Marvellous Marvin Hagler Vs James Toney at Middleweight/Super Middleweight?

It is not the 8 pounds. It is that Toney only became a complete fighter at 168

 

And he still wasn't good enough to beat Hagler. Hagler's jab, lateral movement and workrate would always get him past Toney for mine. Hagler would outbox him. Toney's a damn good fighter but Hagler is simply better.

 

Hagler was past his best against Mugabi and SRL. Check him out from Minter thru to Scypion for a top refresher on his abilities.

 

At middleweight I give the edge to Hagler. At super middleweight I give the edge to Toney. However, Hagler was a middleweight so I think the thread should have been limited to 160.

 

At 160, still Hagler. I agree with The Blade that at 168 Toney would have had a much better chance and at his best, probably favoured over Hagler who was not a particularly big MW.

 

Hagler by decision at middle but Toney gets a “has an excuse” asterisk for the loss because he’s 198 3/4 pounds the week of the weigh-in and has to sit in a sauna for 6 straight days with no food to make weight.

As super middle, same thing except James is 264 pounds the day before making weight.

 

That's it, I saw nothing from Toney at 160 that makes me think he takes a prime Hagler at his best

 

This for me.. can't give the hard fight to a guy who never fought at the weight imo... And its not like Hagler was a big MW .. he comes in at what 165 for this ? so much rides on the fact that does he get to go up gradually with tune ups or for the 1st fight ?? Anyway, Toney is the slight favorite here for me as well at 168

 

Yes i understood that when you stated it in post #6.

Again i don't think 8 pounds is enough to close the gap and nor does 8 pounds stymie the stylistic advantage of Hags. 8 extra pounds sure don't equal Toney overpowering him. Toney's not a physical fighter so it's mostly dead weight for mine. Hagler would be there moving side to side while pumping the jab, throwing combinations, changing stance and generally outworking Toney.

 

You seem to be very sure for a guy who has never seen Hagler fight at 168. I already explained my point of view that is not about the extra pounds but more that Toney became a better fighter at 168. The matchup at 168 is little unfair as Hagler hever fought there. So for me, it is better to stick to 160.

There are no clear stylistic advantages. The thing that bothered Toney most was exceptional hand speed and Hagler does not have that. Both are excellent fighters. At 160, Hagler was the more complete fighter and would outwork Toney on the inside to win a close a call.

 

And I've explained multiple times i still don't think Toney was good enough nor as good as Hagler, at 168 or other.

I am happy for Hagler to come in at 161 pounds - i'd still back him. He had plenty of fights just over 160 prior to winning the championship.

Hagler absolutely has the stylistic advantage. Lets not pretend he was slow, his hand speed was just fine and just as importantly his footwork was excellent and quite deft. He was a superb boxer in full flight, awesome jab, busy, not afraid to throw combinations and he'd seldom be in front of Toney. He'd outbox Toney from the outside and hold his own on the inside.

I'd take Toney over the Hagler from the Mugabi fight, he'd slowed noticeably and had to take it to Mugabi which is really saying something. Prime Hagler? Different animal.

 

You have made your case. It is a good case but you have to understand that not everybody may agree. The one thing that it is interesting to me is that you try to imply that a middleweight Hagler would basically beat a light heavyweight Toney. Can I ask you if you ever boxed before in competition?

 

No i haven't but i've sparred plenty of types and sizes.

Hagler and Toney in the ring aren't you and i in the ring nor are they akin to our opponents. What experience you and i have against "heavier" guys doesn't answer the stylistic intangibles at play here.

Lets get to the crux tho - i have seen any amount of smaller guys run rings around bigger heavier stronger guys - because they were better.

Now the gulf between Hagler and Toney won't be huge, but for me there is a gap. This gap is what i am picking on.

Back in the 40's and earlier we used to see these sorts of weight gaps on display. Class can overcome such gaps.

You picked Toney the other day over Usyk at 200 which i find a bit outlandish. Usyk is undeniably the bigger natural man and hugely skilled. Whether we've seen Toney at 200 or not, the size and the fact he's fighting in his natural division screams Usyk.

We get it, you pick Toney at virtually every opportunity.

 

Still to me, your pick that a middleweight Hagler would basically beat a lightheavyweight Toney is a bit strange. There are weight classes for a reason and both are closely matched skillwise IMO even if you are trying hard to say otherwise.

I realize that I am in minority for picking Toney over Usyk at 200. To be honest, I am not too confident about that one. My reasoning is that Usyk was behind on points against Bellew who really fought a poor man's James Toney's fight. This goes to the styles make fights point.

As for the rest, I basically picked Hagler to beat Toney at 160 which is where it counts. I am not sure what more you want.

 

Hagler would most likely approach this match-up the same way He approached Duran fight, so He wouldn't try to hurt Toney, but would use angles and mix outside and inside, being more scoring-oriented.
Mike McCallum - in second fight - was also trying to box Toney and move more than He'd usually do - and had success with it. I think Hagler would be able to execute it more effectively and outscore James in competitive fight. Particulary if it's 15 rounds, his conditioning was definitely superior.