If Marvin Hagler never existed who would be the champ

Well said.

I'm lost for words at this topic! :twisted::fire:twisted:
I'd like to see the OP ask his satanic question to Mr. Hagler himself!

 

Hamsho was solid and very awkward, but tends to get overrated the most of the contenders that did fight Hagler.

he barely got past a faded Minter who was by then fighting very conservatively because his skin was so bad.

that march in, give the opponent no respect with your chin hung out to dry style would have been vulnerable to the really big punchers of the time as well, especially someone like Sibson who threw good untelegraphed combinations.Hamsho's chin would have come undone like Dewitt's initially top-notch one did.

 

all I know is what I see and the fact is, neither Tommy nor Duran fared well at 160. With Duran tho he was just too heavy and too old

I dont think Tommy has the sustained physiology to make it long at 160 which he didnt. He peaked for the Shuler fight but then levelled off, being extended by Dewiit, and nearly stopped by leftover Roldan. Could be the frequent moving up in weight class hurt him as it did Mustafa Muhammud and Roy Jones and shortened his career.

Facing the other top middleweights, Hearns would lose. Sibson would be too energetic and hard punching-bad news for Tommy. Obel with his one punch knockout power, Tommy would never survive. Prime Animal Fletcher would crowd Tommy and wear him down. Tommy never faced the top middles and those he did, he didnt last long against.

 

Barkley was a terrible style for Thomas Hearns, same as Kalambay was terrible for McCallum when he first fought him. I think had Hearns not lost to Hagler, we are talking 1984-1985 as a middleweight and that would have been a little different a Hearns than the post Hagler Hearns who fought. Kalambay and McCallum both had losses which could make a reign look short. I am saying Mike had a hard time doing anything with Kalambay, the same Kalambay who lost to Nunn in one round.

 

I do not see it. Tommy fought several fighters as good and better at middlweight than guys like Frank Fletcher whom Roldan destroyed. Sibson? Fully Obel? Those guys are not the level of Thomas Hearns.
Easy to say they could do well but Sibson never beat a caliber of Hearns and neither did Obel. Roldan when Hearns fought him was still good. He destroyed Kinchen on the Leonard/Hagler undercard in 1987 as well as he destroyed Fletcher to get the Hagler fight. Tommy Hearns made one mistake in those years when Barkley stopped him and he was hurt by Kinchen. He went from 154 in June of 1986, to middleweight in October of 1986, to Light heavyweight in March, 87, then back down to Middlweight in October 1987 back up to Supermiddleweight in Nov 1988 after being stopped by Barkley in June. Too much up and down weight true. Had he stayed at middleweight and been comfortable guys like Sibson and Fletcher would have been easy wins. There is a level of opposition here which Sibson and Obel and Fletcher never beat. Hearns was beating Shuler,Roldan,Hill,Olajide etc etc.

 

I always thought he caught Hagler at the right time. Hagler put his all into the Hearns fight the previous year,, and had always been active up to Hearns. Then he takes a year off with Hearns and comes back looking sort of soft for Mugabi and flat. John does well and lands those big punches on Marvin, but that really is the only great fight for Mugabi, unless people think the Jacquot fight was impressive. He quit against Thomas and Norris easily stops him in one. I do not see him doing well at all at middleweight. Maybe that one fight with Hagler wore him out, but if that is the case he wouldn't have lasted too long as champ either way.

 

I think Minter would've held on to the title a little while longer. I think Sibson would've taken the title from Minter in a mega-English fight. Sibson was good, but nobody was beating Hagler the night he fought Sibson. Then I think Hearns would've moved up and beaten Sibson.

 

James Shuler, Dwight Davidson, Mustafa Hamsho, maybe Alex Ramos.

 

Word! :scaredas:

 

I agree entirely. Hamsho was a terrific fighter who beat EVERYONE but Hagler. People don't want to hear it, especially the young ones who really don't know Hamsho, but w/out Hagler, Hamsho is in the hall of fame.

 

Maybe it goes:

Minter still drops the title in 1980 to Obelmejias.

Defences against Hamsho WS15 (in Caracas ); Chong Pal Park TKO8

Obelmejias loses to Sibson in 1982.

Sibson defends against Dwight Davison WU15; John Collins TKO2

Sibson loses to Hamsho in 1983.

Hamsho defends against Wilfred Benitez WU15; Roberto Duran DS15; Roberto Duran WU15

Hamsho loses to Hearns in 1984.

Hearns beats Juan Roldan TKO7; James Kinchen TKO10; James Shuler KO1; Herol Graham WU15; Mike McCallum WU15; Michael Olajide TKO12

Tommy vacates to move up to 175 in 1987...

 

I was thinking the same thing Al and I might favour Sibson. Walking towards him straight-on and open like Hamsho sometimes did is a bad idea IMO even if Sibson was hurtable himself.

Either way, Minter would have held on to the title for awhile, maybe sneaking a win or two over the likes of Obelmejias or even Sibson and Hamsho themselves in light of not having come off the back of the beating Marv gave him, though his skin might betray him in the end with Sibson likely being the one to exploit it at some stage. It could go any which way after this, probably being fragmented with Hearns, Scypion, Duran, Roldan, Leonard etc in the mix at various stages with Kalambay, Graham and maybe even McCallum not getting a look-in until later thanks to the high risk/low reward thingy. Kalambay and Graham more so than McCallum.

But lets be honest: it would've been duff without Marv keeping everyone in their right place and staving off the alphabet soup bollocks along with Curry.