How steep was Hagler’s decline following the Hearns and then the Mugabi fights?

Marvelous Marvin Hagler's decline was evident, he took bombs thrown by Thomas Hearns on April 15 1985, even suffered a lacerated eyebrow, he got the job done in spectacular fashion but absorbed some punishment along the way. When Hagler fought John The Beast Mugabi in 1986, he was again forced to engage in a brutal war until Mugabi used up his gas tank, and was finally stopped. A great fighter knows his limitations. It was time to get out as the wars had taken their toll. But Marvelous as great a champion that he was let his ego dictate his future. There was the big money fight against a come backing Sugar Ray Leonard who was well rested from ring activity, Hagler must have assumed that he was ring rusty. Then there was the middleweight title defense record of retired champion Carlos Monzon, which stood at 14 by 1987. Also had Hagler defeated Leonard, he would have tied the record, then if he made 1 more defense after that, he would have broken the record at 15 defenses, then retired with the belt as Monzon did. None the less Marvelous Marvin Hagler was a great champion. As I have always said, you can only fight the fighter that are put in front of you in your respective era's. Only wrestlers in the WWE can call opponents out. Promoters promote fights, not fighters.

 

As usual your facts are wrong again. Leonard would have been 13. Not 14.

 

I think Hagler's decline was negligible, and its a 'narrative' that he, among others, have picked up and run with for different reasons. He didn't lose to SRL because he'd declined / lost some passion or was a shadow of himself; he lost because he overthought his fight strategy trying to anticipate what SRL would be expecting (good idea ordinarily) and it didn't work. Pretty simple.

Re. the decline alibi....Hagler and the Petronelli's went with it to alibi his diva-like sooking because he didn't get the decision against SRL and flounced off to Italy to be a movie 'star' (imagine if Hector Comacho ever spat the dummy and did that!); SRL because it gives him many opportunities to tell a intellect-praising story about himself on TV rather than attribute the appropriately - to Hagler's mistake; the boxing media because they got to run this narrative and print articles / interviews etc for years etc etc.

I never understood how people gave him such a pass...but with a compliant (then east coast print boxing media) I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I read it, it must be true. You know, the 80's was the era of the spin-doctors, I think that's when the term became popularized.

Ditto with the twelve rounds stuff, more bs alibi-ing. I'm not even sure twelves were on offer anymore....the idea that Trainer / SRL somehow Svengali'd the Petronelli's and Hagler out of what they preferred is more self-serving bs.

 

FYI...A lot of the older posters don't have the energy or inclination to leave this website, log into boxrec, count up things like that up, come back to this forum etc; and instead rely on their memory. If he's off for a single defense, its hardly worth the trouble to take, is it? I'd like to see how you go remembering how defenses Klitchko had in forty years time.

 

If the Hagler that fought Hearns fought Leonard the same way he would have knocked Ray out .. by the time he fought Ray two years had gone by with significant inactivity and supposedly a lot of partying .. Ray was brilliant in choosing his opportunity ..

 

Fighting once or twice a year didn't help. He was much busier in 1983 and before. Fighting tough opponents your whole career is physically taxing.

 

I'm an older poster and what you say is true, if over-simplified. I do check facts on boxrec and sometimes google, but I generally don't do a lot of researching of the books and magazines which are somewhere in my basement. I take a chance and rely on my memory for those things. I no longer bother with a subscription to newspaper.com either. I think my comrades on this forum recognize this and go easy on me sometimes. However, when I am outright wrong on a basic unarguable fact as opposed to an opinion or a personal interpretation, I appreciate being corrected. Otherwise, my factual mistakes are likely to be repeated again and again, and taken as correct by some people. It's like Donald Trump and Fox News hosts like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity. They repeat their lies so often that some people actually believe them!

 

Good stuff here.
I've written many times something similar. Hagler in my opinion is the greatest Middleweight in history. But like all fighters he had a weakness. It was proven in the 70's pre prime by fighters like Watts and Monroe, it was proven in his prime by Antefermo and Duran. It was proven by Leonard Slightly past his prime.
He could be taken out of his game plan by slick fighters.
A fighter that was patient enough to force him to lead, and great at countering.
Most posters seem to think if Leonard fought Hagler in 82' or 83' Hagler destroys him.
But if they actually watched Hagler's fight with Duran they would know better. Or , stop thinking with their hearts and think with their mind.
Hagler had a hard time adjusting too Duran's underrated boxing abilities, and had to fight like hell the last 5rds to get a victory. How can they believe the bigger, stronger, faster Leonard who looked like he could be a strong Middleweight when he fought Kalule couldn't have done better? I'd venture to say because of the style matchup, Hagler may have caught Hell if he had faced Benitez as was being talked about at the time , if he didn't crash and burn the way he did. Certainly Duran looked much better against Hagler than he did against Benitez.
I love Hagler. But like all fighters he had weaknesses.

 

I forgot something once, but it was so long ago I don’t even remember what it was.

 

It was appreciable.

The decline was noted by SRL in the Roldan fight. After Hamsho 2 and the Hearns fight, you could see he was much slower against Mugabi.

 

The decline is there but how much of it was wear and tear from those hard fights and how much was simply being too inactive at such an advanced age is debatable.

I tend to think he got hit as much as he did against Hearns was because fighting aggressively was the actual game plan. Against Mugabi, he was just getting hit a lot and he lacked snap. He had to then use his toughness to power through because at that point so little was left for him. THAT was wear showing.

Lesson learned: If you're that old, you have to fight more than once a year.

 

been reading this sight for years. Not contributed as often.... So many good, thought provoking opinions. I love the statement's even though I may completely disagree. Indefaigable.... why do you post?

 

Recently to get online you have to pass a mental awareness test, Indefagatiable slipped through the cracks... God it must be nice to have the brain power of a goldfish. Tired of his bs......towards everyone . Please disagree. But not attack

 

Last thirty seconds. Eye. Fought his fight. Old. Waited. Switch hitter. Tactical error. With all due respect. Conniving. Narrative. Legendary Nights. Ducked Pryor mercilessly. Captain's hat. Have to take the title. Shoe-shining. Flurry. Won. Body shots. Dome. Goatee.




...Hearns.