Peak GGG Versus Peak Marvin Hagler

Sounds good, but they shifted to day before weigh ins right around the end of Hagler's career and nobody dropped down in weight. Day before was created because everyone was already cutting in the 80s.

 

So you in essence believe Triple G hit harder than Ray Seales, Eugene Hart, Bennie Briscoe, Alan Minter, Fully Obejimas, Tony Sibson, William Lee, Juan R
oldan, Thomas Hearns, and John Mugabi?
Personally my opinion he was an accumulation puncher, that basically broke his opponents down with multiple hard punches , or "heavy handed ".As opposed to being a pure ko puncher like some of the boxers I named.
Triple G would bring nothing to the table Hagler hadn't seen before.
And the way he fought was EXACTLY the style Hagler looked his absolute best against!
This fight would be more one sided than most would imagine.
Hagler from 1980- 85, would completely ruin Triple G, with his merciless counters from angles and stances he wouldn't comprehend. Hagler with in 10rds, with the ref stopping the slaughter.
The version of Hagler that beat Mugabi in 1986 would be more competitive for Triple G.
But I believe even in that stage of his career Hagler would be to much for him.
Again the way Triple G. Fought is what Hagler shined against.

 

He certainly hit as hard if not harder,than some you mentioned .
The thing is I think G was more robust than such as minter and Hearns, he'd still be there further in to the fight, throwing leather.
He'd be testing Marvin's chin for longer stretches than those guys did.

 

Easily

 

Golovkin would probably be a combination of the hardest hitting and most robust guy that Hagler ever faced.

Now, Hagler would have a significant speed edge, and he was very adaptable in fights. As somebody pointed out some of Golovkin's best power punches are slow looping hooks and overhands which, while devastating, are within the scope of an ATG like Hagler to avoid.

The equalizer in all this is Golovkin's footwork and jab. GGG has always been able to keep the pressure on and the fight at his preferred range because of his superlative footwork. I don't see Hagler being able to avoid engaging. Golovkin's jab is an ATG jab with both power and accuracy. It is the weapon which sets up his offense and I have no doubt that it would allow Golovkin to land punches consistently where his power punches might miss.

Anybody who thinks Hagler blows Golovkin away needs to rethink their analysis.

 

As others have said, it’d never happen as much as we like to think of the fight due to the different weigh ins.
That said Golovkins educated pressure was underrated in his prime, his footwork had shades of Duran at times, a slower bigger less athletically pleasing version but he cut off the ring in the same way when he was at his best

 

It would have made a ton of sense for a guy like Hagler, a pro for a decade or so by 1985, to suddenly change his way of doing things would it?

 

1. Hagler fought big middleweights like Hamsho and Roldan.
2. Golovkin fought some small middleweights like Brook and Vanes.

You didn’t think this through.

 

GGG was a normal sized MW, he came into the ring at around 170 on fight night. Only a ten pound gain. Fighters like Crawford, Spence, Tank, Haney drain down 30 or more pounds to make weight and pack it back on for the fight.

 

You didn't think this through, GGG also fought larger MWs like Jacobs, Wade, and quite a few others who competed at 168 and 175 to include Canelo. Hamsho was two inches shorter than Hagler and also fought at 160 leading up to his fights with Hagler. Roldan was also two inches shorter and fought at middle his entire career. Duran was a blown up lightweight and went 15 rounds with Hagler.

 

Hagler, Hagler, Hagler.. all day long.

 

Oh right, because GGG fought some larger middleweights, he must not not have fought the smaller ones.

Also, boxing isn’t made of height classes.

 

Another vote for Hagler. Both men are in my very favorite fighter list.

 

I have Hagler as the best of the Kings. Him beating Hearns is a great win but Hearns wasn't the captain of consistancy. I generally have later eras of WWs/MWs above the 80s. GGG didn't fight most of the guys that make one think that but fighting Canelo 3 times makes me more reliably put him at a higher level. I can not see GGG almost losing to Duran.

Hagler leaving MW(and boxing) at 32 right before that division had a golden generation is the biggest factor. Besides Canelo GGG wasn't really surpassed at MW fighting till 40 and could probably still be the champion to this day. Not that GGGs era of MW was a golden age but he ruled the whole time except for Canelo.

I feel theres time I'd have picked Hagler but the Kings luster has sorta worn of for me. Their fame is more based on giving fans iconic classics that don't happen that much today then being better. The reason the Kings fights were classics is they were balanced and thats not really helpful when being compared with other high end ATGs.

Hagler has a chance and he could win I just wouldn't pick him.

GGGs bigger and has a higher KO rate but I feel those aren't really that compelling cause Hearns is bigger.

 

Height and reach are a better indicators of size then weight because you can't change it(that much). The taller someone is the more weight they can carry. A short person putting on weight can win but they can't truly even the playing field by putting enough weight to weigh the same. Reach determines how far your punches have to travel.

It just wasn't practical to build a height based system for a bunch of reasons. Theres many more places to draw borders with weight.