Marvin Hagler vs Mike McCallum at 160

I could not agree more.

 

That's a woefully negative take on Marvin Hagler.

 

Your right Hearns started out at 147lbs. He wasn't your typical blown up Welterweight when he fought Hagler.
Tommy Hearns at 6--1 was a great force at 160.going into that fight. He carried the weight fine and was so good that he was able to win titles all way to 175lbs.
John Mugabi was a very good win as well. At the time he was undefeated and confident.

 

I’m always baffled by these kind of negative views on Hagler. As a boxing fan, what more could anyone want from a champion than what Hagler provided in the 1980s?

 

Perhaps tie one hand behind his back and beat Michael Spinks before chasing Holmes....or have an over the weight non title fight and come in at 170 plus.

As a champ Hagler was probably the most upstanding champ of the 80's for not ducking anyone and not shirking a single thing. He got paid peanuts comparative to his abilities because he wasn't the draw other guys were hence waiting a long time to earn some real coin. Yet you didn't hear much about him haggling over purses or not fighting someone because he thought he deserved more. He patiently bided his time and good things eventually came to him.

On top of his fine work as champ he also put in a long hard apprenticeship against a lot of very tough guys, particularly from Philly. Many newer fans wouldn't be close to across this stuff. His overall career stands tall and he was a great role model as a champion as well as prior to that.

Many of the same accusations get leveled at Monzon (best opponents were mostly smaller, where are the ATG's etc etc) yet he too had a fine record as champ.

 

He beat everyone he could, all I’m saying is that there was no elite 160lbder around at the time to challenge Hagler, Hearns was good at 160lbs, but not elite at that weight.
My point is that it’s harder to predict how Hagler would’ve done against other elite 160lbder than people think, I’m not discrediting him for who he fought, he fought everyone he could.

 

Hi Buddy.
Complete and accurate description ( would expect nothing less from you ) of a truly ATG fighter, on point, why do some posters put down and denigrate great fighters ? I have seen, Duran , Monzon, Marciano, even Ali, would you believe, having there greatness questioned, please...
the thing thats gets me is why, I never have , and never will, understand why a poster would deliberately go out of there way to do such, are they being deliberately disrespectful to cause an effect, to provoke a argument, makes no sense to me when there is so much they could say on a positive note, there you go, what do I know.
stay safe JT, and keep your sane and interesting post coming please, chat soon.

 

McCallum was great at 154. At 160 he was very good but beatable

Does anyone really believe that a guy who at his peak at 160 lost to Sumbu Kalambay can beat a prime Hagler?

Hagler by decision

 

Hearns moved all the way up to Light Heavyweight and was successful he destroyed Denis Andries and dethroned undefeated Virgil Hill.

Hearns was not a natural Welterweight just look at the size of him and his build in his shoulders and back. Hagler was a small Middleweight and probably could've made Jr Middleweight in the modern era.

Hearns also had a considerable reach and height advantage over Hagler. It's not like Hearns was undersized fighter moving up in weight he was a huge Welterweight and clearly a few weightclasses naturally bigger than that.

 

This.

Mad props for both fighters, though. Mike was great.

 

It is exactly all the things JT described that induce people to over-rate Hagler. It’s about time someone was critical of him for something.

 

But why?! It doesn’t make any sense to me - does he actually need to be criticised for something? It’s a weird perspective, it really is.

If you’re using JT’s post as a reason to justify your criticism of him then essentially you’re looking to be critical of his virtues. I don’t get it.

 

Hagler didn’t beat enough British prospects who looked good for a year or two before vanishing into mediocrity.

 

He’s over-rated as a fighter, is what I mean. Here we have people saying he’s going to beat the life out of Mike freaking McCallum, LOL. I mean, cmon!

 

McCallum is the overrated one of the pair IMO (in many circles).

Having said that the forum has done its job with the vote being 24-3 in favor of Hagler which would be around what I'd expect.

Hagler lost precisely 1 non-disputed decision in his life. Despite all the hoopla, he beat Duran comfortably in the eyes of the vast majority and tho I think SRL most certainly deserved the decision many dispute it.

Before you claim I have some sort of affinity for Hagler I often pick Jones, Hopkins, SRR and most times Monzon over him.