I don't think Calzaghe is going to be boxing much on the backfoot anyway. They're probably both going to be in the middle of the ring, looking for angles and openings. Some circling by both guys, but not an awful lot of chasing or "running". Hagler was muscular, but not an especially big middleweight. He weighed a couple pounds below 160 on a number of occasions, I think even weighing 156 one time for a title bout. On the other hand, Calzaghe is weighing in like 24 hours before Hagler did when he fought, and still, regularly spoke of having trouble making 168. Logic tells you that he'd be fighting at 175 right now under the old weigh-in procedures. That is a considerable size advantage.
Subtly dissing Calzaghe? People get too defensive about fighters. Combos are more about than simply throwing a lot of punches. They're about creating and exploiting openings. Hagler did that better. What I do like about Calzaghe's quick combos is that in between the arm punches, he turns over a hard punch in the middle of it. And often, it's at the right time so it does damage. But overall, his combos aren't as good as Hagler's were. In-fighting is not simply about being stronger. It's about angles and positioning. It's about knowing where to throw punches and position your body so you can land with damage and not get hit, or if you do, it takes away some of the impact of being hit. Calzaghe not being as versatile as Hagler is not a bad thing. It's more of a credit to Hagler. Three of the Fab 4 (Duran, Hagler, and Hearns) were among the more complete and versatile fighters you'll ever see. Calzaghe made very nice adjustments against Kessler, but when I was talking about swtiching styles, I meant the fact that a traditional boxer-puncher turned swarmer against a fighter the caliber of ****ing Thomas Hearns and kicked his ass.
Of course combos are more than throwing a lot of punches. You talk about creating and exploiting openings better, and credit Hagler for that. Well neither guy was known for being a combo king the way a SRL or Marquez were, but both guys were decent combo artists. Hagler certainly had no clear advantage over Joe here. As for switching adjustments - well sure Hagler was an amazing puincher who could turn into a great boxer. I give the guy all the respect in the world. But by the time Joe fought Kessler his hands were completely ruined. Joe took on a bigger guy, a guy just as sharp, an undefeated champion, someone who had never been KD..... and a guy no ones dared to go near ever since. Joe took on and bettered this guy despiter having brittle hands. I have massive respect for Marvin Hagler, but you put him up against a prime Calzaghe at SMW and he's surely in for a beating.
Deary Me !!! which nut made this post. 1 fighter held a minor title for a decade fighting only 2 current champs (who are hardly great). Other fought elite comp for a decade lol ....go figure
I'd pick Hagler by decision. I can't see Calzaghe trading with Hagler and coming off best even with his workrate so he would have to outbox Hagler utilising his speed and movement. While Calzaghe can box very well he has always been relatively easy to hit, the Lacy fight is flattering because Lacy was so crude, alot of Joe's defence that night was his offence. If you actually watch a lot of Calzaghe fights he is actually relatively easy to hit. If Hagler can cut off the ring against a slick, speedster like Leonard I think he has no problems getting into range against Calzaghe. The only factor that could favour Calzaghe is the extra weight and it's hard to say how much of an advantage that would be. But based on styles and ability I'd favour Hagler.
Yep mid rounds in the kessler fight were his finest. I dont think he would beat hagler i just picked calzaghe for the craic.
Marv would of stopped JC with relentless pressure working both the body & head. Nothing Joe throws would hurt Marv in any way which would spell his doom. Late tko win for hagler.