If Marvin Hagler never existed who would be the champ

What kind of sacrilegious damn stuff is this?! :twisted::twisted::twisted::fire:fire:fire

 

I think that without the existence of Marvin Hagler, the middle weight title would have likely been divided during the 1980's. Men like Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, Ray Leonard and a few others would have held fragments, but would probably have either lost them, or vacated them to persue a higher cause.. There would have been many qualified candidates to hold the straps, but I don't see any dominant fighter, frequenting the division long enough to replicate the sort of reign that Marvin Hagler had..

 

Well I see Hamsho maybe being champ for a little while until Hearns stopped him and became champion. I think Hearns had the best chance to be champion out of all of them and hold onto it.

By the time Barkley came in 1988 Hearns was losing a little motivation and was not as focused as he was when he was younger and not really as fast or sharp, and he was brawling more. Hearns beat Shuler and Kinchen already. Fully Obel would have been stopped by Hearns. Sibson would have been tough for Hearns, but he would have used his reach and speed at that time. Duran? Roberto could have won the title against Hamsho maybe, but not against Shuler. Mugabi is hard to rate. The way he folded against Duane Thomas and Norris doesn't look like he would have done too well against the punchers. Mugabi would have done great against Sibson and Hamsho stylewise.

I would say Hearns would be the one who would have replaced Hagler.

 

Hearns

 

I believe Hamsho would have been the dominant middleweight through most of Hagler's reign if Marv had never existed. He stopped Boogaloo in 1978, and defeated Parker for the second time in 1983. In between, Benitez, Scypion, Czyz and Minter make for an impressive resume of wins. That's one former ATG triple crown champion, a future double crown champion at LHW and CW, a recent MW titleholder (the only time Minter ever lost over the distance), and a future challenger to Hagler in Scypion.

Duran would not have out brawled the super rough Hamsho, and Hearns would find himself in serious trouble once he discovered that his best shot would be no more effective against Mustafa than it was against Marv.

 

Hamsho would not have been able to take the right of Hearns. Hagler was wobbled by it, and Marvin knocked out Hamsho in 1984 in the rematch. Hearns was too fast for a guy like Hamsho and would have cut him up and knocked him out. Had Hearns not fought Roldan and knocked out Roldan, people on ESB would say he would not have stood up to Juan's punches. Tommy would have beaten Hamsho. He was better and quicker and had a great right. It would have been interesting but Tommy would have gone to work and landed his quick punches and Hamsho could not compete with that. I give Sibson a better chance against Hearns than Hamsho.

 

What kind of sick individual could even imagine a world without Marvelous Marvin Hagler???? :cry:

 

See, that's what I'm talking about :deal

 

hearns would always be a cheese champ losing on his first or second defense. look what happened to him against a second rater like Barkley. he lost twice to him. Hamsho wouldve won a close match. Sibson wouldve outworked him. I dont even think he could handle animal fletcher. and Fully Obel would knock him out.

Leonard, he's too small and wouldnt be able to handle young, strong, healthy competition at 160; he'd need to have the title split into three to have any kind of chance of winning it, perhaps against a Mark Holmes or James Shuler. Sibbo would annihilate the little boy

 

That cheese champ thing is ridiculous. Hearns has more title fights than Hagler and moved up several weights and beat 4 great fighters. None of the guys you mentioned are great. You are talking more about Duran, who never had a successful title defense above lightweight
Hearns defended his welt title 4 times and his super welt 4 times. He did not have a good style against Iran and in 1988 was moving around weights too much. Hamsho would not beat Hearns of the early 80's. Hearns was too fast and would bust up Hamsho much worse than Hagler did in the first fight in October of 1981. All those guys Hearns would beat Sibson would have been the toughest. Fully Obel had a fight scheduled with Hearns for Nov 4, 1988 and pulled out with a rib injury, and Obel held the WBA title. He pulled out. Even Manny Steward said Kinchen his replacement would be a tougher fight. Frank Fletcher? The guy who was demolished by Roldan? the same guy whom Hearns knocked out faster than Nunn or Hagler did? Sibson? The guy Andries beat and Hearns knocked out Andries.

 

I dont think hearns would have been a long term champ at that weight, someone would have blasted that jaw. Maybe Minter stays as champ for a few years and then Mike Mccallum wins the belt, he was around during those days.

 

I was just gonna say that nobody has mentioned Minter. How about a fight between Sibson and Hamsho?

 

it is too bad Barkley knocked out Hearns because I do not think his jaw was as bad as Barkley made it look. Hearns was knocked out 3 times in 67 fights. But Barkley's style of punching in the middle of an exchange was a weakness to Hearns, but Hearns faced big punchers at other times but was not caught in the middle of a punch. McCallum couldn't even beat Kalambay in 1988 the first time they met, I do not think he was a sure thing to hold the belt. Minter? No way. If it was not Hearns it would be someone like Shuler or Kinchen. Surprisingly they might have been the top two fighters. Roldan was too open to be champion for too long, although Roldan did demolish Kinchen.

 

It seems like your a thomas hearns fan and I can understand if you think he would have dominated. I think he would have won the belt, but he wouldnt make more than 5 defences of his belt, someone would have eventually beat him.

Your talking as if losing to Kalambay is a bad thing? I'm sorry but kalambay is better than any middleweight that Hearns ever beat at 160. Actually kalambay is another person that probably would have been champ.

I say minter keeps his belt until 1982, loses to either sibson or hamso. Then one of them loses to Hearns around 1984/85, then hearns loses to either kalambay or mccallum around 86/88. Or just have him defend the belt against barkley and that would end his reign. Hearns was great at 154, but above that he's a beatable fighter.