Prime GGG vs Sugar Ray Leonard (Hagler fight) MW

Lol if only had Hagler thought of just simply stopping Duran. Like it's that easy.

 

Hearns made it look easy

 

Yeah, GGG was an awesome amateur.

Obviously not in a greatness sense, as it's apples to oranges, but would you compare GGGs time as an amateur to Hagler's time in Philly? Like in terms of how it helped them develop?

 

I think it is broadly similar.

Hagler had fewer, but harder fights in the pro ring, which doubtless taught him a lot. Golovkin had easier fights (headgear and less rounds) in the amateurs but a lot more of them and against a much more diverse field.

It is a matter of opinion which approach is "better" for seasoning a fighter. I think that you will learn more and faster in a real fight under pressure, but on the other hand having so many amateur bouts against so many different opponents made GGG an extremely well rounded fighter who understands what to do in any situation.

The downside is that a long amateur career = less prime time in the pro ranks. Imagine GGG with just 2 more "prime" years. The main problem with being an old fighter in my opinion is the loss of speed, and particularly so in the case of Golovkin.

 

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

Hagler was told to sink or swim, and he chose to walk on water, but GGG was molded over a decade plus into what he was, against the best in the world (which is impressive in the sense of what Glaukos was talking about in the other thread).

I actually think the modern amateur system is the best way to improve. It isn't limited by the peaking methods of Pro's S&C training, and like you say, gets you massive activity against . I'd say the activity and diversity of the old pro system was better, but it definitely took it's toll on the body more. The amateur system keeps fatigue, and overall damage by it's nature; and the tournament style/never seeing your opponent before is awesome for skill progression, too.

I agree, speed really is the first thing to go. I was thinking about the match-up at worst yesterday and watched a few fights to refresh my memory, and the difference in speed between GGG against Canelo and Ishida is clear. It's not massive, though, but it's very obviously there; I think the problem is that GGGs timing of shots (not counters) has gotten worse over time though, and that's why he generally takes a shot as he lands one; and why Canelo's head-movement looked unbelievable against GGG (although a lot of that is just that Canelo's head-movement is unbelievable). I watched Hagler-Leonard too and compared him to some highlights of the Roldan fight, and Hagler was overall quite similar, but with a noticeable but not massive dip in the speed of his shots and feet.

 

I tend to see Leonard winning this more often than not. Now GGGs career is all said and done, it can scrutinised without the problem of him adding to his legacy and making us all look stupid or forcing to come off the fence and pick a side. GGG definitely has the tools to win, so its not like it'd be 100-0 for Leonard if they fought 100 times or anything. I mean, we are talking about a bigger guy who in this case would be prime against a smaller Welterweight. Leonard is by no means a default pick imo.

Despite his good footwork and great jab, I think GGG would generally struggle against the best movers in the divisions history. He has a leaky defence, his timing isn't on the same level as other ATGs and his overall offence is quite unimaginative and basic. It's obviously destructive and well schooled, but it's not Duran or Napoles-esque in terms of skill/sophistication. He has a full arsenal of shots, the obvious physical attributes which made him the feared monster he is, but he doesn't tick all of the boxes you need to beat Leonard. He doesn't like exchanging in the centre ring; doesn't attack the body enough against moving targets, rarely shows his best offensive capabilities until he has a guy on the ropes, and he has a tendancy to wait on guys to be finished working before capitalising. Canelo used all of this to his advantage in their first fight and regardless of anyone's thoughts on the cards themselves, Canelo did excellent against GGG in that one.

I basically see Leonard out slicking GGG for portions of rounds and using his movement to stay away and using short quick combos to keep GGG occupied until he can escape. In the spaces where Leonard isn't doing that; GGG tags him with the jab and probably hurts him on occasion. But overall I think the speed, skills, intelligence and intangibles of Leonard take this one. But as I say, GGGs overall style and physical presence are serious threats, and would lead to dozens of stoppages if they fought 100 times.

And just to address two more things I thought about which in regards to the match-up. First thing, is GGG's in-ring weights. I've only found a few sources, but he seems to be 170 on fight night; or at least for Lemieux, Monroe Jr. and Canelo. That's barely bigger than Hagler. Like, a few lbs at most and those lbs would be nothing but water, glycogen and whatever they'd eaten that day. This to me, makes sense. GGG was an amateur monster and had to compete in tournaments. It makes sense to me that he'd never really be too big for his division as when he was younger he'd have to remain at 75kg of lower for a number of days at a time. There was talk of him moving down (although I think that was just for Floyd money), and in the Canelo fight he gets referred to as sort of in the middle of 154 & 160.

Secondly, is Hagler's condition in the Leonard fight. Its up for debate on how far past it Hagler was, but I think he was definitely worse against Mugabi than he was Against Leonard. He had slowed down, but not massively. His timing was still excellent, and his stamina (he still threw 800+, power and overall physical presence were definitely all still there. In terms of Ring IQ, I'm not gonna sit here and say Hagler's bad start against Leonard is actually a good thing, but I will say that I don't think it's hugely important to the GGG fight. I imagine people won't like hearing that GGG let that first fight slip away a little too. It's the 118-110 card, and yeah that's fair coz that was bull**** but I think we're far enough past it to see that fight in a more reasonable way; GGG let a lot of those earliest rounds slip in a manner very similar to how Hagler did. In terms of failing to establish shots to the body, ineffectively pressuring and just not working enough. Also, fighting as an orthodox pressure fighter is exactly how GGG fights and Leonard showed it didn't bother him; at least early on.

