Was Marvin Hagler Denied Greatness?

Hagler cemented his greatness long before the Leonard fight. I love watching his fights from the 70's up until around '83 (vs Hearns and Mugabi were great fights for different reasons). Despite his appearance, toughness, and physical strength, he was a tremendously fluid boxer showing beautiful combination punching and underrated movement. In my opinion, a win over Leonard maybe gains him a handful of spots ATG but he's in the 15-20 range anyway.

 

hagler in IMO is the most complete boxer and in my top 10 (some will disagree but dont as this is not what the threads about)

i felt hagler won that fight but he should still have greatness as he is in the top 2 in mostpeoples opinion middleweight

 

"In losing," you say, "he lost a lot of ground." What I am proposing is that had he gotten the decision in that fight, it wouldn't have made much difference because, as you say "many feel he was entitled to it, but just as many feel he wasn't." He fought a dumb fight. The fact that is in the books as "a loss" isn't so weighty considering that.

I disagree. The crux of the problem with Hagler for purists is less "he lost" and more "Leonard looked great and Hagler didn't" -you yourself use this fight as a prime example of Hagler's limitations in the strategy department. Would you not still criticize him on that score had the judges saw that fight Hagler's way?

Hagler didn't look good and had he got the W that night, we'd be talking about how he "barely got by a great but rusty welterweight." The odds against Leonard bolster this speculation.

Again, I think it may just as well been his "performance" as much as it was the "loss" per se that abolished that for many... at least for observers of the sport.

Hagler is ultimately responsible, sure, but you have to understand that he was more of a soldier than a virtuoso. Their were always 3 minds in Hagler. With Ali and Leonard, there was never more than 1.

Most everybody I spoke to felt the same way Hagler did! Which confirms that a "W" would not have been the catapult that you see because Hagler was anything but the monster he should have been in that bout. History says he controversially lost. Had he won that same fight, history would say he controversially won. Either way, that fight as it was hurt his legacy.

 

Of course Hagler would move up a few places & SRL down a few places if Hagler got that decision but that would be wrong because the right man won, Marvin should just be thankfull that he was given the gift of a SD loss rather than a UD otherwise his 22 year ***** wouldnt sound as convincing.

Leonard is top 10
Hagler is top 20

Surely neither can complain with that ranking ?

 

I rank him as the top MW of all time, and H2H he's a nightmare for most.

I think given the notoriety over Hagler-Leonard, boxing fans know that Hagler is no less of a MW great by losing the decision. I mean, losing to Ray Leonard is no crime, the man was awesome.

Taking on challenges like John Mugabi, unbeaten monster at the time, eating his best punches and knocking him out. Taking Tommy Hearns' rehabilitated and destructive right hand before taking him out (Tommy was by no means a 'blown-up' WW either, even if he was at times vulnerable) Going to London and smashing up Alan Minter, these are the kind of fights that a resume is built on, and why Hagler is so respected. I'm almost certain he avenged all of his losses except the Leonard fight, and as it is clear that it was, in his mind, down to Boxing politics that he never took the rematch, fans do not look upon Hagler as a 'ducker'.

Although I think it would've done his resume the World of good if he'd fought Mike McCallum.

If you look at Monzon, two of his greatest wins were against 'blown-up' WW's. It doesn't him any less of a fighter.

Hagler is great even though he 'lost' to Leonard, I think most fght fans would agree.

 

Do you mean that Hagler doesn't make your top 10 MW's or your top ten P4P?

 

Thats my take on it .Hagler is ,or should be in everyones top 5 at 160 ,imo.He was a great fighter period

 

Hagler was not denied greatness in his loss to Sugar. He was just never appreciated during his reign during his prime. Hagler would still be looked at as a guy like Monzon, and Hop. Middleweights who made their names beating men smaller than them... The thing is people forget that all 3 champions(Hop, Monzon & Hagler) beat very good middleweight champions and challengers who did not have the name of the Tito's, Hearns, Sugar's, Naples and Griffith's.

 

His 'greatness' was already established before this fight:huh. Had he not lost a controversial decision & been completely destroyed by Sugar Ray perhaps some would think a little differently or less of him but.....

