Prime GGG vs Sugar Ray Leonard (Hagler fight) MW

ya SRL came in at 162 for the CW fight with Hearns, Tommy was 164 .. going off memory here. But this time around Hearns was the stronger man in the ring. Not the case in their first fight as we know. GGG just might be too durable for SRL up in that weight range as crazy as that sounds. No doubt tho Ray is the much better boxer p4p and would have to be moving the whole fight in this one

 

Bernard Taylor was one of the greatest amateur boxers in the pros he wasn't nearly what he was in the amateur ranks.
Johnny Bumphus would be in the hall of fame if we went by amateur records as would Ronnie Shields but both while successful in the pros didn't even come close to what they achieved in the amateur ranks.
Marvin Hagler had almost SEVENTY PRO BOUTS.
GGG has what 47? Hagler has more knockouts on his pro record then GGG has total fights.

 

Greb had like 300 fights I guess that means he is six times better than Hagler

 

Haglers competition as a pro fighter was much better then GGGs at ANYTIME in both of their pro careers.
He fought and he defeated better boxers.
You cannot name 5 opponents of GGG that were considered as good as Haglers comp because they do NOT EXIST and everyone knows that.
One had to go through the Lions den on his quest for his title the other didn't.

 

Well your the one who pointed out how Hagler was "falling to pieces" at an age when GGG was not and I'm pointing well duh look at how many times Hagler fought then GGG did of course Haglers body is going to give out sooner he had many more pro fights then GGG did.

 

GGG had ~350 amateur fights which is nothing to sneeze at either.

 

Again amateur and pros are incredibly different why you don't get that I don't understand.

 

Kind of surprised at this poll.

The 1987 Hagler was considerably slower than his prime self, screwed around the first five rounds, and still managed on many people's score cards a draw or better. This is not the 1983 Hagler whose fights against Scypion and Sibson are among the finest middleweight performances we have on film.

Conversely, the prime of GGG was probably 2013-2015 when his foot speed and reflexes were slightly better than before their decline before the Canelo fights, although this was nowhere near as precipitous as Hagler's drop off from his prime. The prime GGG would cut the ring off better than Hagler did against Leonard.

I don't think SRL gets knocked out (especially with that circus tent of a ring he fought Hagler in), and I think he wins most of the early rounds. But I favor GGG to.close strong and get a points win here (assuming objective scoring).

 

I'm glad you’ve finally narrowed your argument down to a single point—that Hagler’s resume is better at every stage. Now, let’s actually break that down.

Pre-title, Hagler wasn’t exactly steamrolling elite competition. He lost clearly to Willie Monroe, struggled with an old, past-it Briscoe, and when he finally got his title shot, he couldn’t even beat a mediocre champion in Vito Antuofermo. That’s not just about names on a record it’s about performances. You keep acting like he fought through a ‘lion’s den,’ but the truth is he didn’t even look great against the guys he was fighting. It wasn’t until later in his career, after winning the title, that he started annihilating opponents consistently and even then struggled with a past it Duran and one dimensional brawler Mugabi

Golovkin, on the other hand, wasn’t given the same level of recognition early on, but he was still dominating and stopping solid opponents like Ouma and Simon before he got his title. And once he did, he went on a destructive run, obliterating top contenders like Proksa, Macklin, and Geale, something Hagler didn’t do until later in his career.

And if we’re talking best wins, Canelo is arguably the best victory either man has. Hagler’s closest equivalent is Hearns, who was a phenomenal welterweight but never an all-time great middleweight. And let’s not ignore that Hagler struggled with a faded Duran and lost a close fight to Leonard, a guy way past his best and coming off a long layoff. Meanwhile, GGG fought a prime Canelo on even terms despite being past his best, arguably beating him twice.

So let’s be real, Hagler’s resume isn’t some untouchable masterpiece, and he didn’t even look particularly dominant against the level of competition he fought early on. If you’re going to argue that he had it ‘tougher,’ at least acknowledge that it wasn’t because he was taking on killers, it was because he wasn’t good enough yet to dominate the guys in front of him.

