how would marvin hagler fare against the murderers row of the 40s?

Imagine how bitter Hagler would have been if he was back in that situation.

They should have put Hagler in a time machine in 1986 taken him to 1940 and made him fight a 12 month season amongst that crowd and then transported him into the ring with Sugar Ray Leonard 1987.

 

Who knows we dont have many of them on tape, very little of Burley, later versions of Moore/Charles. Marshall/Williams/Booker we just cant see.

Either way he'd pick up losses as would any MW, just too much strength in depth there and they were all fighting each other multiple times

 

Hag would win a few, lose a few, but would probably establish some type of superiority eventually.

 

Black middleweights of the '40s.

Overrated.

Williams, Burley, those two were brilliant. Lloyd Marshall was very good, Eddie Booker was arguably on his level.

Shorty Hogue was never ****ing rated, nor his smaller brother, 'Big Boy.'

Cocoa Kid was very good as well, but he was a welterweight.

Bert Lytell, Tiger Wade, Jack Chase - they were pretty good, but not exactly uncrowned champions.

If Marvin Hagler lived in that era of short notice fights on the road and he fought each of these fighters twice, I reckon he'd end up with a record of 15-3-2. Or something. He was a special talent.

 

Artie Towne fought two fights in two nights, in March 1950 ,winning both.

Hagler was special , but he would have had his work cut out fighting the middles of the late 50's and early 60's, let alone the black 160 pounders of the 40's.
I just watched Giardello v Troy,and Lausse v Greaves, Fullmer v Savage.

These were great slam bang fights,Marciano did the commentary for the Giardello fight ,very capable and astute reader of a fight Rocky.

 

He would have been one of them.

 

I don't think there was much of a difference in class between the 4 of them at all. Booker beat Moore more conclusively than even Burley did just 3 months prior, while himself at the end of his career due to troubles seeing correctly out of one of his eyes.

That's a shame, considering Shorty beat Moore twice, Marshall, Booker, etc. I think it's clear he was an exceptional fighter, moreso than his brother at least.

I figure he'd have picked up a couple more losses, or at least draws. I don't rate the Philly Murderer's Row nearly as highly, and he managed to pick up some losses there. He'd definitely have been among the best of the lot, I'm just not sure he'd have established a clear line of superiority over these men.

 

You're right, in rushing that post I didn't think back to Hagler's early losses - I was taking the Hagler from '82 and transporting him.

Even so - 13-4-3 or thereabouts. I don't think the '40s middleweights in question were anything more than a 'tough bunch', any one of them capable of upsetting a champion or thwarting exploits of young prospects. Some better than others, obviously.

The bottom end ones were just 'pretty good', though. Beating a young Archie Moore was not an impossible task, relatively. I don't think he properly found his ways until the very late '40s.

That said, it can be a hard task to rate this era. They were all beating each other and they weren't often fighting the rated fighters out there - who may not have been deservedly rated anyway.

Holman Williams, I think, was clearly the greatest of them all. He did actually beat a lot of rated fighters.

 

I think the late '50s and early '60s middleweights were a stronger bunch. Literally as well - they were bruising.

 

Hardly fair considering they didn't get their shot at the champion for the most part. What if Hagler never got his shot against Minter/Autuofermo and was stuck fighting black contenders no one wanted to fight?

When 3 of them did get their shot against a Prime Lamotta before Lamottas title shot, Marshall beat him, saying the best of the murderers row would too, Holman Williams lost a close decision past his prime at 34yo with 170+ fights. Lytell, not 1 of the best of the murderers row, was pre-prime and went to a close SD against Lamotta, someone on here posted it was controversal but I dont have the details. Burley beat Zivic more impressively than Lamotta (although that was at WW). And Lamotta said 'why do I need Burley why I can fight Zivic'?

And Lamotta was the only 1 going near the Murderers Row because Zale/GRaziano/Sugar Ray certainly didnt so who knows how they would have done??? I'd certainly pick Burley to dethrone Zale/Graviano and maybe even Cerdan/Lamotta despite being past it when they became champs

 

I readily acknowledge, and did previously, that Booker, Marshall, Burley and Williams were very good fighters.

But I'm not sold on the rest of them who are tarred with the same brush. They were just decent.

 

I think that's very harsh. They weren't on quite the same level as the guys you mentioned, but they were obviously excellent fighters to have fared as well against the rest of the crop as they did. The accounts of them as fighters seem to back that up.

 

****ing hell, you have to choose your words very carefully around here lately.

Decent as in relative to the others.

But again, I'm not sold on them and never have been. Excluding those top four and talking about the rest - I think it's just too convenient for historians to miss - they ****ing love it; black, avoided, they must be great.

That's my gripe - the notion that they were great (and I've heard it with regards to Chase and Wade) or better than the average contender. They were not.