Rocky Marciano > Marvelous Marvin Hagler P4P

Whether it was a perfect stylistic match up for Hearns is irrelevant it's still a great win and Hill was considered the best Light Heavyweight in the world.

As for the other Light Heavyweights around during that period ? the top 5 were Charles Williams, Dennis Andries who Hearns already beat, Jeff Harding, Frank Tate. There's no reason to think Hearns wouldn't come out with atleast a positive record vs that opposition.

Leonard was coming off wins over Hagler, Lalonde, and would go on to win 12-0 against the Duran that beat Barkley. No Leonard wasn't in his prime but neither was Hearns but regardless both men were still world class and it's still relevant performance for Hearns.

Hagler fought the fight of his life vs Hearns he'd never come out so aggressively with such intent that was a top 3 Middleweight of all time fighting with more emotion than he ever had before.

Hearns was beating Barkley to a pulp in their 1st encounter and on most nights would've stopped him he was literally on the verge of stopping Barkley but walked into a big shot out of nowhere.


Soft opposition before them ? Hearns after the Hagler loss fought the likes of James Shuler 22-0, Dennis Andries, Sugar Ray Leonard, Juan Roldan, James Kinchen, i wouldn't exactly call that soft opposition.

The issue is in your original post you've criticised the Hearns win yet Hearns's form before and after the Hagler fight was considerably better than Charles's form before and after the Marciano fights.

So if you're going to use the argument for the version of Charles who primarily fought Marciano to further your argument then we should also use that same logic for someone like Hearns.

Well isn't that kind of what you're doing with Charles aswell ? you're excusing Charles being past it and being 2-2 in his last 4 fights vs Marciano primarily because of your opinion of Charles's form in the Marciano fights.

So why can't we use the same logic for Duran's performance vs Hagler then ? not to mention Duran was actually coming off a big win vs Moore.

Well if we're using the size argument Hearns was 6'1 with a 78 inch reach compared to Hagler 5'8 with a 75 inch reach and yes Hagler is really 5'8.

Hagler is also a small Middleweight by the modern standards so he didn't really have any advantages over Hearns.

I rate beating Hearns over Walcott the manner of victory aswell which i think is more impressive.

Agreed that beating Charles, Moore, is better than Hagler's other top wins.

But i disagree that the contenders Hagler beat are replaceable it shows Hagler's resume has alot more depth and that is an argument in favour of Hagler.

Mugabi had beaten some notable names like Earl Hargrove, Frank Fletcher, Curtis Parker, the manner in which he destroyed them was impressive.

Yes he didn't have any real big stand out wins but the manner in which he destroyed some of these contenders was impressive.

Overall as someone pointed out Hagler is considered more highly ranked in their respected weightclasses and in regards to the eye test Hagler looks more impressive to me so i rate Hagler higher P4P.

 

All kidding aside, when considering that Marciano was 185 pound soaking wet, it's a pretty close call. Rocky's short stay at the top and the narrow spectrum of opponent type are his shortcomings but that is close to nitpicking. Rocky was a helluva LB4LB fighter.

 

I wouldn't rank Sahaprom or Canizales over Harada either. The distance between Sahaprom/Canizales' best wins/resume and Harada is far wider than Marciano and Hagler so any advantages they have in other fields doesn't close the gap. I don't really think of it in percentages but I guess top wins would be 60% in my ratings compared to your 80%? Not really sure.

I don't understand the reasoning here. This is all already a messy concept (ranking boxers) where you could very well be wrong in any aspect. For example I could very well be wrong that Langford has a better resume than Greb in the same way I could very well be wrong that Hagler is better than Marciano h2h.

Are you claiming you can't "very well be wrong" when it comes to resume?

