Hagler or Hearns? Who was the Bigger Man?

interesting question. When Hearns fought Hagler, Hagler was the stronger man at middleweight, but Hearns could fight and win two titles at 175 when Hagler probably could not have. It is a hard question. Hearns went up to Cruiserweight also.
In the end Hearns was bigger in height yet in reality Hearns natural best weight was 154 and Marvin's 160. So with that in mind Hagler might have been the bigger guy as far as natural weight and best fighting-Hagler was the natural middleweight. Hearns might have been leaner than Hagler, and I bet if they were to get side by side now in the ring, Hagler would still have bigger legs. Hearns would probably still look leaner.
Hearns never was a huge guy either. When he fought Virgil Hill he looked leaner than Virgil and looked like a guy as tall as Virgil, yet he still looked like a middleweight fighting a lightheavyweight and he still won.

 

Hearns was a lot taller while Hagler was thicker.

Hagler was the better fighter though, and dealt with Hearns rather quickly.

 

At the time they fought Hagler was the bigger man. But Hearns had the bigger frame which allowed him to more easily add weight later on, yet still be effective, hence his success at higher weights.

 

This thread actually went two pages.

 

Cleary Hagler. We're talking in terms of weight rather than height. Hagler was a natural middle, Hearns wasn't.

 

:bart Hagler was the superior middleweight but Hearns is without a doubt the better p4p fighter as he is a top 5 atg in 2 weight classes along with being a top 25 MW, top 50 SMW/LHW and also a tough out as a CW.

 

:admin

Throw this moronic n00b in the loony bin.

 

Hearns was just the taller guy. Hagler's the bigger fighter between the two.

 

Hearns was the smaller guy at the time. Yeah hearns did go all the way up to cw, but he was an exceptional talent and theres reason he is considered an ATG.

 

I think Hagler was the last of the old school MW's, while Hearn's represented the newer batch. Even though he is known for being as perhaps the greatest 154lber, take Hagler out of the picture, and it's almost a sure thing Hearns would of ruled the 160lb division even with Leonard in it. Hagler had some solid wins against very good fighters, but Hearns is what makes Hagler a true ATG other than being a long reigning champ. I think Hearns has the better resume, but his losses to Barkley hurt him IMO where Hagler's losses were early in his career. I still think they are pretty much on par. I think if Hagler wanted to go up in weight with the discipline this guy had he would of been successful. He would of struggled more, but I think he easily could of been a LHW champ even with the likes of Spinks around.

 

This content is protected

Hagler the MW was bigger and stronger, but although Hearns was taller that right hand was a jaw breaker, Hagler ate every single one and spit it out.

 

Great pic, M.King. :good

 

herbzg FTW!

 

I am a bigger fan of Hearns, but I thought Hearns was the better fighter p4p. He beat better guys for all his titles. The fight went only 3, but Hagler got hit cleaner and hurt more than most of his previous 64 fights

 

Why is this thread still going?