 

If you watch GGG's amateur footage you will see just how fast he was. Definitely above average, whereas as a pro he mostly had average to below average speed. I'd argue his timing is pretty good because he managed to do a lot with the speed that he had. Golovkin has always been good at setting up the shot that he wants. Textbook fighter.

 

I feel your analysis would be an acceptable argument in terms of a prime Leonard.

The version of Leonard that faced Hagler was not prime (neither were tbf) and in my opinion Golovkin's systematic approach coupled with Leonard's so-so power, would see SRL cornered and forced to exchange. Only one winner there.

 

You keep acting like Proska was this legendary contender that nobody wanted to fight when it isn't true. Or Kasim was this up and coming middleweight when he did nothing in that division and lost more fights then he won.
These two are not even remotely close to those Philly Middleweights and Briscoe that fought Hagler would have literally massacred both.
Briscoe was not in his prime when he met Hagler but he could still be a handful for most pros as evidenced by some of his wins after Hagler.
Carlos Monzon is considered by many to be the greatest middleweight champion of all time and Briscoe not only dropped him but pushed him to his limit. Proska and Ouma would are not those type to give Monzon ANY problems let alone be in the ring with a Monzon.
Look at some of the boxers Briscoe fought and then try to compare Proska and Oumas record at middleweight- two completely different boxers and its not even close.
Boxing had so much competition back then it was insane and no that is not GGG's fault but GGGs era was nowhere close to what Haglers era was in terms of talent in that division.
Trying to say Proska was even near a fighter like Briscoe was is just denial.

 

Prime Briscoe might have been a strong, tough contender, someone who could even give a great like Monzon a hard fight, but by the time he fought Hagler, he wasn’t the same fighter. And even then, Hagler didn’t exactly dominate him. Meanwhile, Proksa and Ouma might not have been as historically significant, but they were still solid contenders in their era, and Golovkin absolutely dismantled them. That’s the key difference, Hagler struggled against fighters who weren’t on his level before he won the title, while Golovkin annihilated everyone who wasn’t on his level from the start.

You keep holding Golovkin’s era against him, but you’re ignoring the fact that dominance matters. Beating guys after going life-and-death with them isn’t the same as wiping out your competition without breaking a sweat. The reality is, if Golovkin had struggled with someone like a faded Briscoe, you’d be using it as proof that he wasn’t that great. But when Hagler does it, suddenly it doesn’t count against him?

If you want to argue about depth of competition, fine, but don’t ignore the fact that Golovkin did exactly what great champions are supposed to do, he crushed the fighters who weren’t on his level. Hagler, before winning the title, couldn’t always do that. That’s not an insult to Hagler, but it does raise some questions about him before he really locked in and found his stride when he won the championship

 

He didn't crush Jacobs or Canelo did he? It isn't GGG's fault that his era was weak but it has to be taken into account.
I mean you have Hagler a second year pro going against an unbeaten Olympic Medalist is better then any win on GGGs way up its that simple.
Kasim was good at jr.middle but when he lost his title he was DONE- some of it was that bout and some of it was his discipline.
Look at his record. 2008 two fights which he lost one.
2009 one fight in which he lost. 2010 two fights lost one.
And then we come to GGG in 2011. How exactly does a fighter going 2-3 scream title shot?
Your trying to act like this is Ouma from 2001 when he was not even close to that. This is ten years latter with a bunch of inactive stretches and losses.

 

You really can't explain it to them even when you show them the facts.
Hagler has HOF boxers on his resume multiple times. GGG has what one?

 

He hurt him pretty badly but he didn't drop him.

 

Golovkin fought those guys at an age where Hagler was already retired. Jacobs played rehydration games to his own advantage. Furthermore both were really good fighters, and in Canelo's case an ATG fighter. That's like saying Hagler didn't crush Duran, hum hum weak era.

 

Golovkin didn’t crush Jacobs or Canelo, but you’re moving the goalposts here, those were elite-level opponents. We’re talking about how he handled the non-elite fighters on his way up compared to how Hagler did. Against guys who weren’t at his level, Golovkin steamrolled them. Hagler, before winning the title, didn’t always do that. That’s the difference.

And since you’re bringing up early career wins, let’s not pretend Kevin Finnegan or a faded Briscoe were some monumental tests just because they were from a different era. You mention Hagler beating an unbeaten Olympic medalist like it’s the gold standard, but Golovkin was an Olympic silver medalist himself and ran through the contenders in his era without struggle. You’re giving Hagler extra credit for competition while ignoring the fact that he had rough fights against guys he was supposed to beat.

As for Ouma, yeah, he wasn’t in his prime, but it’s funny how that logic only seems to apply when it’s convenient. If Ouma was so washed up that he shouldn’t even count, then what do we say about Briscoe when Hagler fought him? You can’t write off Ouma because of inactivity and losses but then hype up Briscoe when he was also past his best. Either we apply the same standards across the board, or we admit there’s some cherry-picking going on.

Golovkin dominated the level of fighters that Hagler sometimes struggled with. That’s not a knock on Hagler’s greatness, but it does show the selective way you’re applying standards here.