cuz all the money fights were guys coming up to mw from welter (duran,hearns,leonard). and hagler,while he was a strong middlewight, was exactly a big mw like a hopkins or a monzon( who never moved up either). hes only 5'9". the only real big fight hagler would have got by moving up would have been against michael spinks and he spinks would have been too much for hagler.
I often wonder why he chose middleweight and not one down. He wasnt the biggest middleweight around - not that it mattered too much and just goes to show how great he was.
Marvin was 48-2 when he got his first title shot in 1979. He screwed the pooch big time in that fight. He coasted the last couple rounds, and turned a win over Antefurmo into a draw. Ten months later Marvin got a crack at new champion Alan Minter. He stopped Minter on cuts in the 3rd round of a very competetive fight. From there Marvin KOed 7 good challengers in a row, and the legend of Marvelous Marvin Haglar was born! There was no real reason for Haglar to move to 168. When the division was new very few people cared about it. The first SMW champion was Murray Sutherland. He was on a lovel with a guy like Bronco McKart (for example.) Good fighter, gave his all, but lost most of his most important fights. No reason for the Marvelous one to go there. Marvin was to small for 175. Micheal Spinks was THE MAN at LHW in those days. Haglar would have simply been out gunned by Spinks. No reason for a small middleweight to move up and fight a Light heavyweight who once lifted a 175 pound man completely off the canvass with an uppercut!
Not quite sure what your point is, but I presume you are challenging the notion that Marvin was the best middleweight of all time? Monzon is a good debate to have, but Hopkins? Really? No.
Hopkins would pick Hagler apart and stop him late, no doubt in my mind. At 43 yrs old Hopkins stops the version of SRL that Hagler fought. Hagler never faced any great middleweights, struggled mightily with just decent middleweights and good welterweights, and got beat by an over the hill, retired SRL. Which shows you that SRL was on a whole other level from Hagler to begin with. Hagler, Duran, Pryor - the trio of most overrated fighters in boxing history. The favorite fighters of guys who like dudes who look really mean.
Fail. Hop may hit and hold his way to a boring decision but he doesnt stop Hagler, Hagler was a beast at middleweight and a true 15 round fighter. You go on about Hagler not beating and great middleweights, what great middleweight has Hopkins beat, Keith Holmes? Willie Joppy? Hopkins' own best middleweight scalps were welterweights in Tito and DeLa Hoya..and Hearns would have KOd them both.
Amen to that. I think too much credence is given to a fighter who moves up...most of the time on the merit that he can no longer make his natural weight. Look at how lauded James Toney is for having marginal success at HW! He was only at that weight because he lacked the dedication to stay in shape and therefore dominant at the weights he should have been at (160-168). This also lead to him being wildly inconsistant and virtually unpredictable to what version was going to show up on a nightly basis. I would much rather see a fighter show the dedication to be great...stay in shape...show consistancy...show that he can not only dominate his way to the top, but also stay there once he attains it. I take nothing away from jumping weights to find challenges...to prove yourself on larger stages...what Manny did recently was phenominal...same with Roy in the past...same with many, many other greats. But really...think about it. Was a fighter like Duran great because he had marginal success at MW...or because he was so dominant and so fantastic at LW?
If you think a PRIME Hopkins was a fighter who "hit and held", then you my friend have never...EVER seen a PRIME Hopkins. atsch
And let me add...tho I believe Hopkins would beat Hagler. I in no way believe he would have a holy chance in hell at stopping him. Same the other way around actually (had to clear that up after fully reading that post about him stopping Hagler late).
I agree with this, but still think Hagler would have beaten him. Hopkins was a good middleweight. Hagler was the best middleweight.
Exact opposite from me...tho I in that opposite, I wouldnt call Hagler a good MW...nor can I see anyone referring to Hopkins in that way as well (Hopkins, Monzon, Hagler...in that order are my top three...). I actually feel Hopkins was the best MW...and I feel he would have beaten Hagler.