Hagler Never Got Rocked But He Was Pissing Blood After The Mugabi Fight

It all depends on how much credit you're willing to give fighters.
It seems, for many people here, there's one rule for the "star" fighters ("ATGs" or whatever) and another rule for the rest. I mean, it's endemic on this forum, and the worst aspect.
Mugabi, I agree, obviously doesn't make that cut, so it's open season to diminish anything good he did do.

Suffice to say, at the time, RING magazine rankings (which are used here extensively when it suits boosting the value of ATG resumes) had Mugabi #1 at middleweight and at light-middleweight.
Thomas Hearns went almost 2 years (21 months) without defending at all his WBC 154 title while Mugabi was his #1 WBC contender. They even paid Mugabi $250,000, which is a lot of money, and was even more money back then.
Mugabi had to face Hagler instead of Hearns, and gave Hagler a much tougher fight.

While Mugabi was hitting his best form, Ray Leonard was getting decked by Kevin Howard.
Duran beat who? Davey Moore, Jimmy Batten and a washed-up Cuevas. Splattered by Hearns and outpointed by Sims.
Yet it's sacrilege to favour Mugabi over them.

 

Breaking News.... a fighter gets damaged facing a massive puncher.

 

I agree with most of what you have written here. It's quite common to see the dismissal or even denigration of a Boxer, whose potential, for one reason or another, is somehow not realized (without the reason/s being adequately explored).

It appears as too much overall record bashing comes into play, in some cases, while the timing and context of a given, specific fight in question, disappears from the equation.

I would also add that, while it is a matter of opinion, the idea that a young contender can be 'ruined' by a certain fight, seems to often be applied or denied, as suits a given point of view of a fighter.

 

It doesn't seem unreasonable at all to have Mugabi as the nr 1 contender when he faced Hagler. But that is largely because there was a generational shift going on and Hagler had emphatically beaten everyone of significance of the old guard.

So that's really how Mugabi should be vieved: as someone with a good case for being top contender but without any big wins to get that position and not having a very strong case, just that no one really had a stronger.

 

Yes, that's fair.
I don't think I rate him anything beyond that either.

I certainly don't lift him to any "mythical proportion". I just acknowledge he was a solid contender, an absolute monster as a puncher, and I do observe an apparent decline after the Hagler fight.

Hagler was declined when he faced Mugabi but I think he was still somewhay better than most middleweight champions, and in other eras Mugabi would have taken the crown with that performance. Whether that's a particularly remarkable statement, I don't know.

Compare John Mugabi's win resume to someone like Herol Graham's (who gets way more respect on this forum, I feel), and there's really not much in it.

 

Yeah, doesn't seem that far fetched that Mugabi would beat Vito or Minter. He didn't prove himself enough that I'd say so with that much confidence, though. And Vito did better against a younger Hagler in their first fight after all, I'd say.

But I don't get the feeling that Graham gets rated higher than Mugabi around here, though. Just my take.

 

As for if Mugabi declined after the Hagler fight... It's not impossible but I'm surprised by how many here take that as a given. There aren't that many examples of a fighter of prime age without any tough previous fights that clearly declined because of one punishing fight. Frazier springs to mind, but he had had tough fights before, mainly with Bonavena, and had a style that often saw him take punishment in the early rounds There's also a question how much his changed life style and less disciplined training habits contributed to his decline.

If Mugabi declined after Hagler my guess would be that it had more to do with, as he himself has said, that he wasn't as dedicated as before. But it's still a a big "if". The most obvious fact is that he lost to fighters of a level that he hadn't faced before Hagler. He had made his name against fighters that had been ranked or was ranked in the lower top 10, and when he stepped up a level he was found wanting. There could be more to it than this, but if you want to argue that convincingly for anybody but Hagler fans you have to have something to back it up. That he had had one tough fight just isn't enough.

 

Identifying a single cause of Mugabi's decline is impossible, nothing there is provable, but "Hagler ruined him" is largely shorthand for saying he was never the same again. For whatever reason or reasons.
I think the gruelling nature of the fight was a definite factor, psychologically.
I tend to think the strange ending to the Duane Thomas fight - where Mugabi really did get thumbed badly, I believe - was a big factor too. Mugabi was possibly tentative and nervous in his first fight back from the Hagler defeat but if he hadn't had been thumbed and lost by 3rd round TKO, he might well have gone on to win that fight and he confidence would have been built again.
I heard Mugabi drank quite heavily and went and blew all his money gambling, probably AFTER the Thomas fight. May not be true, but if it is, that's another factor.

