How can a guy who could not beat a former Welterweight in Leonard match up to Golovkin? Does not bear thinking about really
Golovkin could probably beat him. I love Hagler, just watching him move is mesmerizing, but I don't rank him awfully highly in the big picture. Golovkin could jab and stay out of the exchanges he so desperately sought. Hagler didn't really adjust or fight with the other guy's style in consideration. He did his thing and he did it well. I don't think it plays especially well with somebody who doesn't want a firefight and has the weapons to keep one at bay. You never know with ATGs though. Canelo and Derevyanchenko had a lot of success walking GGG down. No way of knowing if he wouldn't have fended them off better when he was young. He never fought somebody who could press that issue before he was older. Legs go first. The fact he had so much amateur success leads me to believe he could've done that though. Anybody saying he would walk Hagler down and stop him is speaking nonsense though. The man was a block of lead.
Ray was a naturally smaller man and a fight with Hagler then would have been suicide, he picked Hagler when he was beatable and beat him (or didn't depending on how you score it) sometimes it's about getting the right name at the right time.. Would Leon Spinks have beaten any other previous version of Ali/Clay for example. Mike Tysons best win was a very shop worn Larry Holmes, the Larry of the Cooney fight beats Tyson for me
Don’t be ridiculous and that against the blown up welterweight who actually landed repeatedly on him. Hagler was simply the more versatile all round fighter, he’s just about the best switch hitter there’s been, he had good power in either hand, a great jab and one of the most solid chins of all time. I like GGG he has a good jab, great chin, good power, although it never really carried up when fighting a higher level of opponent. He has a steady methodical go forward style but he’d need to bring more than that to the table to beat a prime Hagler. Hagler’s simply a level above.
Golovkin was far too methodical and simplistic a textbook boxer-puncher to particularly trouble Hagler. He does nothing better technically at all. Basically a lesser version of Kostya Tszyu. His trump card against better skilled boxer-punchers (of which there have been many at 160) is his very good power, though once the competition went up(which it rarely did) that power didn't look so devastating. Hagler is about the last fighter at middleweight you want to rely on your power being the dealbreaker. IF he had more unorthodox awkwardness about him i think that would help to close the textbook skill gap, at least in an initial fight like antuofermo managed (but not a series) but he's very clean and straightforward as a stylist. This could be a good entertaining fight against a pre-peak or aging Mugabi/Leonard Hagler, before Marvin wins a clear competitive fight or later stoppage. Peak vs Peak it's a methodical drawn out beating. Having russian relatives, i've a soft spot for Golovkin's boxing lineage, but he's not in Hagler's class. He's closer to being a middleweight Khaosai Galaxy.
Golovkin is one of the better fighters to come out of the MW division. A good champion with excellent standard boxing skill and great punching power. Durable with a killer instinct. Hagler’s style is well known and appreciated. I believe Hagler has too much game on the defensive side to take anything remotely dangerous from Golovkin. Maybe a shot here and there but he doesn’t put anything together to give Hagler pause. Golovkin doesn’t have the speed of Hearns to consistently get through nor the slickness of Duran to create openings. On the other side Haglers offense will present so many problems for Golovkin that I find it hard to imagine Golovkin being able to avoid a prime Haglers hard right jab, straight left, infighting, conditioning and will to win. The fight may look good for a little while but once Hagler finds the rhythm Golovkin would have serious problems. Hagler by KO only because Golovkin will be in close range the entire fight. Golovkin is completely ineffective going backwards so he will be there right in front of Hagler throwing punches. At a certain point Hagler will start countering them and the will start the end.
I think that downplays Golovkin quite allot. It's not like he wasn't outboxing his opponents as well as knocking them out. As for Tyszu comparisons. For one his footwork was more intricate than Tyszu's, as he'd use lots of half steps to quickly manourver himself to control his opponent. Where as Tyszu employed a wide stance, making it harder for him to manouver. His defence is better than Tyszu's with both his guard and his head movement. Against Hagler, he has an advantage with his footwork is better than Hagler's too although Hagler steps into his punches better. Both have great jabs, with an edge to Hagler. Both have very short sharp powerful lead hooks, maybe a slight advantage to GGG. GGG has the better backhand if Hagler fights southpaw. I think GGG fights at a faster pace Close fight and I don't know who'd win and I think it would be a war. I think it would be somewhat similar to the Hagler-Duran with GGG doing better due to his primeness and being a natural MW.
Burley I would just like to disagree on one point that you made. Hagler in his early prime against Briscoe boxed smoothly off his back foot behind the jab, counters and combinations. He outboxed Briscoe severely. He called on he would dance circles around Golovkin. With harder punches coming and a more elusive Hagler dancing, who could switch to orthodox if he wanted, would be an even tougher opponent for Golovkin.
