Hagler against McCallum, Nunn, Kalambay, Toney

Hagler loses to mccallum,toney,beats others.

 

Agreed, as far as the middleweights Hagler is IMO an ATG a mans man. Toney and Nunn should have been skills wise they could have been ATG and McCallum is just one of those murderers row type greats that could hang and beat anyone in history. In fact he is the one man Toney gives props to as simply the best fighter he had ever faced.

What detracts from Nunn and Toney at middleweight was they never proved longevity at the weight.

Lets keep Toney in proper perspective. He is a beautiful fighter to watch subtle, physically and mentally tough he got in the ring with anyone and everyone to include Randy Couture under his rules. He was a small middleweight who moved up the challenges most would never take up the the heavyweights and even beat ranked heavies. We haven't seen a middleweight like this since Mickey Walker. Yeah RJJ did it but he wasn't a take on all comers type of fighter like Toney.

But at middleweight Hagler beats them all.

 

I like James and have nothing against him. I became a fan after reading about his great win over Nunn and salivated over his matchup with McCallum but too many close calls including Johnson along with the Tiberi fight, then the Jones fight really crushed me. I know James wouldnt be up to a fight with Marv and I am afraid he probably would not have qualified to fight Hagler in his day. Would have been outhustled by a young up N coming Frank Fletcher or Sibson, mauled by a Juan Domingo Roldan

In fact, Toney may have been more on the level of a James Kinchen or dueling with the likes of Duran?

Kalambay, youre right, his skills were much superior to Minter. cant see Alan beating McCallum

 

When exactly was Hagler 'great' against top opposition? Because he didn't look great against Duran or in the first Antufermo fight, nevermind Leonard.

Against who though? Hagler's opposition just wasn't that great.

A bit of myth, decent opposition but not that impressive, it was hardly a murderer's row

 

Cant see McCallum snatching haglers body.
Cant see Nunn surviving except at long distance, but for 15 ?
Cant see Kalambay surviving ... period. Never thought a lot of him.

The Toney fight looks real interesting. One guy pressing and pressing, the other slipping, countering in flurries and moving away.

if only Hagler had a fight like that we might be able to agree who wins.

 

Amazing matches. Hagler of '77-'78 was such a sharp counter-puncher with such an airtight defense, he'd beat almost anyone of a similar size. Though Nunn has such abnormalities in height, reach, speed and dexterity that he's almost unbeatable at his best...

The boxer-puncher version of Hagler of '82-'83 would be outmanuveured by Toney and Kalambay.

McCallum was such a slow starter, if Hagler came out like he did against Hearns, would he contain him? He was running away from Steve Collins in the last seven rounds of their fight when he'd already found his pace, range and timing...

 

Difference is thought that leanord used his legs alot more than toney did, and also was more active. Toney only fought for 20 seconds a round

 

If you are alluding to Hagler's fight against Leonard here, I think it's flawed logic to use that fight as a yardstick by which to measure how anyone would fare against a Hagler at the peak of his powers...I'm sure you're aware and would agree that Hagler in '87 was in no way comparable to Hagler in '82 & 83?

 

I'd agree with you there and I'd say that the next generation, were they stronger than what Hagler had in front of him? It's hard to say, were Sibson, Obelmejas, Hamsho etc lesser fighters because they didn't win a title? Maybe they didn't because Hagler was the top man and dominant. When people talk about champions reigns and opposition they don't talk about fights on the way up. Hagler had tough fights, you might call it the Philly murderers row. Out of those guys Hagler was the one that survived and went on to better things. I do think tnough that Mike McCallum had something about him and would of give Marvin a fight at any time of his career. For me McCallum could do it all and stylistically give any "great" a fight at middleweight.

 

Gotta say again though that all 4 were quality fighters and would give Marvin a fight with the title on the line.

 

Absolutely spot on AF.

I think having read many of your posts that you are somewhere around a similar age to me (very early 50s!!!) and were "there at the time" when Hagler was champion. I think that some (younger) people don't realise what an awesome dominant champ Hagler was in the first half of the 80s - his decline first became apparent in the Mugabi fight in '86.

I agree with what you say about McCallum, but I have read the view expressed on these boards that Marvin somehow avoided Mike when he was champion, but (I'm sure you would agree) that this is simply not true - there was very little clamour for Marv to fight Mike during Hagler's reign, Mike was establishing himself as a champ at LMW during the latter part of Marv's reign (I remember Mike first winning the WBA LMW title against Sean Mannion on the undercard of Hagler-Hamsho 2at the MSG in late '84) and the public wanted the Hearns then the Mugabi fights for Hagler.

The benefit of hindsight can blur things & historical perceptions may have changed our perceptions of individual fighters, but McCallum "arrived" as a middle once Hagler was off the scene.

 

50 this year, I became more than a casual fan I suppose in the second half of the 70's, 75-76 ish.

 

he does but hides the fact so Leonard can get full credit for the win

 

All 4 of those guys would present Marvin with a difficult fight, but at his very peak, he beats all 4.

 

Yes, fair point Fast Hands, Hagler was incredibly dominant. I cant remember giving anyone a prayer against him back then. I suppose I favoured Toney from the four mentioned as he moved so well but its a tough ask to keep 82/83 Hagler away for 15 he was so fit. I'll bet he could still run 6 miles backwards now!