Hagler always called out welterweights, but when a bigger fighter called him out

Spinks is the kind of oponent that Marvin needed more of on his resume if he wanted to be ranked up there with Harry Greb.

 

:good

The problem is, Hagler was never going to beat Spinks there bye making it a moot point..

 

Cotto20 is back

 

Hagler actually wanted Spinks to come down and meet him.

 

Hagler wasn't a huge middleweight by any means, though. He was quite small-framed, but had muscles. He doesn't exactly look bigger than Leonard, and certainly not Hearns.
There was no established 168 division, so lots of those big guys were fighting at 160.
He called out big-name fighters who'd get him recognition and a big payday, and he simply wasn't a big enough middle to really beat a Michael Spinks - a fight that probably still wouldn't have netted him what fights with Hearns or Leonard did.
So, the criticism doesn't amount to much damage at all.

Of course he was no Harry Greb. But he was an all-time great.

 

I have no problem with Hagler fighting Welterweights, they were some of the best 147lbs that ever lived, but I don't see why Ray Leonard is subjected to criticism regarding their fight in '87. He had no business winning that fight, irrespective of how many rounds it went, how big the gloves were, or even if Hagler wasn't at his best. There was a clear favorite, and if we all went back in time we'd predict a stoppage victory in favor of Hagler. Give credit where it's due, I say.

 

I always find it ironic that Leonard (a natural 147lber) gets criticised for taking so long to go up and fight Hagler....yet Hagler gets no criticism for never going up in weight, whilst 2 of him more memorable wins are over a LW and a WW.

This is the main reason I rank him the lowest of the four kings (yes, lower than Hearns).

Hagler easily had the natural frame to move up, but I wouldn't give him much chance against Spinks.

 

Didn't Hagler fight above 160 in the amatuers though??

 

It's called double standards. :good

 

Juan Roldan was a huge middleweight. Fully Obelmajias was a giant. He moved up in weight. Hearns won pieces of the light heavyweight title twice. Hagler avoided big men? Please.

Hagler was a middleweight. He was 5'9" and solidly built at 160 lbs. He did not have the frame to move up to 175 lbs.

Monzon fought welterweights. Hopkins fought welterweights. Fullmer fought welterweights. Robinson fought welterweights.

This thread is garbage. It's a ridiculous attempt to create a controversy where none exists. It's ragging on Hagler 'cause he was the best and people want to take him down a peg. We're not buying it.

 

:good:good:good

There is double standards.

Duran had two careers one at leightweight and one north of leightweight. Leonard had 3/4 of a career. Duran took on Hagler in his prime were Leonard waited 'till he was past it. Duran moved up and took on one of the best WW and won. Leonard waited 'till Duran was out of shape to get his revenge. Leonard "won" the LHW belt at a lower weight. See the difference.

Hagler was an out and out middleweight, I've seen a photo of Marvin standing next to Oscar and Hopkins and he looked the smaller of all three. Leonard and hearns did not look out of place in the higher weights were Hagler would, had there been the SMW division back then Hagler could have moved up. Leonard won titles in a few divisions, Hagler did not and that's why he is ranker higher in a p4p sense, but not higher than Duran.

 

Your spin on things is brilliant. Leonard "waited" for Duran to be out of shape. Okay then. :good