I find it hard to split HAGLER & ARGUELLO !

My Top 100 P4P is list is completely post-war, and does not take into account 'weight jumping', which I think clouds a lot of fans' judgement these days.

One thing; dominance at a single weight is just as creditable as beating several decent fighters at different weights only a few lbs apart.

Now, I have Arguello a little bit higher, and this is why; I think he is a lock for no.1 130lber ever (some people have him two to Floyd, but there resumes there are nigh on incomparable IMO) and I think he has a longer list of 'names' on his resume.

Now this is why Hagler is not very far behind AT ALL.

He dominated MW throughout the 80's, and is a lock for a lot of people's best post-war 160lber (although in a lot of peoples eyes Monzon or Robinson are no.1 and I have no beef with that whatsoever) and also has a stellar list of 'names'. He was also a fantastic boxer-puncher like Alexis, had brilliant punch resistance, and could crack with either fist.

However;

Arguello for me has the best punching technique of all time. This MUST be a defining factor when you're talking about who is the better fighter. First, the names. Then, HOW did they do it.

There is ONE FACTOR I think COULD push Marv ahead (and why I would have no trouble with anyone rating Hagler higher) He didn't really show any weaknesses. Sometimes he fought to the strength of his opponent (for example Duran, I always thought Hagler showed him too much respect and probably could've destroyed him, but Roberto fought a good fight too) and made a famous odd decision (Leonard stance change) that may have cost him his truly defining fight (neither were in their prime however) but his losses (bar Leonard) were all avenged. Also, he didn't show the kind of glaring weakness Arguello has (to movers) and is hard to pick against in a H2H matchup.

Maybe 'overall ability' is a better choice of words than H2H (I certainly don't rank based on 'well they are pretty close but I think this guy would beat this guy so he will go above him)

So, I have Arguello at no.10 in my post-war top 100 P4P (which after it gets to 35 is a little hazy and I'm doubtful it will ever be 'finished' :good) and Hagler at 11. Literally that close.

 

You will find it hard to find ONE regular poster on the Classic Forum that would not deem Jones unbeatable H2H 'on his best day'. That's a given. He sometimes gets pushed aside against Hagler and Monzon at MW, and against Spinks/Foster/Charles at LHW, but there's certainly no shame in that.

Considering his not-substantial resume (considering the sheer talent he possesed) I think he is rated just fine. Very high when talking of Post-War fighters, and probably still Top 100 in a list that includes the likes of Greb, Langford, Fitzsimmons, Tunney etc etc etc etc etc

There's no shame in that:good

 

Arguello clearly for me.

Honestly, I don't see much of a case for Hagler. Arguello was basically just as dominant and impressive as Hagler, but across multiple weight classes.

 

To be fair though, Arguello also has a FANTASTIC array of scalps on his resume. One of the BEST post-war resumes IMO.

 

there even for me i dont care about lists these days

 

I haven't really finished my education on Arguello or partically started it on Hagler, but as things stand, I rate Arguello higher.

Hagler dominated at Middleweight during his prime, whereas Arguello dominated three divisions. When ability comes in to it, perhaps Hagler was the better overall package, but Arguello possess superior technique in my opinion. I wouldn't rate any other fighter in history to have displayed better punching technique than Alexis.

 

I would put Arguello higher in terms of achievement but it is close

 

To say that raises the spector that you are on drugs.

Alexis was better technically by a mile!! Foot work, combinations, balance, and pure boxing ablility...... and he was not a foot in the bucket one dimensional plodding southpaw. It is no contest as to who was the better fighter.

Had they been the same weight, Alexis would have kicked the **** out of Hagler.:good

 

wrong

They are very close in everything, and at the same time different. If that makes sense.

2 of my favorite boxers of all time.

To call Hagler a plodder is to not know Hagler overall. The same can be said of Alexis also, in those most basic of terms. he was a stand up fighter in the classic sense.

They were different yet the same. Nuances

 

This "Hagler was a plodder/brawler" myth needs to die.

 

agree

 

I like it how methodical and well rounded can be spun around into statements like that.

Everyone has their bias..but thats just taking the ****.

 

it's not even a myth becuz only one person saying it. rinsider just saw marvins last 2 fights