Highest p4p: Monzon, Hagler, McCallum or Hearns?

Personally, I'm more interested in judging fighters on and around their prime, rather than who faded less. I prefer short-term greatness over long-term goodness any day (that's in general by the way, not just in this example). I never really considered McCallum great at 160 and this was just about the last time the middleweight crown really meant something (personally I think the Leonard/Hearns 'race to 5' was to blame for the ultimate demise of the division, when many fighters were jumping ship soon after winning at 160, which was never really the case pre-1990).

Also, if Hagler had have beaten, say, Murray Sutherland and Leslie Stewart, I doubt i'd have been as impressed as I was at his 7-year reign at middleweight. The middleweight crown was clearly the 2nd biggest prize in boxing and it was great to see his pride in holding it, he cherished the crown. It's a shame it will never hold that kind of status again.

 

Yes. I don't know the kid, but he seems a good lad. :yep

 

I'll have a look mate, I think I got it off Blue Kipper.

 

I'd say 'yes'. I suppose for my generation, it's easy with Hagler. Because at the time, there was this aura about him (especially from 1982-1985) when he looked unstoppable. I bet the likes of Red Cobra would say the same a decade earlier. Certainly looking at the literature of the times, the impression that Monzon would always find a way to win, like Hagler did.

Watching Monzon I always felt he kept a perfect scorecard in his head, which was almost always spot on to how the judges saw the fight too. He'd raise his game for a few rounds, maybe take one or two off, then force the action and put another two in the bag, while pacing himself perfectly. Both him and Hagler looked like they really hated to waste punches too, although I think Carlos was less afraid of keeping the fight close, probably the Vito robbery in 1979 caused that added fear in Marvin that he needed a bigger margin to be sure; whereas, Monzon knew.

 

The Toney rematch was closer than the first for me, which Toney deserved the nod, with the 2nd one probably a draw (if I recall my card correctly). Mike was impressive enough at 160 but not like Monzon/Hagler were- and I don't regard the 154 crown in the same league (at least not in those days)

I'm impressed with longevity as long as it includes greatness at some stage. I know it did with Mike (at 154) but not with other weights in my opinion, not to the level of the other three. Kalambay wasn't the fighter he once was after the Nunn shocker either. I think their first fight is how it would go 7 out of 10 if both were at their best personally.

 

I don't remember him, but sparring with Hagler sounds amazing. Bet he didn't give an inch there either. :yep

 

But don't they always say that when a fighter is so dominant? As the challengers never become champion, so therefore never have the kind of fame and exposure enjoyed by fighters who win the title. The difference with 160 is it was the crown everybody wanted.