Prime GGG vs Sugar Ray Leonard (Hagler fight) MW

Some of the claims here are ridiculous. Daniel Jacobs wasn't better than any Hagler. None.

GGG has a higher ring IQ than Hagler? wtf

 

Based on what? Beating the amazing Matthew Macklin and Curtis Stevens lol

 

You are so right George so much rubbish spouted on here

 

It's getting almost as bad as the general forum.

 

Based on eye test, not vibes, something people here might try. ‘87 Hagler was a shell: slow, rusty from a 13-month layoff, couldn’t cut the ring against Leonard, and no real plan. tried to start orthodox and then was just chasing Leonard around the ring. Leonard edged him (debatable split), but Hagler looked flat compared to his prime. Prime GGG? A beast—laser jab, suffocating footwork, bone-crushing power, broke guys like Macklin and Stevens down with ease. Macklin and Stevens weren’t ATGs, sure, Macklin and Stevens weren’t ATGs, but GGG’s stoppages were masterclasses—textbook pressure Hagler couldn’t muster against Leonard. How’s a Hagler who couldn’t trap Leonard ‘magically’ better then a ring-cutting master like prime GGG?

 

None of them were better than GGG, so this whole argument is irrelevant. Hagler’s pre title competition wasn’t some legendary gauntlet he feasted on failed contenders and past-their-prime fighters. Acting like that’s somehow superior to an ATg like Golovkin beat is laughable.

Junior middleweight today are around the same size as middleweights in Hagler time so yes, it counts if you're looking at H2H. If you want to be pedantic, at least be consistent.

Canelo still beat Lara, who was an excellent fighter, and Cotto, who had never been stopped at middleweight and was coming off good wins over Geale and Martinez. He wasn’t the shot fighter you’re trying to paint him as.

Do you even know what cutting weight is? Jacobs rehydrated to around 175 when he fought Golovkin, he was significantly bigger, which is why Golovkin struggled and couldn’t stop him. And let’s not rewrite history: Jacobs had solid wins over Truax, Mora, and Quillin, knocking them all out. That’s impressive. But I get it, acknowledging that Jacobs was a very good fighter is heresy to you.

What Cotto did after losing to Canelo is irrelevant. What matters is what he did leading up to the fight, and as I pointed out, he was in good shape with strong wins. Losing a tough fight takes a lot out of a fighter—acting like that loss erases everything is just dishonest.

Canelo won the second fight with GGG—deal with it.

And I never even said Canelo was better than Monzón or Hagler just said he was a ATG that Golovkin beat in their first fight. But apparently, even suggesting Golovkin might be as good as Hagler is enough to send you people into a meltdown.

 

All I hear are excuse after excuse. Now jr.middleweight is the same as middleweight. Nope sorry but they are not going to count Jr.middleweight fights as middleweight fights and they sure are not going to count jr.middleweight fights as middleweight title defenses are they?
Cottos legendary middleweight career consisted of beating up a fighter with literally a blown knee(Sergio)
and Geale who got crushed almost every time he stepped up to elite.
What a fighter does after a defeat tells you everything you need to know about them - were they inexperienced, unlucky, or were they way past thier prime? Cotto was not even close to his prime and its laughable to think he was- he literally got beat up by Saddam Ali 2 fights latter- a boxer he would have crushed easily in his prime.
It would be like Pat Lawlor going around telling everyone how he beat Duran and Benitez but leaving out the fact that both were far removed from thier primes.
Hagler fought and beat a much better generation of fighters then GGG did as a champion and as a contender its just a fact that you cannot deal with.
GGG and Canelo are not on the same level as a Monzon or Hagler no matter how badly you want to pretend they are.
Now Jacobs is a great fighter because he beat MORA who did what exactly? Truax? Are you kidding me?
The best boxer Jacobs ever faced before his title shots KNOCKED HIM SPARK OUT.
Mora was held to a DRAW vs a completely shot MOSLEY and at best was a part time boxer.

 

"All I hear are excuse after excuse."
Nah, what you’re hearing is context—something you refuse to acknowledge because it destroys your weak argument.

"Jr. Middleweight isn’t Middleweight!"
You’re being pedantic for no reason. Modern Jr. Middleweights rehydrate to the same size as Middleweights from Hagler’s era. In fact, today’s Jr. Middleweights often walk around heavier than guys like Hagler and Monzon did in the ring. Lara, Trout, and Cotto were fighting guys at 154-160 who were the same size as Middleweights from the past. So yeah, it’s relevant.

"Cotto's legendary middleweight career was a joke!"
I never called it legendary—I said he was a good fighter when Canelo beat him. Cotto stopped Geale and Martinez (knee issues or not, Sergio was still the lineal champ). He was past his prime, sure, but you acting like he was completely washed when he fought Canelo is revisionist history.

"What a fighter does after a defeat tells you everything!"
This is a stupid argument. By your logic, if a guy declines after a loss, it means he was already washed before it? That’s not how boxing works. Losses take a lot out of fighters and many times they decline after losing for example Jacobs after Canelo and Golovkin. That doesn't mean they were finished before those fights.

"Hagler fought better fighters than GGG!"
He lost to Willie Monroe and Bobby Watts. His best pre-title win was probably Bennie Briscoe, who was past his prime by then. GGG cleaned out his division just like Hagler did and beat a stronger group of contenders than Hagler did before Hagler won the title. Afterwards Hagler competition obviously became much better

Nice pivot, though—you were originally talking about Hagler before he became champ, but now you're suddenly including his entire resume. Maybe pick a lane instead of shifting the argument every five seconds.

"Jacobs was never great!"
Jacobs beat Quillin, Truax, Derevyanchenko, and Mora twice. He also pushed both Golovkin and Canelo to the limit. The dude was a solid fighter, no matter how much you try to downplay him.

"Mora drew with a washed Mosley!"
Cool story, but that’s irrelevant because Jacobs literally knocked him down multiple times and stopped him. It was a stay-busy fight at best

"GGG and Canelo aren't on Hagler and Monzon's level!"
You can have that opinion, but it’s not some objective fact. GGG and Canelo both had long reigns, cleaned out contenders, and fought each other in an all-time great rivalry. If they fought in the 80s, people like you would be hyping them up as legends too.

 

GGG fans want him to be Hagler so bad it's hilarious.

 

He doesn't need to be he stand on his own merits

 

He stands a lot shorter than Hagler does on his, that's for sure.

 

Maybe but that's not the point of this discussion

 

Not maybe. Definitely.

And the entire post I replied to is literally talking about GGG and Hagler in terms of greatness.

 

The original topic was H2H

 

You made it the discussion. Wtf