way of competitive sports.

However, I don't think Nunn, Kalambay or Graham would present a particularly new type of challenge to a prime Hagler.

 

I'm not forgetting any bouts Hagler had 2 competitive fights with Seales one of them being razor thin close, 1 loss to Watts and 1 loss to Monroe. The stylistic pattern which i was alluding to is right there in those 4 bouts. Aswell as Hagler struggling vs Duran and losing to Leonard, the pattern alludes to that Hagler does seem struggle more vs boxers. And the point i'm making is that Leonard's style of fighting would be problematic for Hagler at any point in his career.

Finnegan was coming on strong in their 1st fight as Hagler seemed to be fading. And the cut ? which was caused by a clash of heads i've heard ? was very beneficial for Hagler. As Finnegan seemed like the stronger fighter at that point and had won the last 2 rounds big. It wasn't just a a few good rounds, it was very possible that Finnegan could've gone on and won the fight without the cut which was caused by a clash of heads.

The 2nd fight as i said Finnegan took the fight too soon, and his cuts hadn't healed which lead to cuts being re opened in the first round.

Yes being ATG is obviously part of it but it's also a tough stylistic match up for Hagler aswell, put it this way Leonard isn't going to win trading punches with Hagler, he beat him with movement/speed and boxing skills.

Well i disagree i think highly skilled slicksters like Nunn, Kalambay, would be very problematic Hagler. I also think Kalambay would've beaten Hagler in 87 and possibly Graham aswell.

I think Middleweights of late 80s, early 90s, are more problematic for a prime Hagler. James Toney, Mike McCallum, Young Roy Jones, are other names who would be a very tough match ups for him.

 

But with all due respect, Hagler did not have to put himself in those predicaments with guys like Watts, Antuofermo, (first fight) and Leonard. You have to dominate with effective aggressiveness, that you leave no doubt as to the outcome on the officials scorecard not the fans scorecards. The only scoring of a fight that counts is from the officials sitting at ringside scoring the bout, they are appointed by the state. I know as fans we all have our favorites but to me if one of my favorites loses, I accept it, move on and hope that he learned from the loss and wins in a rematch, no excuses from me. Muhammad Ali and Carlos Monzon are really my two favorites, but when Ali lost to Ken Norton, a buddy of mine called me to heckle me, I simply told him over the phone, Norton won fair and square, a good win for him. There was dead silence, my friend said I guess I have to go. I don't believe in making excuses, passionate of the sport, heck yes, but a loss is a loss, a win is fantastic. In my opinion, Hagler tried the intimidation game with Antuofermo in their first bout on Nov 30 1979, but Vito was not going away quietly, he grew up on the tough streets of New York just like Duran grew up in the tough streets of Panama, but getting back to Antuofermo, and Leonard, Hagler let his foot off of the gas pedal, he should have kayoed both but did not.

 

And with equal due respect Richard, Hagler did demonstrate effective aggression against Watts. It is not like it could have gone either way. Hence even the local Philly press acknowledging the stink of the decision.

But this is by the by. No one is making excuses for the result - written history does that for us.

More importantly, I do not factor in the judges scorecards or the end results, when the point I am addressing is a matter of one's analysis of styles, strengths and weaknesses. In this case, what actually happened in the action of the fight is what matters - would you not agree?

Again, my mention of Antuofermo in another post was purely to highlight that he did not fit the 'slickster/mover' pattern that apparently, according to @Dynamicpuncher , so bothered Hagler.

I am not going to address the Antuofermo/Hagler Draw here.

But, if one is going to highlight a 'pattern' in performance, across more than a decade of a boxer's career, then it seems to me it should be explained coherently and with demonstrable consistency. I do not think it has been and neither the loss to Watts or the victory over Hart do much to support that pattern.

 

Good post as always,Bokaj. There would have been just as much controversy over the result of a prime Ray and Marvin fight as there was with their 1987 incarnations.

 

Well - How does Antuofermo fit into your claim that "

This content is protected

"?


Also - being in competitive bouts is not struggling. If we know that a 20 year old Hagler, at 14-0-0 was in a competitive bout against an Olympic Gold Medal winner and he won decisively, do we really call that a struggle?

As I've alluded to before, if you think there is parity between any of Hagler's bouts with Seales, I would suggest you are quite off-track. And, since you have chosen to include a bout in which Hagler clearly wasn't struggling against a style or the tactics or pretty much anything Seales had to offer, I would say your pattern theory is broken.

I have the following questions:
- How are you establishing a stylistic parity between Seales, Watts and Monroe?
- Are you taking into consideration the respective tactics used during each bout?
- Assuming there is a stylistic pattern shared by all of these Hagler opponents, what exactly do you think Hagler struggled with stylistically against these opponents?

So what was Hagler, if he did not belong to this category of 'boxer' you refer to?

Anyone watching Hagler/Duran was not watching Hagler struggle.

I'm not disputing this^. I am disputing your 'Pattern' theory.

Leonard would be a problem for a good many boxers from 147 to 160, at any time in their careers, and indeed was an actual problem for a good many boxers at the appointed time in theirs. But Leonard was manifest excellence, so it really isn't saying a lot.

There was an alleged clash of heads, which Finnegan attributed to one of the cuts - No other reports to the best of my knowledge did - not even in the British press. But, either way, that wasn't THE CUT that brought proceedings to a close and it was one of several cuts Hagler opened up before slashing Finnegan's left cheek in the 7th round (THE CUT). Hagler, by then, believed the Referee should have stopped the fight because Finnegan's face was just a mask of blood and he was getting caught hard.

Can you post me a link to the video in which Finnegan looks to be the stronger fighter?

Finnegan was never in it.

But that aside, I've twice mentioned before that Finnegan was not a slickster/mover type and, therefore, doesn't begin to fit your pattern.

Do you believe Finnegan to be of the slickster/mover or boxer type?

Yep - those there things allude to tactics - Something Leonard was a master at devising and deploying - before a fight, mid-fight - it didn't matter, the man was both extremely talented and resourceful.

As I stated in my initial post on this thread, it is unlikely Leonard's tactics would have been any different, had they have fought back in 82/83. In essence, Leonard would have been aiming for the same effect. However, I'd expect to see a bigger difference in performance from a Hagler closer to his prime.

Pattern be damned!

Being involved in problematic, tough match-ups is what one expects when fighting at world level. Prime Hagler beats all of those guys, in my opinion but we'll never know.

As to what would have happened in '87? Pure speculation and, again, we'll never know. But I'd be basing any prediction on where Hagler was in his career by '87. I've long maintained that Hagler was done by '86. What he brought against Leonard was pretty much his 'last hurrah'.

No pattern required. Just the physiology of the ageing individual.