Just shows how good similar sized middleweights to Hagler, such as Greb, Walker and Tiger were. All of these greats challenged themselves at lightheavy. Greb and Walker even went to heavy, while a past prime Tiger won the undisputed world lightheavy title.
I really don’t get the argument that it was easier for the welterweight Hearns to go 175 than the middleweight Hagler. Robinson was not a big middleweight either but he still challenged himself at 175. The lightweight Duran certainly didn’t have the body for 160. I love Hagler but I don’t buy the excuse that he was too small to fight at 175.
Hearns is the more proven of the two as P4P, a champion in multiple weight classes. He was robbed of a win in the Leonard rematch and held a much more decisive win over Duran.
I know what you're saying, but I do think frame comes into it. Hearns had a much bigger frame than Hagler. Hagler didn't have the frame to fill out to 175lbs without being bulky (be that musclebound or fleshy). Hearns did. At 6ft 1ins and 78ins reach, Hearns had a bigger than average frame even for a LHW & you just have to look at him there to see he's neither fleshy nor musclebound, he's just began to fill out his relatively substantial frame. I'm not trying to belittle Hearns achievements moving through the weights, he deserves credit for them & they make him an ATG. I give Mickey Walker & Roberto Duran, who were both already tanks relative to their smaller frames, in the divisions in which they first won world titles, more credit though for their exploits at higher weights, though. They didn't have the frames of the higher divisions they had success in, they were just smaller men beating bigger men. That said, all of Willie Pep's notable wins were at FW. Why does do no one use terms like "excuse" for him for not moving up to LW or hold it against him? Because as a narrow shouldered 5ft 4ins, he was a FW with a FW's frame, so he stayed there his whole career, a career which rightly sees him generally ranked as a top 15 p4p fighter of all time, and often a top 10. If he can be held in such high regard, why must Hagler be penalised for not moving to LHW?
Frame definitely comes into play in the ability to fight at higher weights but is also a detriment when fighting at a weight not natural for your frame size. Hearns doesn’t seem to get credit for that. Hearns weighed 145 at the same day weighin for the first Leonard fight. Duran may have been a tank at lightweight but 160 was hardly his best fighting weight as he looked out of shape at that weight. I can’t imagine Hagler putting on ten more pounds and still not being a helluva boxer. Hagler looked a lot bigger than Robinson at 160 even with Robinson’s frame. I have no problem with the ranking of Hagler above Hearns because of his dominance at 160 but I think what Hearns did over his career was more impressive.
I agree with all of that, with the minor exception I rank Hagler marginally higher than Hearns, but I also have no problem with them being ranked vice versa.
At least for their first fight (which I was referencing,1981) it was the same day weigh in. Here is a link saying that died in 1983, although I am unsure that is correct; I do not recall any of the fab 4 having to dehyrate/weigh in the day before, although by the end of the decade it would have been likely. Given Hearns bigger basic structure, he would have had a bigger advantage than he even did against Duran...And I just do not recall him being heavier in-ring against Hagler in 1985. [url]https://www.*******.com/forums/boxing-forums/boxing-history/363838-when-did-same-day-weigh-ins-stop[/url]
He could have gone to LHW, but like the others you cited would have been at a disadvantage. Even the likely GOAT only did it briefly-& he was 5'11" instead of Hagler's likely at most 5'8".5".
Robinson weighed 157 against Maxim, even though he was taller than Hagler he was actually more slight of built. Qawi was only about 5’6” and fought Foreman. I am not trying to diminish Hagler, he was a great champ at 160. I just think what Hearns did over his career winning titles from welterweight to cruiserweight made him greater.
Of course Hearns and SRR is built to go up WAY more than Hagler .. Stop thinking a short mid size MW who relied on his speed and fast accurate combos to go up ..... It wouldn't have worked for Hagler .. He would have lost ALL his advantages... You think he was going to go up against Spinks ? Cmon ... Monzon had the body to go up, he was a BIG MW ... Hagler no. He would have slowed significantly at 175 imo
I am unsure who was greater; there are convincing arguments both ways. It cannot be a dramatic difference. You could give Hearns credit some do not because he had the frame to surf divisions, arguing that natural advantages that one maximizes should be credited proportionately. It is almost an epistemological question of how much to count innate capacities... However Robinson being more slight did not mean he could not have put on more muscle-doubt he was bird-boned or unable to. Although he gets credit for fighting weight discrepancies that even in the era of varying sizes due to degree of rehydration, we normally do not see for years now. M.Q. may have been only 5'5". It was an unusual case where his style & natural muscularity made him a LHW-although w/rehydration he would easily be a MW today.
Some really top banter there for the merits of throwing caution to the wind and having a go up higher. Sure it's fine for guys like Monzon and Hagler to stay at 160 and build an ATG reign. It's also fine to take into account that they didn't take the big risks that others did. Duran never had the frame to go up and battle middleweight any more than Hagler did to battle light heavyweights but Duran did. Knowledgeable posters take this into account and apply context to find him amongst the greatest P4P fighters ever, one who is rated immensely on any credible list. Richard Tiger was a fantastic mention, he never had the dimensions to rip up to 175 any more than Marvin did. Where guys like Monzon and Hagler get their glory is when people assess the greatest fighters on a divisional basis - since both stayed at 160 forever they had the chance to build top level ATG reigns and certainly did that. For me it penalises them somewhat in the P4P stakes. The sheer quality of their reigns gives them deserved high rankings P4P but they still have that little * for me. It's why i personally rate Hopkins a little above both P4P but a little behind them at 160. History is littered with some incredible achievements against the odds via smaller guys stepping up and grabbing the cup. If a guy like Monzon did step up and beat Foster, and he talked about challenging him on more than one occasion, his P4P rating would rocket.
I agree with all of this John (I rank Monzon above Hopkins p4p, but I can see a reasonable argument for the opposite). How do you think Pep's standing fits into this view? He's a lock for the top 15 P4P all time & probably appears on more top 10 lists than he doesn't. I have him #11 on mine, for what it is worth. His P4P standing is based almost entirley on what he did as a FW. I rank Pep higher than Monzon & Hagler P4P, because as utterly brilliant & dominant at MW as they were, Pep was even moreso at FW, imo. I think the point I'm trying to make, is that fighters that go up in weight & beat naturally bigger world class boxers should be given credit for it, it is right that it enhances their standing, whilst fighters that stay in & dominant 1-division shouldn't be penalised for doing so & can still potentially be top 10 ATGs, they just don't get the enhancement winning world titles in higher weights would have afforded them. Does that make sense?