 

I am more looking at it had he won a convincing decision per expected. Part of me also is thinking if the fight didn't even exist.

You have a point here, but you would agree he would have gained a bit? Remember, the average boxing fan is nothing like the seasoned vet of the Classic Forum. They see the "W" and not much else. The average Joe also isn't going to decipher the exact fight Hagler fought. Another point is that it would have been interesting to see how Leonard would have responded to different tactics. If anyone could have adjusted (especially fresh) it's him.

Yeah, i've probably covered this one above. My line of thinking is more so if he won well or didn't have the fight. Again i'll say tho the average Joe is different, look at the general forum in these matters. They don't look deeply on the whole at all.

I disagree. In the fight vs Benitez Leonard followed an incredibly well planned and intricate strategy absolutely to the tee. I do agree Hagler didn't do the thinking for himself anything to the extent of the other two tho.

Agreed.

Just as an exercise follow what my train of thought was. Tell me what you think either a convincing and solid win would have done for him or alternately retiring before the fight.

 

Hagler had already proved his greatness fighting all the best that came his way. So, to me, how he fared against Leonard didn't matter one way or the other, because at that point, Marvin was basically finished anyway.

 

Hagler's legacy was already set. Even if he Knocked out Leonard, there would have been little respect for Hagler. Critics would just say Hagler beat up a faded Welterweight. The decision which hurt Marvin was the first Antuofermo fight. But he avenged that fight with a vengance.

 

I'd probably abstain from spending any time thinking about what an opinionated ignoramus has to say. A related aside: American newspapers regularly conduct man-on-the-street polls about politics or consitutional law or what have you. It annoys me. Most Americans are ill-informed and slept through high school history so I always dismiss these results...the first question posed should be a test of knowledge. Same here. If Average Joe offered an opinion about boxing I'd first ask him who Charlie Burley was.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with... that post was an observation. Hagler and Leonard are opposite beasts. Leonard was both a pragmatist and a virtuoso as the situation called for it (although, again, the Norris loss bothers me). Hagler followed orders although he was anything but one-dimensional in his prime. Leonard adapted better.

You could be absolutely correct in your opinion that had Hagler steamrolled Leonard, it would have been the exclamation point he needed. You made me re-think my original opinion that it would have been considered a foregone conclusion anyway considering the rust and the smaller frame of Leonard.

Hagler could have used an exclamation point. Hearns was a great win, but I tend to think that if Hagler was really serious about chasing down Monzon's record as he claimed he was, he should have been a helluva lot more active. He didn't. He beat Hearns in April 85, fought Mugabi in November 1986 and then Leonard 5 months later. He knew, or should have known that the Hearns win should have been a catapult to greatness -not an excuse to rest on his laurels.

Hagler could have given someone like McCrory a shot in September of 85, or McCallum fresh off his JMW stoppage of Braxton. Then he could have had a big-money rematch with Hearns in March of 1986, and considering his deterioration but still hydrant-chin, finished up with Mugabi. Leonard? That was always a novelty fight. He wouldn't have needed Leonard then but he could have been smart and insisted on 15 rounds -take it or leave it. That would have been a more meaningful exclamation point...

Let's say that his career went as it did only he destroyed Leonard. Could that have sufficed for the [!]? To the dudes in the bar, sure. To us? We'd criticize it. It would have been preferable to what happened, that's for sure.

 

It was this

Maybe i misunderstand? I thought you were saying Leonard and Ali did it their way all the time. Well Leonard adopted and carried out the Dundee gameplan perfectly vs Benitez, but again i may have misunderstood?

Oh, i am not saying he would have gained much due to the odds and expectations. But the point stands that he lost quite a bit in defeat. He still stands on a very lofty perch, and deservedly so, but it would have been even loftier without the detriment of this match. Personally the sky would have been the limit in the eyes of the fans and experts IMO. I have no doubt at all. He'd be pushing for the 10 and would ride at least alongside Monzon and possibly higher.

 

No, I overstated it. Ali and Ray had their own mind and if they did follow Dundee's strategy, it was because they agreed that it was the best one. That's all.

Got it. I'd be inclined to agree, although, as said, I'd emphasize Hagler's performance that night more than what the books say.