Who's Greater: Holyfield or Hagler?

Thats the key area IMO, as well as Holyfield beating better opponents. Hagler was consistent compared to Holyfield because he never went out of his comfort zone as often as Holyfield did.

I can understand that Hagler staying at middleweight shouldn't hurt him as an ATG, but it clearly does when soley making a direct comparison with Holyfield. It can't be ignored.

The only time Hagler was really up against it on paper all the way through his 7 year reign was when he fought Hearns, and possibly Mugabi. His marquee superfights with Duran and Leonard weren't percieved as dangerous. The rest of the quality within his resume were just top contenders.

Holyfield overcame harder and tougher obstacles.

 

First of all, Antuofermo and Sibson are both better than pretty much any MW around today, and would've certainly been more than contenders in this era.

Second of all, as was said, Hagler was a true MW, not a LHW, and instead of trying his hands outside of his comfort zone, he (like Hopkins) decided to clean up his own division. Difference was, his list of opponents at MW was noticeably greater than Hopkins's. I don't see many MW's moving up to LHW in an era like that either. Maybe if he'd been around during the sorry LHW era that Hopkins and others moved up in, things would've been different.

As to the question, I really have no strong preference either way, though I tend to think Holyfield still gets underrated, whether P4P or as a Heavy.

 

Well, the opponents he beat below are signifcant and impressive surely?

Mike Tyson, Riddick Bowe, George Foreman, Buster Douglas, Michael Moorer, Ray Mercer, etc.

 

Hagler, easily.

Holyfield IMO is a woulda-coulda-shoulda case. He had a great CW resume but we can't automatically give him credit for dominating the division AFTER he left it.

His HW career was good but VERY inconsistent. He was never truly the best man of his time.

I think what answers this question the best is that Hagler is a guaranteed top 3-5 middleweight while Holyfield is not a top 5 heavyweight by any means.

 

That list looks great until you notice that he was actually 1-2 against Bowe (a narrow decision win vs. a wide decision loss and a stoppage) and 1-1 against Moorer...

Tyson 2x are good wins but let's face it, 1995-1996 Tyson was beatable by anyone with skills and a gameplan (plus a hard head).

The Douglas that showed up to fight Holyfield shouldn't of been allowed in the ring.

Mercer and Foreman are good wins... but seriously... Mercer's shining moment was his loss to Lewis.

Let me add that I'm not trying to chop up the man's resume. Holyfield is a certifiable ATG at heavy, but his resume is definitely flawed...he split and/or lost to the best of his era (Bowe, Lewis) and alot of his wins look good on paper but are, in reality, not that graet.

 

No, they didnt come into the picture until later. I'm talking people like Sibbo, Hamsho and Obel. This is when Hagler was at his best.

You could tell Marvin had come a long way since becoming champion,, much better prepared than he was for the first Antuofuermo fight. Everyone thought staying on top of Marvin was the key to beating him but Marvin fought at a superhuman pace in this one, like when he butchered Minter. These types of fighters (Hagler, Dempsey) are the worst kind you can ever face in a fight. Like braverman said "we never saw Marvin look so good"


Hearns, and Leonard were also top notch, although a little lighter/weaker. I dont know how Leonard did it (secret fights maybe?) but he seemed to have regained all the skills that brought him the championship and sure enough, he did it again.

He was even better than I remembered him. Particularly impressive the first 4 rounds, and extremely sharp for someone on such a long layoff. Trying to hit Leonard was like trying to hit a cloud that night.

Out of all Hagler's opponents, Leonard displayed the most skill but at the slowest pace. Who knows how well Tommy would have done had the pace been as slow. I can't imagine prime Hearns losing.

Hearns of course showed the most explosive offense I'd ever seen from a middleweight-any middleweight. Such handspeed.

Anyone else woulld have been on the floor; Monzon, Lamotta, Valdez-all of them would have been dazed and bleeding. Of course Hagler was bleeding too but he overcame the initial blitzkreig and Hearns.

I wasnt really impressed by Duran in the Hagler fight. Leonard was more impressive.

Let's not forget Juan Roldan. He fought like Tony Ayala Jr and on that night would have bludgeoned Duran or Leonard

 

Holyfield regaining the same consistency at heavyweight as he did at cruiserweight was never going to happen. He was a dwarf against Foreman and was giving away around 50lbs for that fight. And credit to Holyfield for risking a lot and taking the fight to Big George. While Foreman was past his prime and his 40's, he was still blowing away opponents in the same manner as he did 20 years earlier when he landed on them.

