Marvin Hagler vs Gennady Golovkin At MW

This is absolutely one of the strangest comments i have ever seen in here and i am a Hagler detractor. Wowzers.

 

If anything, Hagler seemed thrown off by Duran's lack of ferocity.

 

Duran's boxing ability had something to do with that as well...

 

My point isn't that Brook is more talented than Leonard my point is that GGG looked much better cutting the ring off against him, an active prime fighter, than Hagler did trying to follow Leonard around who had only fought once in 5 years.
To put it another way I believe Triple G would of been able to cut the ring off against that 1987 version of Leonard better than Hagler did

 

Ggg would leave the ring in a stretcher. Zero head movement, a class below in hand and foot speed and no inside game.

 

That's because hagler was shot when he fought Leonard

 

Golovkin does have the track record to be considered.

 

I'm a huge Hagler fan I do I agree he was close to shot in that bout. I would also note Triple G is older than Hagler was during that fight. Fighters age differently in the ring I'm just pointing out that maybe Triple G is slipping-maybe. But I don't think his performance was that bad against Brook, that merits so many people coming out now trying to sell the guy short. All fighters have off nights. And having Brook's team throw in the towel by the 5th round isn't that bad a performance.
People tend to harp on what is fresh in their mind and forget the off nights their heroes of the past have had.
Triple G has stopped 23 straight opponents he doesn't even let fights get to the judges to be robbed like other fighters

 

Ggg has never been in a war in his career. Fights get stopped now as soon as a guy gets in trouble. 33 in haglers era is the equivalent to 43 today. You think kell brook would last to the 5th round with a prime hagler in there? I cannot see it

 

I couldn't, in all honesty, say this would be a close fight. Hagler was a vastly superior Boxer to Golovkin.
If GGG were to stand any chance of winning, he'd have to try and make it a war. Unfortunately for Golovkin, whether Hagler decided to take up the offer of a war or not, Hagler would win; most probably ending it by mid-rounds stoppage.

 

GGG looked better cutting off the ring vs Brook than Hagler looked against anyone in his entire career

 

Golovkin would target the body and break him midway

 

Wasn't Hagler floored by Roldan? No it was slip and you'd have to be blind or hate Hagler with a passion to think otherwise, even the referee admits he was wrong

Didn't he draw with Antufermo? On the scorecards, yes, but IMO and most other's Hagler beat Antufermo clearly

GGG would blow these guys up: Maybe, but their still better than anyone Golovkin's fought except maybe WW Brook who's relatively unproven himself IMO, only has one good win at his own weight over Porter which was debatable.

If Hearns hurt Hagler in two rounds, GGG can do the same: Hearns briefly stunned Hagler and Brook briefly stunned GGG in the 2nd. And BTW Hearns is an ATG puncher whereas Brook isn't even one of the current punchers in the game

 

NOBODY stops Hagler NOBODY!

 

I agree with this. Hagler is more versatile, the better defensive and infighter. Hagler by UD.

Comparision to Duran in this thread are irrelevant. Middleweight Duran was a completely different fighter than GGG, more of a slick and cagey fighter.