For me, Mugabi's decline is obvious after the Thomas fight, it's not an "if", nevermind a big one. He did nothing from 1988 on, weighed well over 160 for most his fights, had an undeserved shot at the title, which he won on a fluke accident in the 1st round, and lost the title in his first defence by 1st round KO.

I daresay lots of fghters have declined after one punishing fight, or after one big first loss.


"The most obvious fact is that he lost to fighters of a level that he hadn't faced before Hagler. He had made his name against fighters that had been ranked or was ranked in the lower top 10, and when he stepped up a level he was found wanting."

I have to disagree with the above statement.

Duane Thomas went and lost his next fight to Lupe Aquino. He had already lost to Buster Drayton. He has a win over Kalambay on his record but I can't believe Kalambay was fighting on his form for that one.
I doubt Thomas was ranked higher than anyone Mugabi had previously fought. RING magazine did not ranked him at all at the end of 1985 and he did nothing much in 1986 before facing Mugabi at the end of that year. I have a feeling he was ranked perhaps #9.

Now, if you want to ignore Mugabi's decline after that, his next loss was to Terry Norris.
Norris KO'd Mugabi in 1 round.
Norris had never previously KO'd any name fighter, he was coming off 10 round decision wins over Jorge Vaca and Tony Montgomery, he then went and won 12-round decisions over Lupe Aquino and a shot Ray Leonard. He was hitting his prime, certainly, but are we seriously going to say a 'LIVE' Mugabi gets KO'd in 1 round by a man who wasn't knocking out those guys.

It seems almost ridiculous to bring up Gerald McClellan at all, because it should be obvious to anyone that Mugabi was washed up by then.
But even McClellan was a nobody at that time, 22-2 with losses to journeymen. And at the end of the day, G-Man's entire reputation begins and ends with 2 wins over a fading Julian Jackson, and a valiant and tragic loss to a fading Nigel Benn.
McClellan's reputation is WAY more inflated than Mugabi's, I believe.

 

Duane Thomas had a win over Kalambay, and Norris and McClellan were a level above anyone Mugabi beat. No doubt about that.

But, yeah, the one-sided manner of his loss against Norris could be seen as a sign of decline, for whatever reason. That is reasonable. But that doesn't mean that Norris wasn't just too good for any version of Mugabi. Using a very one-sided loss as an argument that it shouldn't count at all doesn't convince me. So, yes, he might well have been declined when he met Norris but he still lost extremely one-sidedly against someone who was a level above anyone he ever proved himself against. Even Curry at the stage he was did better against Norris. Did better against Nunn as well.

But on the other hand, I haven't seen anyone argue he's on Norris's or Curry's level so that's probably a moot point. He wasn't in any way undeserving of a shot against Hagler and he gave it a good go. But he isn't proven against particularly good opposition. I think I'll leave it at that.

 

He had huge power but overall for me wasn't a monster unless it was against fringe opposition or less. Monsters have a more impressive resume. Monsters don't turn their back on Duane Thomas at their peak or get ko'd in a round against a Terry Norris.

Yes, but he was not as good as he'd been and just how "up" was he for this fight? He was mentally thinking retirement and had come off the biggest win of his career a year earlier, a fight that had been building for years.

So fighting this Hagler doesn't make it any easier for Mugabi than facing peak Hagler from a few years prior? Really? Of course it does.

This says it ALL for me and i agree with every word

Many ringside observers, including analyst Gil Clancy, noticed that Hagler was showing signs of advanced ring wear and age. He was much slower of hand and foot and seemed much easier to hit. He had also completely morphed his ring style from a slick, quick-fisted, boxer/puncher to a strictly flat-footed, stalking, slugger to compensate for his loss of speed and reflexes.

Absolutely.

Mugabi gave Hagler a great fight. Hagler showed serious decline as quoted above. The Hearns fight was plenty punishing tho, they packed a huge amount into the opening salvoes. I don't glaze over what Hagler and Hearns did to each other, that's for sure.

Who's judging Mugabi by Hagler's standard? Of course he doesn't come up to it, he's not within three levels of it. I am judging him on what he actually did in the ring and at the end of the day that mostly amounts to giving a seriously declining Hagler a rough fight. Others prefer to embrace the myth. I am not one of them.

