Emile Griffith vs Marvin Hagler

If Griffith was a 100% natural middleweight like Hagler he'd be extremely tough. Personally i don't think Emile could win but he'd be tricky none the less.

 

That and that southpaw style to solve. Especially considering that 81 version of Hagler when he threw darts. Nice straight as an arrow punches. Most folks just consider the wider looping shots from the Hearns/Mugabi/Leonard version. But before that deterioration set in, he had as accurate of hands as anyone in the sport. And threw darts, nothing wide. Threw a lot more uppercuts back then as well.

That guy is a big big problem for Emile. Minimal southpaws back in the day and let alone one with the skillset of a Hagler. I think the Griffith chances are pretty much only possible via cuts, to be honest. Hang tough, sure. Winning the fight is completely different. He really was not a shoeshiner/cutie pie and that might help win a few more rounds.

 

Emile Griffith like Hagler wasn't a big mw and both could easily make the 154 lb if they really wanted. Similar to Monzon fight and the difference Hagler was no Monzon size wise in the ring. A fast past even fight before Hagler rallies late to steal a dec.

 

50/50

 

Bad match-up , but for Hagler believe it or not. Hagler always had problems with fighters who won't come straight at him( he would destroy a Greb, but have all kinds of problems with say a M .Nunn, a fighter not close to Greb as far as his historic significance) Hagler may win the fight, but like Watts,Monroe,Duran and Leonard proved, Hagler can become hesitant against fighters using angles. Look at his best wins, than look at the fights he struggled in.

 

Agreed - it's a real pick 'em. I take Hagler to edge a best-of-three series but it would be touch and go the whole way.

 

Pretty amazing most posters here are giving Griffith a shot against a peak Hagler, yet they belittle monzons two wins over Emile Griffith...why is that?

 

Griffith had quite a lot of losses near his prime at 160 to imagine him beating a peak Hagler in my estimation.

Levels...Hagler was on a level above, and much bigger

 

Styles make fights.

 

You grossly underestimate Emile Griffith. He wasn't no damned Tony Sibson or Wilfred Scyprion(however the **** you spell it) man.

 

You're supposed to be assessing him at his best for this hypothetical match, remember?

 

Hagler was much bigger than Duran too, wasn't he? Griffith was much stronger than Duran, and grew into a natural middleweight....more natural than Duran anyway.

 

The Hagler/Duran bout was not won on strength. It was won on skill.

Hagler out-skilled Duran (I also think the scorecards belie the relative ease in which Hagler achieved this).

Griffith poses some problems for Hagler, for sure. Griffith was very strong and versatile; he could stick-n-move, swarm an opponent and he worked well on the inside. His combination assaults, going forward, were very impressive. He was a world-class Great.

However, was he as strong as Hagler? Would Griffith be able to cause and sustain Hagler being on the back-foot, in order to show of some of his best work? Was his all-round game better than Hagler's? I am doubtful.

Griffith is not going to be able to out-muscle Hagler. He's probably going to get beaten on inside exchanges with Hagler. He's likely to get continuously countered by Hagler on the outside; not to mention his having to deal with Hagler-initiated assaults, which were more clinical than Griffith's, in my opinion.

I don't think Hagler would need to make any significant adjustments against Griffith. At his best, he would beat a game but over-matched Griffith, over the majority of 15 rounds, towards what would most likely be a wide UD.

 

This is great. Next time someone brings up monzon beating less than stellar opposition, I am going to say he twice beat a mean who many of this forum picked to beat a peak Marvin Hagler

 

Yeah but think levels. Levels and size play into factor before styles do.