One of the Greatest of All Time: "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler Middleweight ATG

:deal


Anyone who questions Hagler's ability in the ring or his overall resume really DKSAB !

 

That guy is an idiot.

Hagler's chin never tested?

Hearns was a killer puncher all the way up to Cruiser. Mugabi had a 100% KO ratio and was destroying everybody.

This board...I give up. :bartatsch

 

Hagler, in many respects, is underrated when compared to the other three members of the Fab Four. He didn't have any limelight shining on his career, while Duran, Leonard and Hearns had all converged in and around the Welterweight division, at roughly the same time. With Leonard at the helm, they would each have their superfight(s) during '80/'81. Suffice to say, not a great many people knew about Hagler and his rise through the ranks; his trips into the thriving Philly scene, during the best part of the '70s (see Monroe, Watts and Briscoe) and, when he finally won world titles in 1980, the success was noted more for the chaotic scenes, which immediately followed his victory in London, than it was for Hagler's most clinical destruction of Minter.

In the main, people got to know Hagler over the course of his Championship reign and, with the inevitability that all three of Duran, Leonard and Hearns would move up in weight divisions, their path in doing so was most likely going to lead to Hagler. Hearns had intended to be the first of them, in '82, but the scheduled meeting didn't come off; first - postponed, due to a Hearns injury; second - cancelled, because Hearns had decided that he wanted the fight to take place in Detroit. Leonard had also given the impression that he might take on the job but, quite cruelly, gave the shock announcement of his retirement, to a charity event audience, with Hagler in attendance (actually by Leonard's side).


It is somewhat typical then that Duran would be the first to try and get past the by then Undisputed Middleweight Champ - but the bout would turn out to be a double-edged sword for Hagler. On the one hand it brought with it Duran's legendary notoriety and a big payday; the win also more or less secured Hagler The Ring Magazine Fighter of the Year (1983); on the other hand, it would attract criticism from Hagler detractors and observers more interested in thrills and spills than top-class Boxing. Duran hadn't been given a chance of winning but, through a combination of his character and skills, along with Hagler's unusual reticence, the fight had been a chess match, with Hagler somehow deciding not to press an advantage he'd gained through the mid-section of the bout.

From 'the cup is half empty' perspective, this was a poor performance from Hagler. Conversely and on the brighter side, it had been a technically fascinating display against a top-ten All-Time Great. The reasons for Hagler's tentative approach remain a mystery but I have come to consider it a simple case of him paying Duran too much respect - perhaps more out of fear of an adverse reaction from fans and pundits, should he, the bigger man, with a reputation for fierceness, have been the first to truly flatten the storied former Lightweight and Welterweight Champ. We're unlikely to ever really know for sure.


True glory came at the near end of his career, in the shape of demolishing Hearns, bringing him Fight of the Year; Round of the Year and Fighter of the Year recognition (again, but an honor curiously shared with Don Curry on this occasion). A seemingly bigger war than 'The War' would follow against Mugabi, which demonstrated Hagler's toughness, spirit and overall class against a strong, game puncher. It was clear by then (to me, at least) that Hagler was at the end of the road. He had noticeably slowed up and had even mentioned retirement in his post-fight interview. He was done Fighting - Until, that is, Leonard suddenly decided to pipe up - a decision, it is alleged, made whilst a spectator at the Hagler/Mugabi bout.

To my mind, Hagler didn't need a fight, four to five years after it should have taken place - especially at that stage of his career. Leonard knew this; had seen the opportunity and pushed very hard for it to be realised. This fight was all about Leonard - an event, a showcase, marking his return and forming the platform, from which he would regain that he had lost in the early '80s. And, it worked out for him.


Regardless of whether or not one disputes the highly controversial Hagler/Leonard decision, those who view the result as a blemish on Hagler's legacy are usually the same people who only started to get to know him from 1980, onwards. When the full body of his work and the contests are looked at, it can be seen that, all-in-all, he was more than a top-class Middleweight, having beaten every man he'd ever faced, with Leonard the only exception. So, the other charge levelled at Hagler; that of his legacy being diminished because he didn't fight at Light Heavyweight, is quite unfair and, again, shows a lack of insight into his career. A Boxer, who had taken a tough route to success, it had taken Hagler over fifty bouts at Middleweight before claiming the World Championship. I'm certainly not going to hold his desire to keep it against him and it's very much his tenacity in that same division, which provides the much deserved accolade of him being rated a top-five All-Time Great Middleweight.