Hundreds of fighters have copped worse beatings and came back solidly, many of them time and time again. Mugabi however gets a free pass that it's a given the Hagler fight did him in despite never having beaten top line fighters prior. You tell me who his best win is prior?

As far as finishes go Mugabi's wasn't exactly amazingly brutal against Hagler. It was as much exhaustion as anything and he certainly wasn't pole axed.

I wil say this - Mugabi fought out of his skin and put forth a very determined and confident effort even considering Hagler was obviously diminished. I'm not going to thrust him into the stratosphere just due to this one loss however, i am going to judge him on his work both prior to and after the fight. This is extremely thin comparative to his reputation for so many in here.

That's a pretty wild comment. McCall was mostly a nutcase but still put it together quite a bit etc etc

Ah the good old thumbing excuse, love it. Another free pass.

If Thomas has a win over Kalambay he's certainly got a better win than Mugabi ever actually achieved. Thomas had a bit of talent. Enough to beat peak Mugabi.

While we are handing out free passes.

Steward actually said - Thomas was unable to handle being a champion.


''He just went bonkers. ... He went on a trip mentally and he lost his next two fights,'' Steward said.

Wh

Hagler was a different Hagler as reflected by my bolded quote earlier. I'm certainly not going to pretend i know more than such astute observers as Gil Clancy. Maybe it was camo'd a bit in the Hearns fight due to it being such a brawl. Maybe Hagler tapered off fast, who knows. He's allowed to after such a long intense career at his age.

I think it is understated just how much punishment Hearns endured in that fight. I actually think it might be Hearns most impressive outing chin wise. Hagler hit him with loads of savage shots crammed into such a short time before he finally succumbed. I was surprised how much he took to be honest. Many many fighters before him had crumbled at Hagler's feet after taking so much less.

Mugabi showed impressive durability but i doubt he would have survived what Hearns took in the amount of time he took it in. Mugabi had never really showed much durability prior to Hagler (not tested much and the light punching Green had him out on his feet) and never did after either.

I think Mugabi would have succumbed a lot earlier to the fired up Hagler of the Hearns fight. It was genuine grudge match and savage as can be. No-one can tell me Hagler's intensity vs Mugabi was even close to that.

 

Well did i not answer for 160? Duran was the underdog against Barkley but this certainly didn't stop him. Bojak made good points and it would be an interesting battle. I do not doubt for a second that an on song Duran could potentially get past a somewhat limited puncher like Mugabi. His skills were insane.

 

To be pedantic the Guiden and Hargrove fights were both slightly over the weight. They could both go toward his 160 resume i guess tho neither would have been rated there.

 

I haven't handed out any free passes.
I haven't thrust Mugabi into the stratosphere OR raised him to mythical proportions.

I really don't know what to say to this.
Hearns is an ATG superstar of boxing so you can't fail to see the good in him.
Mugabi was a guy who never made that grade so you will work hard to put him down against a phantom threat of him being unduly overrated.

 

We will agree to disagree then.

You've overrated him tho imo.

Try "interesting points".

That's balls.

Feel free to educate me as to which fight Hearns showed better durability in.
Hagler absolutely hit him with plenty of savage shots inside of three rounds before he succumbed.
Many fighters were stopped by Hagler after taking plenty less.
Hearns was up in the weights, considered to have average at best durability and fighting an ATG. I will say this - Hagler has less power (plenty less in some cases) than most fans credit him for. He's a hard hitter but not an immense hitter at any rate.

I consider Mugabi considerably overrated in here at this time. A while back i reviewed some old threads and Mugabi was rated bang on where i put him personally. It was a very rich period poster wise.

I seldom go out of my way to seriously detract from a fighter unless i consider him to be overrated by a sizable amount.

If you want a prime example of someone failing to see the good in a fighter go back and check out your efforts per James Toney. They were so ludicrous at one point a former elite poster felt the need to drop in and put you in your place. Toney is light years more proven than John Mugabi.

There have been countless fighters with awesome power that have seduced us into thinking they were something they fell short of. Jamie Garza was another great example. The guys power was insane and he was poleaxing lower level fighters left right and center. As the opposition rose his performances leveled off and he never went remotely close to fulfilling the hype. He certainly had absurd power however and could flatten lesser opponents as if they were nothing.

 

Mugabi is not overrated. Sometimes when a fighter loses for the first time, he will never be the same again. Mugabi took lots of punishment in that fight.