p.s. Hagler was a middleweight and that's why he fought at middleweight. Why should he have fought anywhere else? :huh
Boxing isn't just about size, size is important but if you can hold your own size/strength wise you can have success. Hagler brings allot of quality and had skill and conditioning advantages over most of those LHWs. If a midget like Qawi is having success in this supposed golden era of the LHWs, Hagler would have equal or better success and he's beating Qawi too
Boxing used to be about size but maybe not so much these days and as a result history has become skewed Moving up today throws in too many variables which often determine the outcome of a fight based more on the variables rather than skill and ability Decades ago Pacquaio's run of success when moving up would have stopped at about 2 titles. Max
Not much more needs to be said. Dominating your natural weight class over a prolonged period of time is better than cherry picking weak champions in higher weight classes. The fact that Hearns managed to move up to 175 and decision a genuine world champion in Virgil Hill is largely irrelevant to Hagler and his legacy. Tommy was taller, had longer arms and a style more suited to beating an opponent like Hill.
What are we talking about in this thread? Light heavyweight. He never was tested at this weight. How would we really know how he would do at the weight. Marvin was a short guy for 175. He did have a long reach, so if he fought at 175 he would be more of a boxer.
I don't think Marvin would have to much difficulty with Bobby Czyz. (see Mustafa Hamsho) And Donnie Lalondie would have been run over too by Marvin. Another group to add; vs Eddie Davis vs Johhny Davis vs Lonnie Bennett Vs Len Hutchins vs Jerry Martin
I didn't think this Jurassic era boxing 'knowledge' still existed round here. Hearns ****s up Duran. Hagler lets Duran get competitive. Surely Hearns whacks Hagler? Hmm... Or, even better. Frazier beats Ali; Foreman crushes Frazier. Ali has no chance. By the way, anyone who thinks Spinks or Foster would crush Hagler in two or three rounds has some thinking to do. Like I've said before; no fighter goes from absolutely unknockoutable to being a writhing sob story in two rounds just because of fifteen pounds in weight unless old or sick. Hagler may be rocked, wobbled or even punched to his knees nearing the end of the fight (losing a clear decision), but remember that the man was very, very tough and infact, could probably take a punch better than Bob Foster himself.
You reckon? :huh Hagler boxed too much. He was a more than competent boxer, but not exceptional; it worked against B level opponents, but nobody else. Duran was too clever, so Hagler dug in. Hearns was too tall and quick, so he dug in. Spinks or Foster would be breaking Hagler's nose with jabs if he stayed at range, what he'd need to do is get inside their reach and power.
I don't think Hearns had a better jab. Pound-for-pound, perhaps, but not directly; Foster's was heavier, and while not as quick, cleverly placed.
That's why I added 'old or sick.' Or some other problem. Tiger wasn't at his best against Foster, however, nor did he have the durability of Hagler, in my opinion. Tiger was a 9/10 for durability, Hagler was 10.
Yep. Hagler could out box the brawlers, but he couldn't work it against another boxer. Not to his detriment of course, as he had another game plan.