More/less deserving contender: Graziano or Hearns?

The problem is Hearns was great v Hagler, I don`t get what you`re suggesting, Hearns was one of the top P4P fighters at the time and had knocked out Duran a year before at light middle, two years before that outpointed Benitez, This was the fight everyone wanted to see, who else was Hagler going to fight? At that time Hearns would have beaten any other middle in the world. Hearns would hjave beaten Graziano also.

 

Hearns fought everybody .. I see nothing wrong with Hagler's defense vs Tommy and the whole world wanted to see it. Even though Hearns hadn't done anything at MW, I think the fight was more important for Hagler than it was for Hearns. Hagler needed that fight to put the cherry on top of his career. If he losses that fight and with the loss to SRL.. Then we are talking about a different Marvin now imo… It probably was his best win looking back

 

Hearns was a very dangerous fighter and what made the match up so marketable was that Hearns destroyed Duran while Hagler under performed against Roberto .. combined with the general dislike the fighter ha for each other at the time ..

 

I think its a pretty tenuous comparison. Hearns was the number one contender.
Graziano was number 4 ,Zale by passed Holman Williams 1. ,Charley Burley 2., and Jake LaMotta3. to fight defend against Graziano.
I realise he went for the $$$, but they were more deserving of a shot and so was Hearns.

 

The world had to see Hearns v Hagler!

 

Tommy knocked out Duran and Hagler couldn`t before Tommy and Marvin met.

 

For the sake of this argument the country/world was eagerly expectant of Hagler Hearns, and I don’t remember anyone at the time (having lived through it) upset that they were fighting or clamoring for Hagler to fight someone else (more deserving?) but I could be wrong.

I didn’t live through the zale Graziano era, so I don’t know how these factors equate. There are 3 guys listed above who could be seen as more deserving of a shot at Zale’s title. How was this recieved by the boxing world and/or fans. It has a historic reputation but how was it perceived at the time? Was he seen as ducking or taking a lighter challenge? Or was the world excited about this during the era?

 

What might you propose? That Hearns should have had to face Shuler or Kinchen prior to Hagler to earn a shot while Hagler should have faced Mugabi prior to facing the winner of the potential Hearns fight? Or something else as a feasible alternative?