and had fought Michael Nunn to equal Monzon's record, would he have had enough left to beat a young, speedy, hungry fighter like Nunn?
Nunn wasn't in the picture yet. Had Hagler won, his IBF mandatory was Michael Olajide. His WBC mandatory, I believe, was Tommy Hearns. I thought the WBA stripped Hagler before the Leonard fight because he didn't sign to fight Herol Graham. But Graham lost a couple weeks after Hagler-Leonard to Sumbu Kalambay, who won the vacant WBA belt against Iran Barkley. If the WBA reconsidered, Hagler would've had to fight Kalambay. So there were a number of guys ahead of Nunn in 1987. Had he won the decision against Leonard, I think Marvin had enough left to beat Olajide and Kalambay to break Monzon's record. A Hearns rematch would've been difficult.
Yes, Hagler was stripped and only defended the WBC title against Leonard so the division was getting split up even with Hagler still fighting on, although he would have retained lineal recognition from pretty much everyone. It makes me glad he quit when he did. The loss to Leonard was bad enough but at least he lost to a demonstrably great fighter. The idea of him losing to someone like Olajide is just upsetting.
I don't know. He was not really prepared to keep fighting. I think the Hearns fight took a lot of his hunger for boxing. Not the fight itself, but I think he put his all into that fight mentally and physically so when he won and got the acclaim he always wanted that was enough for him. He reached what he wanted.
He would not have fought Nunn. He would end his career in a trilogy with Leonard for an avalanche of money.
Wasn't Bomber Graham in the picture back then? Or had he lost to kalambay by that point? If Hagler fights a on form Sumbu, then I see a point s loss for marvelous.
Yeah, you're right. My question was really about which up and comers, particularly Nunn, would have faired against Hagler if he'd carried on and faced them, although this is unlikely - a rematch with Hearns would have been more likely. Frank Tate was also contending. I think Hagler would have had enough left to beat Tate and Olajide, just about. Kalambay and Nunn may have been too quick and mobile for Hagler by that stage.
Hagler could have beaten Leonard. It's his own fault that he didn't. A tough way to retire. I don't think he beats Nunn anyway. You cant out box Nunn, he's too quick and defensive, You have to attack him. While Hagler did attack Hearns, Hearns sort of made him. When Hagler had to do the leading, didn't always do it.
Michael Olajide, Frank Tate and Michael Nunn (in that order) were at the time the young hotshots seen as the future of the division but it’s doubtful that Hagler would have been able to motivate himself to face any of them or the ‘unfashionable’ Herol Graham even had he won the decision against Leonard. It would have almost certainly been lucrative rematches with Leonard and Hearns next. I think Hagler would have been favoured by the oddsmakers to beat any of them but that would have been influenced heavily by the proven abilities of Marvin plus the top level inexperience of the challengers. In reality. I can see possibly both Nunn and Tate being fast and capable enough to score upset decision victories against the aging Hagler in late 87 or 88.
He'd be hard pressed to defeat Nunn, and would seriously lack motivation to do so; IIRC, he was on the verge of retiring when the Leonard bout was proposed anyways. He took it as a big money payday, and a chance to vanquish the guy who was the last question mark in his career. If he'd beaten Leonard, it would have answered every question about his brilliance as a fighter. He would have ridden into the sunset without regret, and left the MW division in the hands of the young lions coming up.
I do think that Marvelous Marvin would have had one more fight to break Carlos Monzon s' record of 14 title defenses, 1970-1977. That title defense would be against Herol Graham, in Sept 1987. Hagler would have stopped Graham late, then he would have retired with both belts.