 

What an insane take. Briscoe lost to Hagler by a majority decision.

Kasim won two of his next TWELVE bouts after losing to GGG clearly he was on a downward slide but somehow according to you he was formidable. Add now to the fact that he was a jr.middleweight moving up to middleweight as well so tell me how Kasim was rated in the middleweight division?
Brscoe,Monroe,Hart, Watts, and Seals so go ahead and put out 5 names out that GGG fought on his way to the title that you think were equal.

Proska really? Macklin? Freaking GEALE? Those are ELITE contenders?????? Hamsho, Sibson, Mugabi, Hearns, Duran, Roldan- whose opponents look better?
You mean the same Duran that went ON TO win a middleweight title YEARS LATTER? That Duran? The Duran that was coming off the destruction of Moore and Pipino that entered the ring vs Hagler?
Do you really see PROSKA,MACKLIN, or GEAL being better then that DURAN?????
Canelo is not a top ten middleweight I hate to break that to you. That is absolutely sad that he is the best opponent- in your opinion- that GGG met and even sadder that GGG couldn't even manage to BEAT HIM ONCE.

 

Having a close fight against an old Briscoe isn’t exactly a great look for Hagler. It doesn’t scream dominance when you’re struggling with past-their-prime contenders on your way up. The difference with Golovkin? He didn’t just scrape by against smaller, aging fighters he demolished them. Meanwhile, Hagler racked up multiple losses before finally getting his shot and then fumbled it against a mediocre champ.

So now you’ve shifted from saying Hagler’s entire résumé is better to just his pre-title run? Pick a lane. The reality is, Golovkin was a dominant, decorated amateur who didn’t need to fight 50 guys before getting a title shot. Meanwhile, Hagler, on the same career trajectory, was struggling against faded contenders and fighters who weren’t even champions.

And let’s talk about Duran. The same Duran who lost to Laing before fighting Hagler. The same Duran who had never fought at middleweight before facing Hagler. The same Duran who got absolutely obliterated by Hearns right after (you know, showing Hagler how it’s done). But instead of acknowledging that, you conveniently skip six years ahead to his win over Barkley, as if that somehow changes what happened immediately after he fought Hagler. Funny how selective your memory gets when it suits your argument.

You keep acting like Golovkin’s competition was weak, but let’s actually compare. How exactly are guys like Mustafa Hamsho, Tony Sibson, and Juan Roldan significantly better than Martin Murray, David Lemieux, and Daniel Geale? Hamsho was a tough but limited brawler—basically a worse version of Murray. Sibson was a solid European-level fighter, no better than Macklin or Geale. Roldan was an unorthodox slugger with power but lacked skill, Golovkin fought plenty of guys like that and steamrolled them. You can keep throwing out names like they automatically mean something, but when you actually break it down, Hagler’s opposition wasn’t vastly superior.

And then we get to Canelo, where your entire argument collapses. You’re seriously trying to argue that Canelo wasn’t a top 10 middleweight? That’s absolute nonsense. Canelo was the lineal middleweight champion after beating Miguel Cotto. He then beat Daniel Jacobs to unify titles. If you’re going to discredit Canelo at middleweight, then you’d have to apply the same logic to Duran and Hearns—both were smaller fighters moving up, and neither had as much sustained success at middleweight as Canelo did. Duran only really beat Barkley and lost to every other decent middleweight he faced. Hearns won a WBC belt, then got knocked out by Barkley. But when it’s Hagler, you act like that doesn’t matter.

Maybe try being consistent in how you evaluate fighters. Until then, all you’re doing is contradicting yourself over and over.