IMO, Holyfield was up against it more than he was at cruiserweight. Thats why it was a tall order for him to remain as consistent. Bowe wasn't just a lump of wood with a decent punch. He was younger than Holyfield, and some might well argue more skilled as well. And it speaks volumes for Holyfield that he was able to gain revenge over an opponent with Bowe's credentials.

Many fighters of a similar size would have retired after defeats to Bowe and Moorer. But Holyfield kept plugging away and got himself back on track. After the Moorer defeat, he was beaten by Bowe in their rubber match between two average performances against Mercer and Czyz. He was 34 years old and on the slide. So we all thought.....

Nobody gave him a prayer against Tyson based on the inconsistency he had shown since winning the Bowe rematch 3 years earlier. His punch resistance was seriously questioned going into the Tyson fight based on his first stoppage loss against Bowe a year earlier.

The Tyson performance by Holyfield made a fool of millions of very knowledgeable observers.

Holyfield was up against an assortment of heavyweights. Some were older, younger, bigger, more powerful, and in some cases more skilled.

I think what he achieved at heavyweight needs to be praised more than knocked on.

 

Tough question. I like RedRoosters reasoning though.

Holyfield had solid performances against naturally larger men and high profile wins. He had no business ever beating Bowe and that win is his greatest in my opinion... but even that is surrounded by 2 losses against the same. When you watched Hagler at any point after 1979, you just knew that he was the force in that ring. He was reliably consistent and consistently reliable. I put far more value on Hagler's tried and true training methods than Holyfield's Ivan Drago training methods that eventually probably included banned substances. When you watched Holyfield at his best against HWs, you held your breath. Watching Hagler was like watching the "man, the myth, the master, and the monster" that he styled himself as.

Holyfield's "performances against larger men" is trumped by Hagler's "dominance" of and "longevity" in his natural division.

Hagler by a mouthpiece.

 

You really think they are that much better than Hopkins? I wouldnt favor either over him. He only moved up for money and his legacy he didnt outgrow the division. Holy was a cruiser but still moved up.

I still dont see the division then as great. A lot of good, capable fighters but not great ones. Barring Hagler i dont rate any particularly highly. Kalambay, Nunn, Toney, Jones, Hopkins, Wright even Taylor would all be better than even against most/all those contenders so i dont think any would be much more than they were at anytime since. Hearns, Leonard and Duran all moved up to be among Haglers best opponents.

This is not a slight on Hagler but just why i personally rate Holy higher

 

I never said any of them were better than Hopkins, I said they were better than the fighters Hopkins beat at MW and most, if not all, of the MW's around today.

Doesn't sound like you know too much about any of them. I'll concede they aren't great, but they're (Antuofermo, Sibson, Minter, Roldan, Hamsho, Hart, Seales, etc.) better than the likes of the "elite" fighters around today like Pavlik, Taylor, etc. or the top guys Hopkins beat like Joppy, Eastman, Holmes, Echols, Vanderpool, etc.

I don't see Wright and Taylor beating any of Hagler's naturally smaller opponents like Hearns, Leonard, or Duran, and I see Wright losing to guys like Antuofermo and Sibson with Taylor conceivably losing to most of the guys I named, though he's capable of pulling off a win or two.

And all were more than good enough at MW (despite starting off at lower weights) to merit such claims, as opposed to Hopkins's lower weight conquests like De La Hoya, Trinidad, and Wright. The Trinidad win was the biggest among those, and still didn't measure up to any of Hagler's smaller wins.

No problems there, but I think you're selling his resume short, especially in comparison to Hopkins.

 

True, and it should also be noted that Holyfield was winning titles and fighting top rate opponents with less than a dozen pro fights. Hagler did not start facing rank opposition until well after he had accumulated a fair number of bouts.

Holyfield's record is among the least padded in boxing history.

 

I wasnt comparing his resume to Hops but to Holys. I only mentioned Hops because it was stated that Haglers victims would be more than contenders and i dont think they would beat Hops. I agree Wright and Taylor dont beat Leonard or Hearns but I do think Hamsho, Vito, Obel etc struggle with them.
Totally understand your points i just see Holy higher

 

I'm going with Marvin on this one.He cleaned out his division before winning the title, was undisputed for most of his reign, and only lost because he had faded.Evander was a two-time undisputed champ, #1 fighter all-time at cruiserweight, but truthfully, never should have beaten Bowe, and given Lewis problems.He came into the division at the right place and right time and beat some fighters who would have taken him if they had fought him five to six years earlier.Marvin just seemed more consistent also.

 

Hagler- not by a great deal, though.

 

I'd also like to add Minter, who Hagler took the title from. Scypion, Hamsho, Lee, Obel, Roldan, Geraldo, Monroe, Sibson, etc, were all middleweight contenders. Some better than others.