IF THERE WAS NO HAGLER?

I think Hearns was more depleting than Hagler because Hagler put his all out for Hearns and came in sharp mentally and physically. He knew his legacy depended on Hearns. And he won and gets all cut up and rocked but he wins, and gets commercials and respect and he loses motivation a little. Then he fights Mugabi and he is rusty and a tough fight. Then he fights Ray after another layoff. So how can he be that sharp. But Ray still beat him. Ray knew all this.

 

Yes, I think Leonard's performance was great.
But there comes a point where two fighters are so "past it" that the result is rendered almost meaningless. I think this fight was not one of those, but i don't think Hagler was so terribly faded 13 months earlier with Mugabi either.

 

Hagler getting injured in 1985 and calling off the Mugabi fight didn't help John Mugabi at all either.

 

Mugabi KO 1 Curtis Parker in '83 was very impressive.

He gave Hagler a great fight. It showed that he wasn't all hype.

In fact, he gave Hagler a much tougher fighter than naysayers thought he could.

Some of the shots he hit Hagler with would have kod others. Hagler happened to have a GRANITE chin. All it would take would be one or two bombs to hurt or stop Hearns.

Look, Hearns was, of course, a much better fighter overall than Mugabi. But, styles make fights and Mugabi had the speed and power to be a very dangerous proposition for Hearns.

 

Far easier for a guy fighting for the title for the first time than a guy defending it for the umpteenth time.

Hagler was on the verge of retirement and only a chance against the guy he most wanted to fight ever kept him going.

 

This fight was no-where near meaningless. Hagler was still the world champ for heavens sakes.

I will grant that Mugabi rose above his norm, tho to a noticabely lesser extent than Douglas.

 

I don't think the fight was meaningless either, nowhere near.
I'm just pointing out 13 months passed after the Mugabi fight, a tough fight that probably took something out of Hagler, and that Hagler actually seemed to be about to retire for sure after the Mugabi fight.
If Mugabi faced a well faded Hagler, then SRL faced something significantly less than that even.

 

How do you know? Experience counts for a lot. A delayed fight effects both fighters. Mugabi had far less rounds under his belt and no title fight experience. Hagler had been there and done it many times, which would seem like an advantage if anything.

Mugabi did what he did and Hagler won the fight. There's no reason to make it out like Mugabi had several advantageous circumstances to explain a good losing performance. Hagler was a bit past prime, everyone agrees. Still better than an average champion though.
Mugabi proved a very good challenger.
Better than Hearns, in my opinion, but perhaps Hagler slipped a bit in those 11 months, almost definitely.

Was Mugabi good enough to win a world middleweight title in another era ? I don't know.
But I don't think it's a ridiculous overrating to say so.

 

Experience might count but i still think it would have been getting harder for a guy to get "up" who had been putting his body thru training hell seemingly forever. Hagler had one eye on retirement, had just beaten Hearns in the fight of the year and was not as motivated as he had been previously. Mugabi had the nervous energy of someone hitting the bigtime and certainly showed fight night he was completely ready to roll.

Did it make a difference? Probably not but it was worth noting.

Hagler being past prime is certainly worthy of pointing out. Hagler at this stage was no longer the Hagler of around 83, he'd climbed his mountain like Holmes had prior to struggling against Williams and co.

For sure he was still better than an average champ tho.

He did, gave it a red hot go in an exciting challenge.

I like Hearns effort personally. For a fleeting moment he looked a chance and opened up a potentially fight ending cut.

It's not impossible but a leap of faith on what we know. We know he failed in title shots against Hagler, Thomas, Norris (This was a defense, Mugabi had been gifted a win when Jacuot fell over in the 1st spraining an ankle) and McClellan.

 

That's true but the thread question does provoke some leaps of faith.
If Hagler didn't exist someone's going to benefit and probably more than one fighter, especially if the titles splinter quicker.

 

Maybe Duane Thomas picks up a belt at 160 !
He made quicker work of Mugabi than Hagler did. I believe he also had a win over Kalambay.

 

True but guys like Hamsho were proven over time against quality opposition. A Hamsho would definitely make his presence known and he's a safe bet imo to put some runs on the board. Splintered titles, yes.

 

Certainly a safe bet if he fought Mugabi for a vacant strap

 

Hamsho is a logical choice.
But any number of guys might step up and hold a title.
Let's be honest, on the eve of Hagler v Leonard, very few people would have been sure of Nunn and Kalambay becoming the next two relevant middleweights. Kalambay was virtually unknown and Nunn was just one of several American prospects.
Seven different boxers would hold titles (Tate, Hearns, Kalambay, Barkley, Nunn, Duran, McCallum) over the next 2 years or so. Some hotly-tipped to succeed Hagler (eg. Curry and Graham) would fail along the way.
It's impossible to know.

I'd say up to about a dozen middleweights during the years 1980 to 1987 may have benefitted from Hagler's absence. Maybe one of them could have stepped in Hagler's shoes and dominated but I can't say who would have been most likely.
Could have been Sugar Ray Leonard !

 

It's a lottery for sure. Dubs post per Hamsho's success was a good one tho.

It's entirely likely Hearns would have moved up sooner as well and the landscape may have been bare enough for him to reign for a while. His development would have been less but he would have had less wear and tear to.

Hearns, Leonard and Duran could well have vied around the same time too. Benitez may have moved up sooner.