 

GGG wasn't exactly facing elite competition for most of his career. The fact that some of the fighters GGG beat were ranked as highly as they were is more of a testament to the era's poor quality than GGG being a H2H monster. And most of them weren't ranked highly at all

The first ring rated fighter he faced was in 2012, despite already owning a bogus interim regular WBA belt for the past 2 years. And it was vs the #10 rated Proksa, a Euro level guy whose only notable win is a retiring Sylvester on a lucky cut

After that it was MW's GOAT punching bag, the unranked Gabe Rosado. Then the unranked Ishida, then the decent #6 Macklin, whose only notable career feat is a close fight with Sturm. After that, the #10 rated Stevens who was ranked for all of 5 minutes It wasn't until his 30th fight that he beat a top 5 Middleweight in the #3 rated Geale. A man with like, 2.5 good wins in Sturm, Sylvester and an old Mundine (whom he is 1-1 against, losing to a younger Mundine 4 years prior). Good win, but that's not what you call an elite fighter.

Then it was the declining #8 rated Rubio (Also lost to Chavez jr, who sucks), who retired after one more loss right after GGG. Then it was the somehow #6 rated Murray, with the last notable fight in his career being his draw with Sturm 4 years prior. Oh, and his best win is Gabe Rosado.

Monroe Jr was unranked. Lemieux was rated 4th, his best wins are the decent Hassan, the padestrian Stevens and journeyman Rosado. He also suffered a KO loss to Rubio 4 years prior. Not a bad win, but there's no universe where he should be called elite by anyone, and would not achieve a top 5 ranking in any previous era. Wade was unranked, and are we really gonna **** on Hagler for fighting a future LHW champion in Hearns but not GGG for Brook ?

It's until we reach Jacobs that we find an elite fighter, and barely at that if we're being honest and stop pitying GGG. Beating Mora twice doesn't say much, as Mora wasn't really a player above 154 (only having one semi notable win against Proska), but he beat him in impressive fashion. Taux was meh, but it's a solid win mostly due to the size disadvantage he was in. Quillin was an ok fighter, the method of defeat vastly elavates the status of the win. His only really good win in terms of opponent, the one that just puts him into the elite class with an asterisk, is against Derevyachenko (whom he barely beat).

Solid opponents like Ouma and Simon, and top contenders like Proksa ? You don't mention ****ing Ouma when you try to argue that Hagler didn't fight a lion's den but GGG did

Buddy, Ouma has almost as many losses as he has wins, and one of them is to ****ing Rosado. Simon was never ranked in his life and either got schooled or stopped by anyone who was. And lol at the 10th rated Proksa being a top contender.

Briscoe was the 4th ring rated MW when Hagler beat him in 8-2 fashion in 2/3 cards. The only "struggle" he had against Briscoe was a cut that he tried to prevent from worsening by fighting a defensive fight. Mike Colbert was the 2nd ranked MW contender, and Hagler stopped him by hunting him down and breaking his jaw. The Monroe loss is considered by some to be Hagler's singular real loss in his entire career (depending on how they view the Leonard bout), and he won that series 2-1, the first win by a late round KO, the rubber match by a devastating 2nd round KO.

Not to mention that Hagler won the Antuofermo bout more clearly than GGG did either Canelo fights or the Derevyachenko fight. Your bad faith regarding Hagler is evident when you try to excuse both Canelo fights as arguable GGG victories (The second one has a case for being a genuine Canelo win, certainly a good one for a draw, using it in discource while pretending it's an actual GGG win is ridiculous), while claiming Hagler couldn't even beat Vito, when everyone and their mothers agree to it being a 8-4 type of fight for Hagler.

As if the version of Duran that fought Hagler doesn't have the tools to give GGG similar fits, and would only come up short exclusively just due to him not being a natural MW.

Also, Canelo is not the greatest victory either man has. Hearns is. The Canelo wins are unnoficial, and while GGG has an argument for claiming the first one as a win on his ledger, that is not the case for the second one. You can say Canelo is the better win specifically at MW divisional rankings, if you really pity GGG and give him the first Canelo win. But Hearns is far and away the greater victory when it comes to overall legacy and greatness.

