Which was the better win: Hagler-Hearns or Calzaghe-Kessler?

The weight that a fighter won his first world title at seems to have become of supreme importance now, because the first thing most pro-Calzaghe/Kessler voters said on the Hopkins-Tito or Calzaghe-Kessler thread was that Calzaghe-Kessler was automatically better because Kessler was a natural smw and Tito was not a natural mw.

Does this logic apply to all fights between a fighter vs a fighter not at his starting weight?

This is an interesting question to consider, because many great wins have been achieved between two fighters at their starting weights (example: SRL vs Hearns 1), but many great wins have been achieved over a fighter who has moved up in weight as well (eg Leonard-Duran II).

What do you guys think?

 

Although I think the Kessler win was damn good, I did do the confused dog head tilt when I saw this thread title, I admit.

 

Hagler-Hearns...and I don't think it's even close.

 

Starting weights are merely tangential to the quality of victory. Kessler and Calzaghe are both better fighters than Hearns and Hagler (neither of whom ever faced elite level European competition), so Calzaghe's victory is thus more impressive

 

Hagler is a top 20 ATG. I think Calzaghe is great, but top 50 or so, but not near Hagler's caliber. Hagler would not be top 20 without beating Hearns. The Hearns fight and the way he beat Hearns is what makes Hagler's career. When we think about Hagler we think about the Hearns fight. I think so anyway. Ironically, Hearns had greater wins than Hagler did with Cuevas,Benitez,Duran and Hill and moving up in weight and everything else, but his 2 losses to greats Leonard and Hagler in his prime hurt him. But in a way Hearns should be ranked higher than Hagler, but he probably never will be. But if anything Hagler and Hearns are ranked very close in ATG ranking.

 

I agree. I rank them very closely, and I see the argument for having Hearns higher, even though I prefer Hagler as a fighter.

 

Does anyone doubt for a second that this is Bailey?

 

Anyone who votes calzaghe/kessler is an idiot and should slap themselves in the face!

 

I think it depends on how the guy who comes up/goes down in weight does at the new weight tbh. For example people say JMM is not really a good/suited for WW but he is the best LW. Even though he only fought once against arguably the best boxer bar/equal to pacman around; FMJ

With regards Hearns he won championships above 154 so he can be considered to not have the same problems and can be regarded as being able to adjust to new weights comforotably. Same for Pac man and FMJ, hence we see jnr MW/MW's wanting to fight these two guys (probably for pay day too)

nice question btw

 

I don't know, but I like him!

 

What's with this trend for Calzaghe-Kessler comparison polls?

Of course Hagler-Hearns is going to come out the superior win.

 

I thought the wink made it clear that I was being facetious, though I guess one could also interpret it as an impression of Mikkel Kessler.

 

What a sad cretin.
Hate for Calzaghe has consumed Popkins, so he has to resort to this comparison.

Shall we start another.

Which was the better win: Hagler-Hearns or Hopkins-Trinidad? atsch

Accept that Calzaghe beat Hopkins :smoke

 

Flashback to the Hopkins tito/ calzaghe kessler thread

Im going with my instinct here and il say Hagler/Hearns was the better win, there must be some exceptions in terms of the "weightclass legacy" rule. Hearns looked beastly, hurt Hagler in the opening round (could of done more damage if his hand didnt **** up) and put up a great 8 mins of fighting.

This has already been mentioned, but both fighters are arguably in the top 20-30 ATG fighters. Thats a major factor

 

I can confirm its not.

I think Hearns and Hagler are great fighters whos careers I have enjoyed