More skilled: Hagler or Archie Moore?

Hagler was more skilled offensively and could switch stances, Moore was more skilled defensively and was possible the best KO artist for not being a hard hitter. It's very very close for me and initially I was going to say Hagler but after some thinking I lean to Moore but I could change my mind.

 

Moore might have had more natural talent but Hagler drilled himself better is one way to look at it.

 

You're both wrong...

 

It was clearly a 'neither/nor' question, wasn't it?

 

I'm going to say Archie as skilled as I think Marvelous was. I base this on the advanced age Archie continued to excel at. Guile, acumen and knowhow compensated for the diminution of his physical gifts. Marvin never demonstrated that, indeed once his speed and reflexes started to go, he was seen as being vulnerable.

Also, he was beating and/or competing with bigger men, offsetting the size and youth disadvantage with his wily cunning. I don't think Marvin proved he could compete with bigger men, even in his prime, where he didn't have the athletic advantages.

That's totally unscientific. No breakdown of styles or individual fights so I concede it may be a flawed argument. That's just my gut feeling based on logic.

 

Inb4 the hipsters come to talk about how much more skilled Moore was and how Hagler was a brute compared to him.....


I’d say Archie Moore was more skilled overall, in the sense that his craft, setups, and defensive techniques, especially at midrange and close range, were more nuanced and layered.

But Marvin Hagler was more versatile and well-rounded. He had more ways to fight effectively, he could box at range behind a jab, apply pressure, switch stances, and adjust depending on the opponent.

Hagler also clearly had advantages in footwork and distance control, and his jab was a more consistent weapon. Moore, on the other hand, operated mostly within his preferred range and style, but within that space he showed a higher level of craft and subtlety.

So Moore’s edge is in depth of skill, while Hagler’s edge is in versatility and completeness.

 

Moore .. look at the variety of opposition he beat aswell as the size advantages he overcame. Top 20 ATG.

 

Hagler is a level above Moore in what he brings to the table but you could attribute allot of that to stamina and athleticism. Moore was great at shoulder rolling and countering with the right, great at timing, overall a very good defense. Against the very best, in Patterson and Marciano, it seemed to leave him short

Hagler has much better footwork he can control both offense and attack with, he can fight out of either stance, which is a skill that most can't do to a high level. He has far better more fluid combinations, although this is partly due to better stamina and athleticism. Hagler's defense is different to Moore's shoulder roll or cross arm, he will use a high guard and slip or parry and use distance to stay elusive. Hagler feints at a much better level to set up his punches. I'd add better jab for Hagler too.

Overall I'd go with Hagler but it's easier to put that package together when you're in your 20s or early 30s. Moore was making the best of what he had at his age.

 

Two things to consider.
First, Hagler switched stances a lot because he was very right hand dependent. Yes, he did use his left hand and yes, it could be effective but many of his switches were to facilitate his right hand.
Second, all the footage we have of Moore is of him in his later years; he didn't win a world title until he was 36. Even after 40 he only lost 3 fights- if my memory is correct- and they were to Marciano, Patterson and Ali. Hagler was retired well before he reached that age. Moore arguably achieved more after age 36 than Hagler did in his career.
Let's go a step further. Hagler is given a lot of credit, and rightfully so, for being brave enough to go the Philadelphia and fight Monroe and Watts and Briscoe. Hagler lost 2 of those fights, avenged the losses, but, in total, we are talking about 8 fights? 9 fights? Look at how many fights Moore had against guys like Ezzard charles, Eddie Booker, Charley Burley and the rest of the Black Murderers Row, not to mention all the fights with the rest of that tough line up of California middleweights that were around then. It wasn't 8 or 9 fights, it was dozens and all that was before we have any filmed history of Moore in the ring.
We really have no idea how Moore fought before he was in his late 30s.
In my opinion, two of the most misunderstood and overvalued 'attributes' a fighter can display are switching stance and movement. Hagler was a consummate pro fighter, always in shape, always ready to go and do his best but I don't believe that Marvin himself would say that he was better than Archie Moore.

 

After reading the thread responses, I would lean towards Moore. However, if they fought at middleweight, I may slightly favor Hagler.

 

I’d say on a pure skill basis, the Ol’ Mongoose was more marvelous than the Marvelous one.

 

It's Archie Moore. Furthermore (see what i did there) Archie was completely reliable in his strategy and gameplan, able to switch it up as the bout goes on. 20 years ago i was calling this Hagler's main concern - adaptability. Hagler faced a few ATG's, with one he got things spot on and with the other two he wasn't the same man, tho admittedly Duran received some rather favorable scoring. Regardless tho Marvin's lack of decisiveness allowed Duran to run it closer than it should have been. One immense Hagler fan when pushed blamed Hagler's corner, but that's part of his make up as a fighter just like guys with the likes of Futch, Benton and Dundee prospered from them.

Moore faced umpteen ATG's and gave himself his best chance of beating them, basically. With Marvin i would be concerned if he and his corner could find the right pathways when fighting fellow ATG's if things were tricky.

At any rate Marvin feasted on straight forward fighters and no pinnacle level guys once he hit his straps. He had a lot of strings to his bow and was extremely proficient both offensively and defensively with a certified titanium chin that took out any concerns of him getting stopped.

 

no.

 

Absolutely. It was ridiculed in most mags by numerous scribes right when it actually happened.