Hagler - What If...

I still think of extremely highly of him because that was a highway robbery, he won in my book. Matter of fact, i wouldn't choose anyone over Hagler at middleweight but on their best day, Robinson and Hopkins could pull of an upset but i wouldn't count on it. Monzon gets beaten decisively in my personal opinion.

 

Funny you say that, i see Monzon as his toughest test.

 

It could very well be, although i see ring technitions that are equally as technically correct as he is would give him problems. They have the ability to out think him and are equally good of boxers that he is. I see the middleweight division back when Monzon fought as being dull with not much competition and with past their prime legends like Griffith ect. Monzon is a great fighter, true legend and a good rangy boxer with power. But i think Hagler would be too much.

 

One thing I'm confident about, Hagler would have reigned for just under 8 years. Their was only an 10 month difference between his draw with Antufermo up until he dethroned Minter for the title. Minter would have challenged Hagler no doubt. But the outcome would have been no different as they more than likely would have fought around the same time, maybe earlier.

With a 10 month difference the possible challengers around 79/80 would simply have stepped forward sooner and been dispatched with in similar circumstances.

 

Why don't you just say "I think Hagler is better because I don't **** about Monzon or his era"?

 

I know all about Monzons era and the guys that he beat and nothing impressed me. Like i have said, he was definitely a great fighter with good skills but no where near Hagler's greatness. Grittith was past his prime, Valdez was ok ect. Hagler was just the overall better fighter with the better resume.

 

Marvin Hagler = The most overrated fighter in history

 

:--( I thought i left boxing-scene

 

Doesn't Monzon's resume impress you as equally as Hagler's?

Benvenuti X2
Griffith X2
Briscoe
Napoles
Valdez X2

IMO it's better than Hagler's. Not by a mile, but it's probably better. I can mind reading a Ring interview with Monzon and he compared himself dealing with Napoles to Hagler's fight with Duran. Monzon steadily pounded Naploes into submission inside 7 rounds and showed that he could get the iron chined lighter man outta there inside schedule. Hagler on the otherhand wasn't as 'outright' and convincing against Duran. I'm not saying that alone makes Monzon greater, but it's just something worth considering in terms of how they dealt with a similar type of foe moving up in weight.

 

Its highly debatable, altough most of those guys were mainly past their prime and their best weight. Hagler beat Hearns at middleweight, but Hearns went on to become a super middleweight and light heavyweight champion.Emile Griffith's peak was back at welterweight and that was in the 1960's. In fact, after his 2 losses to Monzon, he didn't capture a middleweight crown and was fastly on the decline.


Napoles is known for one of the greatest welterweights of all time so he was also past his natural weight class. After he was stopped by Monzon, he went back down to welterweight and won a few more titles so there is some significance for Monzon there.

Lets take a look at Hagler's 5 best wins

Tommy Hearns(Who later became super middleweight and lighy heavyweight champion and hall of famer) stopped

Vito Antuofermo (hall of famer and multiple middleweight champion) stopped

Roberto Duran( Later became middleweight champion and hall of famer of course) Won a tight UD

Alan Minter(middleweight champion) stopped

John Mugabi(Unbeaten at the time and later became junior middleweight champion) stopped


Their resumes are kind of similar in way. Its actually a tough one to call. Its pretty much equal now that i look at again.

 

Surely then Hagler's era and the guys he beat doesn't impress you either. You have just sized up each of their resumes and said it's about even. "Its actually a tough one to call. Its pretty much equal now that i look at again"

 

Do we now see how easy it is to own slicksouthpaw? If I made the same arguments, which would've been my next opt, he would've drug the debate on forever because he can't admit defeat to me, and this goes back to our boxing-scene days, when he admitted to a friend that I won the debate and he was just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

That was before i said i looked over it again. Its looks about even to me now. Both fought brilliantly in their era's and handled blown up greats the way that they were suppose to.

 

I have learned not to waste my time in debates and if we are not getting anywhere, then there is no point to it. If we are both unbiased and reasonable, then we can have a sensible debate. Also, i have beaten you in numerous debates over at boxing-scene. I have left that dump of a forum for a while anyway so you will be seeing more of southpaw here.