GGG (AT 36) vs Hagler and Hearns in their 30`s who would have won?

Why do you think that?

 

you pick Hearns worst fight in 1988 after he lost to Barkley. And Hearns was moving up and down in weight at this point. Listen. going back to March of 1986 he fought a 160,, in June 1986 Hearns fought at 154.. Then in October 1986 back at middleweight for Dewitt. Then March 1987 Andries at 175, then October 1987 back down at 160 for Roldan. Then Barkley at 160 in June of 1988, then Kinchen November of 1988.. Who ever went up and down like that in the history of boxing really. It was rather dumb of him and Steward.

 

Hearns had a lot more tough fights at this point than GGG had. Just the times and who he had to fight. And moving up in weight, something GGG has not done.

 

Everything is relative to different fights. Khan seemed to be a little quicker than Canelo early. Cotto vs. Canelo was a struggle.

 

I don't remember that. I remember Vinny not landing one punch on Jones in round one.

 

Neither did Hagler or Monzon! By the way Hagler retired at age 32, Monzon, age 34. Neither would likely beat Canelo at age 36 with these " judges "

I would not rule out GGG moving up too 168.

One of the toughest match up for a fighter on the slide due to age is vs. a much younger fast handed counter puncher, who's got a good defense and a durable chin. Canleo in a nut shell.

 

I agree that Canelo is a much better middleweight than given credit wth very good top tier skills and with todays weigh ins he is actually bigger for but I am not sure how he matches up with Hearns....Hagler was so stylistically similar to GGG it is possible as deteriorated as MMH seemed by then but I can't see MMh sticking with a stick and move strategy as long as GGG did this type of fight was Hagers best style to fight but Hearns is someone I would have to think about.