Golovkin isn't overrated. How many fighters did Hagler defeat at the age of 37-40 years old. Golovkin was number one Ring magazine pfp fighter at age 36. At 40 years old he went 12 rounds and wasn't fazed by Canelo's punches. Canelo was ranked #5 pfp by the Ring magazine. Golovkin was ranked #22 pfp by ESPN'S top 100 pfp list, based off how he did stopping Muata and running Canelo close. That being said, I would give Hagler the edge due to his experience and switch hitting style.
Hagler had 8 more fights under his belt when he won the title than GGG had in his entire career. He defended the title a dozen times after this, taking him 20 fights past where GGG was retired. Age is just a con for reasons i hit on earlier in the thread. Hagler had miles more fights. Hagler won the title in his 54th fight. What was GGG doing in his 54th to 66th fights? Oh, he retired after 45 of them. Context is everything.
Golovkin had 350 amateur bouts, how many did Marvin have? Being 40 years old is being 40 years old. Nobody beats father time.
Hagler but it would be close. Hagler has the better overall skillset. Prime GGG tests anyone in history though as he was a sophisticated wrecking machine.
Lets not compare or confuse amateur bouts to pro. Hagler's heavy sparring would far outdo GGG's. Some of his spars would have been harder than the majority of GGG's am bouts. While modern sports science and medicine hasn't beaten father time, it sure has altered it. Recent years have been filled with proof of this. The top two heavyweights are 37 and 38. The average age of the top 11 heavyweights is over 32. The #1 P4P fighter in the world is 38. #2 is 38. #3 is 32. #5 is 34. #6 is 40!!!!! Go back 40 years and further and find 5 of the top 6 with ages to compete. It's right there in front of us.
Also just to add some of Haglers opponents before he won the title are as good as alot of the opponents Golovkin was defending his title against. For example Golovkin defended his title against Willie Monroe Jr well.....Hagler faced his dad and this was before Hagler won a title.
Sure it was. Jake LaMotta struggled his entire career to make 160, but back then they had same day weigh-ins. They still managed to dry out 10 - 15 pounds and pack it all on by the fight. Who always insisted he would have thrived if they had a 168 pound division.
Like I said, the fighters you mentioned were all natural MW and some of Hagler's opponents also fought at LW, WW, Jr. MW. You're bias has clouded your judgment as usual.
It’s not one size fits all. Crawford might be the highest performing 38 year old of all time and Usyk basically is the highest performing 38 year old heavyweight ever.
Bla, bla, bla, 40 for a boxer is old period no matter how you slice it. A much slowed down lethargic Golovkin still demanded top respect from Mr PFP Canelo, Mr face of boxing. Hagler was smart to get out at 32 because it was only going to get tougher with the next crop of middleweights. It's amazing what Crawford , Hopkins and Foreman pulled off. I love Hagler, and he is one of the greatest. I believe prime Golovkin would have defeated all of Haglers challengers and likely by KO. He might have had some trouble with Sugar Ray and Duran, and definitely Tommy, the only elite guys on his resume. Golovkin would have beaten Haglers pre title top foes as well. That's just my opinion.
If you are fighting at 8pm, weigh in at 2pm, how likely is it to gain 15 pounds in 6 hours? What would you do? Fill yourself with fluid and eat a bunch of food that you couldn't possibly digest by the time you get in the ring? When they talk about a guy like LaMotta, from that era, being a natural 168 pounder, it isn't a reference to how much weight he put on after the weigh in. It is mostly a reference to him being too small to be a lightheavy, yet too big too be a middleweight without having to lose a bunch of weight between fights.