greater Hagler or Hearns?

Personally I think Hagler was greater. I love Hearns's style and hes one of my favourite fighters to watch. But Hagler was a machine, so hard and broke Hearns up.

he also would have beaten Leanard in his prime, not after a 5 year lay out

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZHIo5ylQA8

The guy is well undeerated, was a machine

 

Hagler-much better record. Hearns-better opposition for sure and more daring in his challenges. Hagler-never even knocked down from what I remember. Hearns some terrific losses as well as more spectacular wins. Good point about Hagler going up-he would have been very tested by the top LHs of that time and I think would have lost to most of them-certainly qawi and spinks. I give the nod to hagler-wins are wins and he fought plenty of tough guys and a few HOFs and he won almost all of them. But it's still closer than the hagler demolition of Hearns was.

 

The dominant undisputed champion v.s. the multi divisionphenom. Both great without a shadow of a doubt. If they didnt fight each other i wouldve chosen hearns but since hagler beat him head to head gotta go with marvin on these one

 

I was just mentioning this on another board. I think Hearns was greater if you look his opposition and wins. He lost devastatingly to Hagler, which is what makes him rated under Marvin in most people's minds. But his opposition and the quality and his wins far surpasses Hagler. But if you lose to a guy in your prime, regardless of Marvin's natural weight then it does hurt you in a head to head rating. But on the question, I think Hearns was greater. He fought them all. Hagler ducked the light heavyweights because he knew his skills could not compete. Hearns took on all challenges. That should speak for itself.

 

At 160 it's Haglar of course.

P4P and career accomplishments are an entirely different matter.

 

That is exactly what the problem is . If they never fought Hearns did better with the guys Hagler fought. He pretty much outpointed Ray in 1989, He knocked out Duran. He stopped Roldan in 4. Geraldo in one. Then he beat Cueves and Benitez and Hill, guys Hagler did not beat. I think a big argument can be made that Hearns is greater.

 

160 pounds Hagler is greater, but all time my vote is for Hearns. His opposition was much higher than Marvin. As hard as it is for Marvin fan's to accept.

 

I know a valid argument can be made for hearns but so can ATgs which is pretty much a subjective list.Haglers loss to Leonard is disputed though.Why was rematch not given?

 

Leonard knew that he fought a rusty Hagler in the first fight who made a mistake in coming into the fight orthodox in the first two rounds. Hagler was not mentally great with Ray and he came in a little light. Ray psyched Marvin in the first fight and Marvin fought a boxers fight. In the rematch (which might have been held in 6 months), Marvin would have had the rust off of him and been motivated and probably more pumped up to knock Ray out. I still think Leonard should have fought him. He probably could have won, but it would have been a tougher fight for him than the first fight. The fight did not happen because Ray probably figured he beat him already, why ruin that by risking a loss vs. Marvin. Had Marvin been able to beat Ray in the rematch, it would have taken away much of the greatness of the first fight. Ray was not dumb. He knew he could rest on that win for years and years. He succeeded in beating Marvin, which his contemporaries Hearns and Duran could not.

 

As rusty as hagler maybe leonard was coming back from retirement, after a retina operation though. Yep ray shouldve given marvin the rematch he was lucky the internet wasnt invented yet:yep.

 

I always felt that Ray knew that if he beat Marvin he would never fight him again. He had all the things he needed to beat Marvin in 1987. Hearns fought a pumped up Marvin who was active in 1985. Hearns fought a much better Hagler. Much better.

 

I think Hearns had the greater wins though. Easily. Hagler had good wins but not the Hall of Fame wins of Hearns. The thing I give over Hagler is the longevity at one weight and not losing for years, but opposition goes to Hearns. Cueves had about 10 title defenses when Hearns knocked him out in 2. Hagler didn't win the title on his first try. Hearns beat the great Wilfred Benitez in 1982 when Wilfred only had one loss to Leonard. Hearns knocked out Duran in 2 when Duran was champ also, a half a year after Hagler went 15 with Duran. Hearns fought all sorts of contenders at middleweight and won the light heavyweight title 2 times, with one of those wins over undefeated titlist and 10 defenses Virgil Hill. That is more than just a trophy win, Hearns had the better opposition. Big time in my mind. And he fought until he was 41 years old and still won.

 

Hearns is my all time fave fighter but on my top 50 p4p I have Hagler at 15 and Hearns at 17.