Where would Hagler be ranked had he beaten SRL?

I wouldn't actually consider Napoles to be among the top 5 middles Monzon defended against.

The reason he probably gets more credit compared to May beating Marquez is that Napoles was THE MAN at Welter, an already established great at the weight, who while he was getting on a bit, was still more or less a great fighter and seen as such by most.That was able to balance out slightly the fact he was a small Welter at a serious size disadvantage.

Marquez position was more hotly debated, hewas just as old and even more on the slide, moving up from a weight he certainly isn't considered a great at(or shouldn't be imo).He had been workign hard to beat some rather ordinary fighters.Good wins considering his age and smaller size, but the level on show was more comparable to, say Meldrick Taylors hard fought wins against Welterweights before he moved up to fight Norris.

He just wasn't as good a fighter, the level napoles was still at was still better than Marquez has ever been imo.That said i wouldn't say Mayweather should get no credit for his win.He certainly should get some

 

i think hagler can be ranked above leonard. of course its not all about head-to-head resultrs

 

The whole thing with this topic that is overlooked and not even considered is the fact the Hagler bouts even took place. That's a haley's comet in the boxing world.

How many old middleweights are signing contracts to fight the youth/pedigree/reflexes of Hearns and Mugabi and Leonard? In succession?

I'll say King Carlos and that's about it. Maybe 1 other thumb available for another guy signing those contracts? Maybe Robinson, but I see his management taking a breather or 2 and not this 3 fight series. Nobody since agrees to that succession of bouts.

So Marvin loses a close decision in 1 of the 3 in fights that actually transpired as opposed to conjecture about fights that other middles do not ever sign for.

 

Good balanced post.


By the way it's surprising to see Onopko avatar on english-speaking boxing forum!

 

Comparable, both jumped 2 weight classes to win a lineal championship (Napoles from LW to WW and Marquez FW to LW) and then jumped a further 2 weight classes to fight the no1 in that division. Neither were big men at 135 or 147. Both past their physical peak (34yo for Napoles and 36yo for JMM) and past their ideal weight. Both great fighters, Napoles the greater of the 2. Neither had proven anything at the weight class although Marquez would go onto do so against Pacquaio.

What if he had been completely neutralised defensively or mauled or just overpowered? In which case Leonard wouldn't get to show those qualities. For instance Tyson-Spinks, how good was that Spinks? We don't know

I have Leonard above Hagler but in principle I disagree, it was a 7-5 fight either way and Leonard was a MW in the ring that night

This is all true, Valdez, Griffith (despite him losing to Napoles), Benvenuti and Briscoe are all stiffer challenges simply down to size. Who would be 5th best? Probably Mundine, sublime ability but no chin/toughness. This is the same with Mayweather, Marquez wasn't big although probably nearer to Mayweather's size than Napoles was to Monzon, still he was never outboxing him. Because of size Hatton, Ortiz and Mosley were tougher challenges for Mayweather despite the lack of success they had against Pacquaio and despite the fact I'd pick Marquez over Hatton. Mayweather would ironically get more credit for beating Marquez after his third fight with Pacquaio rather than before it though.

Hagler wasn't really old though. You could also make a good arguement that Mugabi (unskilled brawler) and Leonard (innactive blown up WW who looked terrible in his last fight) were cherry picks

 

"Had he beaten Leonard"? I've always thought that Hag DID beat Leonard...he was just robbed by judges who appreciated flas over substance. He didn't look too good in winning, yet he won it IMO. I rank Hagler at #2, just behind Monzon in the alltime middleweight greats.

 

I think Hagler's loss to Leonard hurt him more than a win would have helped. Going in Hagler was a heavy favrote to beat the combacking Leonard. Hagler was precived to be one of the great middleweights. Even a 115-113 or 116-112 may not have done anything to boast Hagler's ATG status.

 

what makes anyone even think Marvin would have fought a few more times? He'd already had two belts taken from him and had no ambition. at the end of his last fight, all he talked about was retiring

 

regardless of the decision, I had leonard winning it close but clear upon last watch.

Now had marvin done enough to deserve a victory is a different question because it's assuming he was better than he was so therefore he'd be remembered better than he is.

 

I was watching hagler-Obel 1 the other night and I heard Leonard say something real interesting. He said it's a lot easier fighting as champion because you know your opponent has to beat you decisively to win the championship

 

higher. Even though Ray was older, he would have beaten the 3 guys Leonard,Hearns,Duran. REgardless of them moving up they were still legends whom he beat near enough to weights they won titles before or later. Not beating Ray did hurt Hagler's legacy.

 

how did you score the fight? surely you wouldn't rank him any differently had he gotten the nod?

 

I think I had it 116/112 for Ray. I was not in the Jo Jo Guerra 118-110 level, but I thought Ray won easily enough, yet Ray was tired and picked his times to win the rounds at the end. Hagler was caught off guard and was unprepared for Leonard. The decision would affect it in my mind as far as history. But I thought Ray won that fight in my opinin, yet I am not a person who says that one guy won if the other one won the fight on the scorecards.

 

So despite scoring a fight 8-4 against hagler, you'd have given him credit for the exact same performance based on one man giving a couple of rounds the other way?

Honestly I can't grasp that thinking.

 

no, but I agreed with the scoring. And to be honest, I go with official scoring. I don't make the rules. I would have loved for Thomas Hearns to have received the decision against Ray in June of 1989, but he did not. So I cannot say he won.. I am not a guy who says Tommy won, if the official score says he didn't. Credit I will give, but Hagler did not fight well in that fight. I think Marvin was a great fighter, but not on the Leonard level.