Are Hagler's title challengers underrated?

"Antuofermo for example was a hard-as-nails sob that people don't even seem to mention much."

Vito was kinda the "Carmen Basilio" of the MW Division. The type of guy you definitely would not want to encounter in a back alley brawl at nite.

 

If fighters such as Nunn, Kalambay, Toney and McCallum had come along 5 to 8 years earlier people would probably be doubting them as being particularly good middleweights too.

 

The division wasn't all that strong. It's not Hagler's fault.

He beat all the top guys or beat the guys who beat the guys.

For instance, he never fought Davison, Parker or Fletcher, but he beat the guys who beat them - Sibson, Hamsho and Sypion/Roldan.

The only really blatant easy defense was Caveman Lee and Obel rematch.

Lee didn't deserve a title shot and Obel had done nothing to deserve a re-match.

 

Why?

 

Because they would have lost to Hagler and been remembered by many as routine or even mediocre middleweights.

 

Maybe they all lose to Hagler (far from certain), but the better question might be whether any of them get stopped by the likes of Ronnie Harris, Gratien Tonna, Maurice Hope, or Don Lee, etc.

And what about the eyeball test? Do Minter/Hamsho/Antuofermo look as good as Toney/Nunn/Kalambay/McCallum when you watch their fights? Do they seem as technically skilled? As physically talented?

 

BTW, random question but why is Alan Minter listed as being only 5'9 when he looks taller than Hagler (who's listed as 5'9.5) and is clearly significantly taller than Sibson (5' 8 ) and Vito (5'7.5)?

 

Hagler fought extremely good middleweights .. Vito was a terrific fighter, Minter as well, Sibson was a crusher, Sypion could fight, Hamsho was a mauling bruiser, Roldan was an animal, Hearns exceptionally dangerous .. however he did not fight anyone on the level og the guys like Toney and Nunn that followed .. I wonder how Hagler would have done against a prime middleweight Toney ..

 

I think he would have outworked Toney with superior work rate and conditioning.

Of all the late '80's Middleweights, I think Nunn would be the toughest for Hagler to beat. McCallum would have been competitve as well. I think he beats Kalambay.

 

I agree on Hagler/Toney but I also think Hagler would have given Nunn problems he'd never seen before. Nunn looked great when he was controlling a bout. I just don't see him having that luxury against Hagler, with Nunn getting stopped at some point mid to late stages of the fight.

I agree with Hagler beating Kalambay, as well.

McCallum, on the best of his middleweight days, presents the greatest challenge to Hagler, in my opinion. Teak tough and the most cerebral Boxer of the bunch, I think he could take this one the distance, with Hagler carving out a comfortable UD over 15. Though, I wouldn't absolutely rule out a stoppage for Hagler, either.

 

The "better question" could be asked in reverse, e.g. Would Hagler's championship competition have lost to the likes of Steve Little, Duane Thomas or Montell Griffin? In both cases one is attempting to map fighters and their individual fight experiences from one timeframe to another. Not altogether a bad idea but a somewhat expansive level of investigation, which would still only yield a set of subjective speculations.

As far as the Eye-Test goes, if Hagler stops all of them (barring, perhaps McCallum), which is by no means inconceivable, then the inherent immateriality of aesthetics becomes positively moot.

 

A pretty solid bunch all in all.

 

The other day some youtube boxing channel guy tried to tell me Haglers era was rubbish and that the current middleweight era is stronger. He basically said Haglers resume outside the fab 4 was poor and that GGG had fought better middleweights. He also said GGG would beat the **** out of Hagler lol. He's one of those mongs who think current fighters are more skilled because boxing's evolved.

 

Invert away. The losses you reference aren't as bad as the stoppages suffered against the men I named. But more importantly, the eyeball test isn't just a matter of aesthetics, it's about assessing the strengths and weaknesses, abilities and limitations of different fighters. Some fighters are much harder to hit cleanly than others because they have faster feet, better defensive reflexes and/or better head movement. Some are more formidable offensively because they throw faster punches, better combinations, and have longer reaches than other fighters. You have to watch the fights to form opinions about this stuff.

 

Today's middleweight division is probably even less strong. But I think the best fighters in today's 154-lb division would do *extremely* well against Hagler's non-Fab 4 opponents though (especially if we include Canelo).