It is a paradox that's why I asked it if that wasn't clear. This was back when I was under the impression that your rating was 100% resume based. I no longer see this as an objection because I now know that is not how you rank boxers. Also that pizza comparison doesn't work at all. You could make a great pizza without needing other great pizzas. There's a difference between creating and beating. For our hypothetical first great boxer he would need other great boxers to beat but our hypothetical first pizza maker could just make the first great pizzas. He doesn't need to beat other pizza makers because creation is difference from competition. He wouldn't need to win pizza tournaments or something similar he could just make great pizzas and have it historically documented by newspapers. I hope that made sense. I bet when you made your Marciano slop thread you didn't expect to be talking about hypothetical pizza makers.

I don't think it's necessarily awful to have Marciano above Hagler, I just don't personally see it with how I measure greatness. I really do think most of the disagreements about things like this are due to different definitions and criterias. I'm probably done with this thread because my life is getting more busy but kudos to you, you made a Marciano thread that wasn't completely awful. They'll be putting you in the boxing forum hall of fame for that.

 

It's actually quite easy to make an argument for Marciano because he delivered more decisive outcomes under harsher circumstances.. he one shot KOd legit top 10/15 ATGS.. he was getting hit with harder hitting 6oz gloves as opposed to Haglers 8.. he was outweighed in many of his contests ('HW' has bigger weight disparities).. PEDs were more prevalent by the 80s (Haglers era) .. Rocky was almost always at a height & reach disadvantage.. & he never lost or drew a fight.

 

You're putting far too much emphasis on Charles's fight with Harold Johnson, a fight he clearly lost. You're also conveniently ignoring his loss to Nino Valdes, who lost to nearly every other top contender he faced.

You also failed to mention that this is when Charles was in the early stages of ALS that would eventually take his life and his legs were starting to go hence his struggle in those fights. To compare a physically declining Charles to a healthy if somewhat past his best Roberto Duran is pretty flawed.

It's a bit reductionist to rate fighters based only on their top three wins. While you can argue Marciano's A level wins are better, Hagler's resume has far more depth and quality throughout. Marciano's record outside of Charles, Moore, and Walcott is pretty thin. Hagler, on the other hand, has a long list of wins against legitimate champions and top-10 contenders like Antuofermo, Minter, Sibson, Hamsho, and Mugabi fighters who are a clear step above Marciano's secondary opposition.

 

49-0 baby

 

Great thread, you’ve laid out a convincing argument.

 

I never said Hearns is necessarily above Moore but Hearns was in his prime vs Hagler and Hagler absolutely destroyed him in 3 rounds. So taking into account Hearns was in his prime and the manner of victory i would say the Hearns would be above most of Marciano's best wins.

You could make the argument that Hagler is only one who actually fought a great fighter in their prime being Hearns.

Barkley was a big puncher and anyone can be caught for example Charles got one shotted by Walcott by a single punch out of nowhere.

Well let's say Leonard was atleast on par with Charles's and i consider the 2nd fight to be a win a for Hearns as even Leonard admitted he thought Hearns won and pretty much everyone agrees Hearns got robbed.

Shuler was a top 2 ranked Middleweight if Charles had destroyed a top 2 ranked Heavyweight you would be using that to further your argument in this thread.

DeWitt, Kinchen, Medal, were solid contenders no not killers but certainly respectable opposition.

Add in Roldan and Andries to win the Light Heavyweight crown and that's a fairly good resume.

Well TBH i had Johnson a clear winner over Charles something like 7-3 and i certainly think Charles looked his age in that fight.

Charles also lost to Valdes pretty clearly aswell.

Duran destroying Moore prior to Hagler fight and winning Middleweight title after the Hagler fight makes it a better win for Hagler than what it appeared to be in 1983.

And i can counter that argument by saying Duran was more consistent than Charles who went 10-13 after the Marciano fights.

I don't think it was as close as what you're saying like i said i had it 7-3 for Johnson not to mention Charles had a considerable weight advantage.

Again that's your opinion but i don't share the same opinion for me Charles clearly lost.

