Marvin Hagler NOT Top 10 All Time @160lbs

I wasn't talking about Fullmer, I was talking of the general point about Hagler's resume.
Hagler is a lock for the 'best' 3 (best, not greatest).

 

No love for Freddy Steele????

 

yeah, so? Hagler took apart hearns, far better fighter, in three. think your guy wouldve done better? Tommy wouldve knocked Gene out in the first with his hellish assault

 

So because he got knocked out in 5 by an old Robinson, beat up a welterweight Benny Peret, and was inducted into the IBHOF (so is Hagler btw), we are supposed to put him ahead of Hagler and almost at the top of the all time middleweight rankings?

 

Paret was a Welterweight moving up to Middleweight for the first time who Fullmer had great difficulty getting out of there. Sure in the end it was a bad beatdown which possibly was a factor in his tragic fight next time out against Griffith, but for the most part Paret who was no knockout artist held his own in there.
So a relatively light hitting welterweight who wasn't exactly an ATG gave Fullmer all the trouble he could handle.

 

The problem here is that the OP is stating that Hagler is not in the Top-10 of All-Time Greatest Middleweights and even goes as far as to ask whether Hagler even makes the list of All Time Great Middleweights.

Every Great Boxer's opposition comes under scrutiny and Hagler's isn't immune from this - but it isn't particularly poor, either. These challengers just happened to be around at the same time as Hagler and any route to the Middleweight Championship was through him. Had he always been struggling to beat some or all of his opponents, over the course of his career, then the weak opposition factor might be more relevant. As it is, when you consider the relative consistency in which Hagler handled the distinct majority of his opposition, some of which consisted of very good Middleweights and elite Boxers, it becomes less of a factor to be counted against him.

Judging by the two fights the OP highlights to diminish Hagler's place in history, the bias is quite clear, from the outset.

 

Hagler fought in a very tough era of middleweights from his pre-title days in the brutal Philadelphia circuit to this title reign .. I don't think some of you know what you're talking about .. Who is the best middleweight Robinson fought ? A weight drained , past his prime LaMotta ? I'd say without question Hagler fought better middleweights than Robinson did. He fought and defeated far better middleweights than Monzon did. You can laugh at his competition opposed to Ketchel's putting aside a handcuffed Langford. Fuller was a genuine tough guy but Dick Tiger showed his true limitations when he was not fighting older blown up welter weights .. Tiger may have been the strongest middleweight that ever lived but he was slower than Hagler and did not have his power or overall skill set ..

No one is arguing the merits of Ray Robinson, Monzon, Greb and Langford as all time greats .. even though he was from an earlier era you have to put a murderous punching Fitz in there too .. Mickey Walker is a legitimate name as he was fast , hard punching and incredibly tough .. Ezzard Charles may have trimmed out at 175 opposed to 160 but he was exceptional .. it's a very, very deep division .. then you throw in a Jones, Nunn or a Toney .. who knows .. ?

 

Hagler fought some very good middleweights but I think it's a stretch to say he fought better middleweights than Robinson did. (Nevermind to say he did so "without question".)

 

Gene Fullmer certainly has a fine resume. I'll have to look into the details because if I recall correctly a lot of those wins were razor close affairs.
Not that it makes an awful lot of difference. Those guys were good fighters.

 

Well here's another way to look at it: How does Hagler do H2H against those guys? My feeling is, pretty well. Hagler's skillset was vast, he had no real weaknesses. Maybe he wasn't lighting fast, but his fundamentals and timing make up for that and then some.

 

Op lost credibility in the first sentence of the first post when he stated Hagler beat Hearns only because Hearns broke his hand.

He's trying to rank Hagler as if the Hearns destrction/beatdown/anniliation doesn't count on Hagler's resume.

Nobody put an asterick next to Hagler's destruction of Hearns at the time.