Prime Hagler - Would He Have Battered SRL?

Marcos Geraldo gave him some problems and definitely was a mover in that fight, although of the awkward variety. If Marvin doesn’t bite down on his mouthpiece and rally over the last four rounds he doesn’t win that fight.

 

There’s a reasonable chance Marvin wouldn’t have left the country and lived in exile in Italy if he was a younger version of himself when he fought Ray.

Even if he lost, he’d have wanted another shot at Leonard.

 

You all must forgot that Leonard jumped up two weight divisions and was coming off an almost 3 year lay off. Beat arguably the best middleweight ever and Hagler was probably still in his prime.

 

I'm sorry but I don't agree but I'm not gonna keep going round in circles, because clearly were not seeing eye to eye in this debate.

I truly believe Hagler did have some issues vs boxers, and enough evidence was shown in his multiple struggles vs the fighters I listed above. And @Saintpat also gave you another example of it, but you can make of that what you will. You don't see it the same way as me fair enough.

All in all my point was Hagler did have some stylistic issues vs boxers, and that's why I believe Leonard is always a tough stylistic match up for him. Yes Leonard is an ATG and that's part of it, but it was also Leonard's movement/speed that troubled Hagler.

 

Well the "awkward variety" would be right.

But I think almost any half-decent boxer in reasonable condition can, if they put their mind to it, stay out of range and attempt to poach moments, as and when their opponent chases them down. By doing so, of course, they limit their own opportunities to score and instead gamble on being able to look better in any exchanges that do occur, in order to steal rounds and claim victory.

It was a strategy. It was negative but I would also suggest it was high-risk, in terms of Geraldo's chances of winning - as the scorecards bore out. Hagler's persistence and ability achieved the win against Geraldo. I didn't give Marcos any more than 3 rounds. Sure, it was frustrating but Hagler was the more consistent, was able to land his shots, land with better quality, and with increasing frequency as the bout wore on - this, rather than the occasional slap-flurries Geraldo could muster.

Edwin Viruet did the same to Duran - twice - even more emphatically, perhaps. Purely designed to frustrate and steal moments in rounds - but, again, persistence and superior skill won the day. I'm not about to say that Duran had stylistic issues with slicksters/movers on the basis of that performance, because just about any boxer would be frustrated by an opponent who was on his bicycle all night. And Duran beat Viruet, both times - wide.

Yes Geraldo played his hand and made it look, for a brief spell, like he might be holding some cards but, in reality, it was a fleeting bluff. So, I don't think I'll be buying into this "stylistic challenge" trope any time soon.

 

We scored it differently, as did the judges. Without a doubt Hagler in my mind needed to take the last 3-4 rounds to beat Geraldo. He did win the exchanges and Marvin seemed to have issues cutting off the ring … as he did later with Leonard.

To say Hagler had trouble with slick boxers/movers isn’t to say he was completely unable to cope with them, but to my eyes he didn’t look his best against them and showed an inadequacy in cutting off the ring that was exploitable.

(I also don’t think Roy Jr. would run from him. Roy was able to control distance and dart in and out when he chose, but he wasn’t a runner.)

 

I do not doubt that you truly believe what you are posting. I am just trying to understand why you believe it, beyond a handful of results against boxers with really quite varied styles - in fights which do not actually reflect the stylistic challenge that I think you're trying to convey (but are not really conveying). And, I don't think we are going around in circles - more that you seem either unwilling or unable to answer some fairly straightforward questions about your ideas.

I mean no disrespect when I suggest that it reads as very strange when you state Hagler (widely considered a top-3 All-Time Great Middleweight) "does seem [to] struggle more vs boxers".

Thus, when I ask: 'So what was Hagler, if he did not belong to this category of 'boxer' you refer to?', I think it's a fair question.

Likewise, when you take a selection of four bouts, which clearly didn't all happen in the way that reflects your pattern and make that the core of your theory, the following questions are valid:

- 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?


It's fine to have an opinion but, at the same time, it's a shame you cannot elaborate and be more specific on what these stylistic issues actually were, using details of the fights you have cited, to evidence the same.

 

The judges scorecards were: 97-93 / 97-94 / 97-95

Meaning Hagler was awarded 10 points for 7 of the rounds on all cards. So, at least one of those cards tallies with mine. The others have one and two even rounds in their tallies. So, not a massive difference really.

But it doesn't matter. In a 10-round fight where your opponent has chalked up 3 rounds after 6 contested the fight is even (assuming there have been no even rounds scored up to that point) So someone is going to need the majority of those last four rounds either way.

As it was, I had Hagler two rounds up (58-56) going into the 7th, which I think means he only needed two out of the last four to secure the win. He won three of those four.

As to how slick/boxers can make their opponents look and referring back to my prior post, I think it's something that can be widely experienced by boxers who face that type and even to some of the greatest boxers (e.g. Duran/Viruet).

I certainly don't see it as a definitive flaw - especially, when viewed against a 62-3-2 record.

 

I think Ray was always a little more versatile and meant to beat Marvin.. Marvin could be mechanical. Marvin's greatest win was Hearns because he used anger to get out of his mechanical fighting style ( which was great) but he fought the way he had to to beat a Hearns.

 

If any 'runner' gave Hagler trouble, you could say it was Colbert...but this would apply to virtually every fighter with someone adopting that tactic- and the example above is spot on. Your post earlier (#115) was right on the money for me and, if anything, the only time Hagler was beaten without controversy (Monroe) it was because the Worm traded with him, rather than ride his bicycle all night (ala Colbert).

 

At last - Someone mentions Colbert! Great shout.

As Hagler referred to him, "...a hit-and-run man"

And Ye Olde adage 'You can run but you can't hide' was made manifest that night.


Re Monroe (I) - Yes, despite the fight not being televised, some good written commentary can be found on the bout. Monroe himself makes comments implying that, by reputation, he'd expected Hagler to be right in front of him but instead had to take the fight to him, with Hagler being evasive.

When occasionally Monroe would be interviewed before a big Hagler bout (I think he featured in the Hagler/Hearns build up) and the question they ask him is how do you beat Hagler? Monroe's answer: "Back him up!"

 

I typed the fight report out many years ago on here (from UK's Boxing News), repeated below. It makes for good reading. Put it down as a learning curve for Marv.

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Some people seem to be forgetting Ray wasn't in his pomp either....

 

I can add some MM. Tho Futch was wrong in his prediction I've always remembered his "backing up" comment as it's almost universal in here that coming at him suits him the best.

Futch expects Hearns to win the title in style because he has the right style.

'I was in Willie Monroe's corner the night he beat Hagler,' said Futch of a 1976 loss that is one of two blemishes on Hagler's record. 'It takes a good jab and strong right had to beat Hagler. That's exactly what Hearns has.

'Hearns can box, and he has the physical ability to give Marvin a very, very tough time. Hagler cannot fight backing up. That's what Hearns is going to do to him.

'I like Hearns by a knockout. Hagler is a great champion, but I feel he's ready to be taken.

 

I'm gonna rewatch Duran vs Hagler again today it's been forever since I watched it, I'll be curious to see how close I have it.