On the night of Hagler vs. Hearns...

Although it was a great performance, I think Hagler was already slipping when he fought Hearns. He needed an iron chin, tremendous will, superior strength, and a wealth of experience to beat Hearns. He had all those in abundance, which is why he won. What was already on the wane were his speed, reflexes, movement and defensive skills (shown in a terrible performance against Roldan and even in the short lived fight with Hamsho).

I think the Hagler of 1983 is much tougher proposition.

 

I agree. Hagler was at his best between 80-83 IMO.

 

I disagree. The Hagler between 82-83 would not have performed any better when fighting the same kind of fight. IMO Hearns' height, reach, and devastating power got Hagler into the kind of zone, physically and mentally, that was required to show a peak performance.

It was just a case of him winding back the clock. I couldn't disagree with anyone who suggests the Hagler of 2 or 3 years earlier does suttle adjustments and takes slightly less punches while fighting pretty much the same fight. But they would be minimal.

 

I completely agree that "The Hagler between 82-83 would not have performed any better when fighting the same kind of fight." but that doesn't contradict what I said earlier. I meant the 1983 Hagler was a tougher proposition generally, not for Hearns necessarily.

 

I wouldnt say that.. Marvin just new exactly what he had to do to win against Tommy, and executed.

 

No way is hagler beating monzon with that or any other strategy.....
Robinson or leonard could beat the 85 hagler with boxing smarts or speed....

 

True. Marvin Hagler was just better than everyone else, could fight at a much higher rate than anyone else. He is so far above the other middleweights that there is no second.

I think Tiger could give him a tough fight. Walker? He's great too but by round five his face would start coming apart. hagler would give him the same treatment he gave Sibbo. A few stiff hard rights would put him in his place.

Monzon would be tough to figure for a couple rounds because he's not the easiest guy to reach. He's also not the fastest guy either. He simply can't match jabs with Hagler and forget about the follow up right. Hagler would be long out of range before it arrived. Too much rib, too little handspeed. What else can he do? he's hopelessy outgunned.

And if you ask me, Roy Jones and Ray Robinson come in second and third respectively because of their athleticsm. And i dont give a damn what people say that Roy Jones not fighting by the book and crticizing his technique. he always won and won big and that's what matters.

 

hagler at his best would give any middle hell. Only a few could hvae beaten him and if they fought more than once, Hagler would win a some too.

 

Sums it up best.

 

What I have highlighted is nonsense. You're making out as if Monzon was a second rate middleweight. He was anything 'but'.

Biased with a capital B.

 

Monzon is a great defensive fighter but who has he really fought?

 

I disagree.

Hearns had trouble with certain fighters that employed a straight at you type of physical fight. Marvin rolled the dice and managed to drag Hearns into something that favored the champ, thus taking away much of Tommoy's physical advantages and game plan.

 

hagler on that night showed he was a beast

before that hagler was a boxing machine add to it hes a beast

i think any middleweight champ ever would struggle and have their hardest fight against hagler and alot would lose

in the words of tyson hagler was the most complete boxer ever

and tyson is an encyclopedia of boxing

 

i would really like to doubt leonard would beat hagler in 85

 

Leonard beat hagler in 87 when well above his best weight, with no tune up and when past his best. What if ray naturally went up to 160,fought regularly AND was still youthful? Hagler always had trouble with elusive speedsters,and ray was that par excellence and much much more....