 

This is the usual Classic warped viewpoint.

Thread: "Holmes Ali vs the Brewster that beat Wlad"
Classis "OMG Ali is the GOAT he will murder Brewster, spite thread!"

 

For context since you're just jumping in, the original topic was H2H between Golovkin vs Past his best middleweight Leonard which then became a debate about how Hagler's pretitle competition were better fighters them GGG and then became an overall resume debate between GGG and Hagler but fine I'll bite since this is being brought up:

Alright, let’s unpack this. You’re acting like Golovkin’s résumé is some kind of indictment of his greatness because his era wasn’t stacked with legends. Newsflash: neither was Hagler’s for most of his run. The 1980s middleweight division wasn’t exactly overflowing with all-time greats outside a few big names, most of whom Hagler didn’t even fight until later. So if we’re dunking on GGG for his competition, let’s not pretend Hagler was facing a murderer’s row every night on his way up either.

You cherry-pick Golovkin’s early title defenses like Proksa, Rosado, and Ishida to say they’re weak, but what’s your baseline? Hagler’s early defenses after winning the title in 1980 were against Fulgencio Obelmejias (a Venezuelan champ with no real international success) and Vito Antuofermo again (who was past his best at that point). Are we really calling those “elite”? Proksa was ranked #10 by Ring, sure, but he was a European titleholder—same level as guys like Tony Sibson, who Hagler beat later. Rosado and Ishida weren’t ranked, but they’re durable gatekeepers, not unlike Hagler’s Bobby Watts or Willie Monroe, both of whom beat Hagler before he avenged his loss. GGG didn’t lose to his gatekeepers; he steamrolled them something Hagler failed to do.

Then you get to Macklin, Stevens, and Geale. Macklin at #6 had a close fight with Sturm that he arguably should have won, same Sturm who was a top middleweight for years. Stevens at #10 was a knockout artist coming off a hot streak. Geale at #3 had beaten Sturm and Sylvester, two legit world champs, and Mundine, even if old, was still a name. You’re dismissing Geale as “not elite” with “2.5 good wins,” but that’s more wins than Mustafa Hamsho ever sniffed, and Hagler’s getting credit for beating him twice. Geale’s a better win than you’re letting on, and GGG flattened him in three.

Rubio, Murray, Lemieux, you keep calling them “declining” or “not elite,” but let’s check the tape. Rubio was #8, a former title challenger, and GGG crushed him in two. Murray was #6, went the distance with Sturm and Martinez two fights that he arguably won, and lasted 11 rounds with GGG being the only fighter who ever stopped him, pretty impressive win that you downplay for no reason. Lemieux at #4 was an IBF champ with a knockout streak; his wins over N’Dam and Stevens aren’t chump change. You’re acting like these guys are bums because they don’t fit your narrative, but they’re on par with Hagler’s Juan Roldans and Tony Sibsons, solid contenders, not greats.

And then you bring up Hearns like it’s some ultimate trump card. Fine, Hagler smashing a welterweight-turned-154 champ moving up to 160 is a hell of a win, no one’s denying that. But don’t act like GGG fighting Brook is some cheap imitation. Brook was an undefeated IBF welterweight champ, a skilled fighter with power, and GGG crushed him in five rounds. You want to nitpick that as a ‘smaller guy’ win? Then let’s talk Hagler’s Duran fight, coming off a loss to Kirkland Laing, no middleweight experience, and Hagler still couldn’t finish him in 15 rounds. If we’re docking GGG for Brook’s size, Hagler’s Duran win takes a hit too. Funny how your standards shift when it’s your guy.

Jacobs is where you finally admit GGG faced someone “elite,” but you slap an asterisk on it like it’s charity. Jacobs beat Quillin (a former champ), Derevyachenko (a top contender GGG also beat), and gave Golovkin his toughest fight. That’s a damn good win, asterisk or not, and it’s at least as impressive as Hagler’s win over a middleweight Duran.

