Enormous question. Tyson's shorter but extremely busy and crazy dominant. Hagler with the best win comfortably in Hearns. Both dominant. Both taking on solid comers every fight. Neither really looked like losing. Both were the P4P #1 for a period. I can only overly split them by longevity in years and hence lean ever so slightly to Hagler - at this moment.
If we're looking at pure numbers, Hagler takes it - longevity, defenses, KO percentage all point to Hagler. Hagler - 6 years 6 months, 13 title wins, 12 by KO Tyson - 3 years 2 months, 10 title wins, 8 by KO Quality of opposition: Hagler's biggest wins were against Duran and Hearns with the Hearns win being truly spectacular. Tyson's were against a faded Holmes and Spinks. Generally, though, pretty even. Dominance - Tyson's big early knockouts are probably better remembered (crushing Berbick, Holmes and Spinks) Hagler was just as clinical but maybe not as out and out spectacular. Both were undisputed champs, Hagler through his whole reign, but Tyson unified quickly. Overall, Hagler deserves it.
I love Mike, but Marvin showed things Mike never did. Toughness mentally and experience in life and a patience in personality to learn and get better always. He was a significantly better all around fighter and the fighters he fought were top notch. Vito, Hamsho was tricky, Sibson was tough and strong as Marvin said. Duran was tricky and Hearns rocked him but he came back and they had a war. I think Mugabi was a fight Hagler should not have had. He was losing his motivation for fighting. But he won. Hagler was more complete then Tyson and mentally stronger and would never have been affected by Don King and influenced by him at all. Marvin was not a talker, he was a strong minded guy and instinctively well balanced. I don't think Mike was strong minded and balanced like Marvin, not close. Marvin would have kept Goody and Pat forever and he would not have fallen for Don King's control If Marvin could go up head to head in equal weight I could see Marvin busting up Mike and stopping him in 9 or 10 rounds. Mike fought a lot of retreads from the 1980s at the time who were tough, but Mike to me was a notch better from the get go from the guys he fought which some call a front runner. He was just riding momentum and had power and he was great. But Mike never fought the guy I think could have beaten him and I am not talking a great here, Tim Witherspoon. He would have been Mike's toughest fight. He was big and good chin regardless of the 2nd Bonecrusher fight, and he had decent power. Hagler to me on a scale 1-10 and 10 being the best title reign which is unheard of. I think Hagler had a 7 or 8.. Mike had a 5 or 6.. I think Ali's title reign was a bout 9. 10 is probably not a reign which was ever accomplished.
Excellent post, particularly the point about mental toughness. And I'd give Hagler at least an 8/10 on title reign (based on the criteria that 10/10 has never happened). I can't think of that many title reigns greater than his in boxing history.
