Could Leonard beat a prime Hagler?

I can to a degree understand Iry's irritation. I think Hagler actually has surpassed Duran in getting the most free handjobs in this forum. Starting to wonder how many here secretely have had wet dreams about the guy.

 

No. Early 80s Hagler beats him for sure IMO.

 

Please tell me you mean welterweight and then please tell me you're joking.

 

Prime Hagler beats Prime Leonard.

But Marvin was not an unbeatable fighter.
Willie Monroe showed what kind of style could frustrate and beat Marvin.

And Boogalo Watts, really a 154 lb. Junior Middleweight, proved that if you used a quick-fisted attack on Marvin, he could again be frustrated.

 

man, you don't have a ton of love for hagler do you:tong

 

I think he's confused,,,,,,,,,I think he's referring to a track meet.

 

I think he was a great fighter, one of the very best MWs. But ruling out completely that guys like Hopkins, Monzon, Jones, SRR and SRL could beat him prime for prime... Where the hell does that come from?

The facts are that he had some problems with a past-prime former LW (that previously had been easily beaten by Benitez and would be by Hearns) and that he in fact lost to a former WW who was probably as past his prime (at least) as he was.

Many of the posts here would only make any sense if the above things had never occurred.

 

I don't believe this statement is accurate. There was a poll in here recently which surprisingly favored Leonard as the winner by a pretty good margin. Over the years, it seems to me to be split 50-50, being one of those fights which it depends on what you're looking for.

 

I think when we discuss the concept of "prime", we also have to consider that the Leonard who faced Hagler was hardly "prime" either.. That being said, I'm not sure if a younger Leonard would have beaten a peak Hagler within the middle weight perameters, but I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the posssibility either.. As already mentioned, Hagler had some close fights with far lesser men, while Sugar was beating all time greats at a lower class in Duran, Benitez and Hearns... He also looked very good at Jr. Middleweight as well..

 

I actually went through the trouble of attempting to create a very similar post, but would have saved myself some typing by just seconding this one... You've encapsulated the issue perfectly. :good

 

i agree with this. it's not nearly as one-sided as many fans would have you believe, in that hagler is not the "boxing fan's" choice for a winner. it's a damn close fight and the argument is well made by bokaj and magoo: leonard is a live underdog at any point in their careers

 

Hagler was clearly the more faded of the two. A prime Leonard would have fought Marvin the exact same way, but Marvin would have been able to do more because his speed wouldn't have been completely shot.

 

What evidence is there to support that Hagler was "clearly" the more faded of the two? Leonard had fought but once in some 3 years, and would be floored three times in his next two bouts following the Hagler fight. Not to mention, was competing at Marvin's natural weight class for the first time ever.

I won't argue for pages and pages about who was more faded, but do you really believe that Hagler was at a greater disadvantage?

 

Because he's a he-man, working-class hero that's loved by real boxing fans as opposed to the all glitz, sneaky Leonard who's only liked by the liberal media and know-nothing fan boys. What more evidence could you possibly ask for?