Duran beating Barkley for the Middleweight title and beating Castro at 45 years old who had recently held a Middleweight title -----> Charles going 10-13.

Your examples aren't comparable though.

Hearns fought at Cruiserweight which is a whopping 3 weightclasses above what Hagler ever campaigned at.

Could Hagler move up to Light Heavyweight and have the same success as Hearns ? i don't think so.

Welterweight wasn't Hearns's best weight though he clearly peaked at 154 and in the modern era Hagler would also probably be campaigning at Jr Middleweight he wasn't a big Middleweight unlike someone like Monzon for example.

If you see it that way that's fine but i don't necessarily see it the same way.

For example someone like Foreman has better top flight wins that Holmes but i still have Holmes above Foreman based on having more depth to his resume.

Agreed that Marciano has overall better top flight wins but i still think Hagler's depth to his resume whilst having a considerable advantage in title wins 13 to 7. Add to the fact Hagler looks better in regards to eye test and also that he's ranked higher than Marciano in their respected weightclasses gives Hagler the edge for me.

But i'm not saying you don't have case but i do think there is enough of an argument either way for this not to be a slam dunk whoever you prefer Marciano or Hagler.

 

So then the comparison is between a great fighter whose health was beginning to fail (Charles) and another great fighter who was healthy but undisciplined and smaller than his opponent (Duran). A degenerative medical condition is a far greater impediment than a simple lack of discipline. The proof is in their careers, Charles faded significantly after the Marciano fights, most likely because of his medical condition, whereas Duran was still good enough years later to beat a prime Iran Barkley.

You're trying to have it both ways though. You say you don't have a rigid 'top-wins-only' criteria, but then immediately create a special exception for Marciano.

For that exception to be valid, the gap between Marciano's best wins and Hagler's would have to be astronomical. But is it really?

We're comparing a win over Archie Moore to a win over Thomas Hearns. Both are all-time greats but Hearns was in his prime Moore wasn't even if he was still very good. The gap there is debatable. However, the gap in resume depth is not debatable, it's a chasm. Hagler has a dozen wins over legitimate world champions and top-10 contenders. After his top three, Marciano's resume falls off a cliff.

You're essentially arguing that a debatable advantage in one or two fights is enough to completely erase an undeniable and massive advantage in overall resume quality which I would say is a very difficult position to defend.

I don't really see the point of bringing up Holman Williams here tbh. The point is that Hagler's B-level wins are far better than Marciano's. Since their A-level wins are comparable, Hagler's superior depth gives him the edge. You can't just disregard his victories over champions like Alan Minter and Vito Antuofermo, or top contenders like Mustafa Hamsho. Your argument hyper-focuses on one or two wins over all-time greats while ignoring the entire body of work that truly defines a fighter's resume.

 

I like how for once we both agree on something for pretty much similar reasons lol

 

A nice article. It would be more convincing if:

Charles wasn't on a massive declining trajectory, and doing so as a guy undersized for his division. If Marciano had, as a light heavy, beaten a light heavy Charles, then I would play up him beating an ATG. As it was he beat a guy on the decline, still reaching for the brass ring that was no longer within his grasp.

Walcott was anything more than a lucky old journeyman who was a placeholder champ, himself looking for a way out of the game after such a long career and his legs going.

The Moore/Hearns analogy is good except the Hearns actually went on to win a championship in his respective division, and in divisions above. Moore retreated back below Marciano's division to rise to the top.

All in all, I think in the Pound for Pound sense that Hagler and Marciano are quite close.

 

If Hagler could get in very good shape at least 181 or 2 he would be very difficult opponent for Marciano who never fought anyone that fast. Hagler should have some pop left even against a heavier opponent and he would probably be less then an inch shorter and had a much longer reach. Rocky’s only chance is to over power and wear down Hagler but he would be going through a meat grinder to do it. I think Marvin tears up Rocky’s face so bad they have to stop it in middle rounds.