Who's Greater: Holyfield or Hagler?

Marvin Hagler is top 35 all-time; Evander top 70.

 

Hagler dominated a division for seven years. Holyfield destroyed a weak division then moved up to Heavyweight, where although a two time champ, he was rarely considered the best fighter of his time.

 

Holyfield top 70! That is harsh. The greatest Cruiser of all time, beat Qwai, Buster, Bowe, Moorer, Lewis & Tyson and would have given any heayweight real trouble in his prime.

 

Hagler

 

:shock::shock::shock:

 

Holy for me. Would have reigned for a long time at cruiser, stepped up to heavy and won despite being considered by many to being too small. Come back from defeats to reestablish himself as a major player winning multiple titles. While Haglers resume looks good, apart from Hearns i dont really see any of the others, Antofermo, Sibson, Hamsho etc faring much better than being contenders in any other era. Mugabi while tough was really a jnr middle. A great fighter no doubt but there was a great light heavy era he could have experimented in, Hearns, Duran, Leonard and Benitez all moved up as far or more to establish their legacies

 

Hagler could have moved up but why when he had great competition in his own division?

Moving up doesnt really mean so much.Look at the time when Ray moved up and successfully dethroned Lalonde but failed miserably to Norris upon fighting at his more normal weight. It's who you face, not how much weight you can carry, that matters. Beating Norris at 154 would have meant a lot more than trouncing a piece of 168 pound meat.

Anyhow, Holyfield did have alot of tough comp but seemed to lose as often as he won. I really think Holy wasnt well suited for the heavyweights.

You could see he was in over his head with Bowe. He somehow adjust and beat him in the rematch, barely. But when it came down to it, Bowe showed that it was really he who was the man.

But still, it just seemed to me that he lost to every hot heavyweight that was young and on the way up, like Moorer or Bowe or Lewis.

Hagler of course was not only the middleweight champ but also the 80's p4p king and people forget this. This upward trend began in 1983, a little bit late I'll admit.

2 things: No one dared fight him at the time and 2) he set the bar higher than anyone else in the sport. By 1987 it was safe to come out and challenge as he was set to retire.

Bottom line: Hagler was much more consistent as champion and his performance level much higher; A+ vs the C+ perormances of Holyfield

 

Hagler is clearly a greater fighter for me. Just has more ability I think in a h2h sense. You can argue that Holyfield faced the tougher competition overall, but even if you accept that, you have to at least admit that Hagler wasn't far behind in that sense and was more consistent against his opposition than Evander who had good and bad days throughout much of his prime.

 

Holyfield.

Best Cruiserweight of all time and would have been on top of that division for many years if he wanted.

He moved up to Heavyweight in one of it's eras of all time and did considerably well.
His resume consists of
Dokes
Stewart 2X
Douglas
Foreman
Holmes
Bowe
Mercer
Tyson 2x
Moorer
Ruiz
Valuev robbery
Combined with the fact that he is a four time Champ that should be a five time Heavyweight champ.

 

Agreed,

I will also ad that Hagler's most notable fights were against men rising in weight to meet him, wheras Holyfield ROSE in weight himself to meet his best foes. Also, Challenging for alpha titles on multiple occasions well past the age of 40.

 

What, like Leonard, Duran and Hearns?





Both men were great bald warriors. The biggest difference is that if you opened Hagler's skull, you'd find a boxing glove, while Holyfield fought like he had a glove placed on his skull.