Your whole argument hinges on “the era was weak,” but you’re ignoring that GGG cleaned out his division while Hagler had lost twice before being able to do the same. Hagler’s pre-title run had losses to Monroe and Watts, close calls with Briscoe and Antuofermo, GGG never stumbled like that. If you want to nitpick rankings and “eliteness,” fine, but Hagler’s résumé isn’t so far ahead that you can act like GGG’s is trash by comparison. Point is Golovkin dominated his time like Hagler did his, and neither faced a gauntlet of ATGs every fight.

 

It’s hilarious how you jump from discrediting Golovkin’s competition to overrating Hagler’s. You act like Proksa being rated #10 means he wasn’t a real contender, yet Briscoe being rated #4 somehow makes him an elite win. Where’s the consistency? Proksa was a rising European champion who had dominated Sylvester, a solid former champ. Meanwhile, Briscoe had 16 losses going into the Hagler fight and hadn’t beaten a good opponent in years. If you’re going to mock Proksa as a "Euro-level guy," then let’s not pretend Briscoe was some world-beater either.

You bring up Ouma’s losses but ignore that Briscoe had a losing record against top opposition. He lost to Monzon twice, Valdez twice, Rodrigo Valdez’s brother, and even Luis Vinales, a journeyman. Monroe beat Hagler clearly once before getting stopped later, but that’s not some badge of honor for Hagler, it just means he lost and had to redeem himself. Golovkin, on the other hand, never needed to rematch anyone in his prime because he dominated outright.

And let’s talk about this "lion’s den" nonsense. You hype up Mike Colbert like he was some elite win, but most fans today wouldn’t even know who he was. He was a temporary #2 contender in an era with weak depth. Are you seriously trying to say he was a better win than someone like Daniel Jacobs?

Then there’s Antuofermo. Tough guy, sure, but he wasn’t anything special. He barely scraped by Hugo Corro to win the title and then immediately drew with Hagler. In the match against Minter, he lost a close split decision, and then in the rematch, he got stopped. If you’re going to downplay Golovkin’s close fights, then don’t act like Hagler separating himself from Vito in the rematch erases the first fight’s struggle.

At the end of the day, you’re just picking and choosing. You hype up Hagler’s ranked wins but dismiss Golovkin’s. You excuse Hagler’s close fights and struggles but nitpick Golovkin’s. You downplay Golovkin’s best wins while overrating Hagler’s. If you want to have a real discussion, at least be consistent.

Duran having "the tools" to trouble Golovkin is just speculation. The reality is, Duran had never fought at middleweight before facing Hagler, and he went on to get absolutely demolished by Hearns in his next fight. The fact that Hagler let a career lightweight go the distance while Hearns sparked him out in two rounds tells you everything you need to know. If we’re going to assume fantasy matchups, then let’s be real Duran only went the distance against Hagler because Hagler decided to box him instead of walking him down. Against a relentless power-puncher like Golovkin, who would put him under sustained pressure with a granite chin and elite ability to cut off the ring? He’s getting stopped.


Now we’re back to the Canelo vs. Hearns debate. If you want to argue that Hearns was the greater fighter in an all-time sense, I won’t dispute that, but as a middleweight? Canelo has the edge. He defeated Cotto for the lineal title, fought Golovkin twice in thrilling, high-stakes battles, and outpointed Jacobs in a unification. Hearns, on the other hand, won a middleweight title but lost it almost immediately by knockout to Barkley. So, if we’re talking about accomplishments at 160, Canelo did more than Hearns ever did at that weight.

At the end of the day, if you want to argue that Hagler edges Golovkin resume-wise, that’s fine, it’s a reasonable take. But don’t sit here and act like Golovkin fought in some barren wasteland while Hagler ran through a murderer’s row. If you actually break down their opponents at middleweight, it’s a much closer debate than you or many people on these forums want to admit.