Are Hagler's title challengers underrated?

their underrated by people who say his best challengers were moving up in weight, his biggest fights were those guys but that doesn't mean best.

 

Who was a better challenger than Hearns?

Mugabi was a great win. But Marv doesn't have a single elite win at MW over an elite MW in their prime.

 

I always wondered what was Hagler's walk around weight. Durans? Hearns? Leonards?

 

A champion like Hagler always distorts the division.

Take him away, and we are looking at additional lineal champions!

 

No, if anything I think there is a strong revisionist tendency to make his opponent's out to be better than they were. Those guys were solid but nothing to write home about.

 

So how does the lineage go, if he was never born?

 

No idea. Any number of people who could have beaten Alan Minter on the right night and any number of people who could have beaten them.

 

I don't think so. Hagler's opponents pass the eye test, so to speak. Antuofermo for example was a hard-as-nails sob that people don't even seem to mention much. Just shows you how deep his resume was. Mugabi could have been somebody but as OP pointed out, Hagler ruined his career. Tommy Hearns was a killer in the ring. I think Hagler's opponents are rated about right.

 

We can look at Hagler's opponents like we look at J.Louis he was so dominate he made very good competition look average. You look at the fighters already mentioned on this topic plus fighters like Obeijimas, Hamsho, Sibson, men who may have been championship material but had that mountain to climb called Hagler.

 

Sibson MW champ of the world :bbb

 

Hagler's title challengers weren't underrated.

The best middleweights he defended against were Vito Antuofermo, Mustafa Hamsho and Tony Sibson, in that order. Hamsho beat a number of contenders (Minter, Parker, Scypion, Czyz) and Sibson did as well.

Mugabi had a glossy record of knockouts, but he was really a junior middleweight fighting junior middleweights a pound or two over the limit. The only real middleweight contender Mugabi fought was Parker after Curtis had lost to everyone.

All those guys were fine. They were qualified contenders. There's no shame in fighting any of them. There's no need to inflate them at all. They were who they were.

I still have no idea how Fully Obel got two title shots. The only time his name came up back then was when he was fighting Hagler. He didn't beat anyone before either title fight.

Hagler's best middleweight challengers were the names who moved up. Hearns. Leonard. Duran.

That's why people say Hagler's best opponents moved up. Because they did.

Hagler beat solid middleweight contenders coming up and while champ, he beat some first ballot hall of famers who moved up, and he's got a fine resume.

But none of these guys were future great champs who just couldn't get past Hagler. Roldan fought Hearns and Nunn and lost badly both times. Sibson fought Frank Tate at home and got stopped.

They weren't special challengers by any means. Just solid middleweights.

 

Exactly. I agree.

 

I'm not sure they were even better than Hopkin's. Perhaps a bit, but not much in it.

 

Caveman Lee and Obelmeijas (spelled that wrong, didn't I?) were weak but for the most part they were a solid bunch. Hearns may have been coming up but he was a monster still, and an older version of Duran decisioned a very good Iran Barkley. Sibson, Mugabi etc. were solid fighters.
I think Marv did come around at the right time though, cause the division got tougher not long after he retired. (Nunn, McCallum, Toney, Kalambay etc.)