Thomas Hearns is a Greater fighter than Marvin Hagler

apples to oranges. I have thought a similar thing. Hearns had the luxury of fighting more legends than Marvin, just because he fought such a great era and divisions. Cuevas at 147 winning that title. Beating Benitez at 154 for that title, Virgil Hill, undefeated at 175.. knocking out Duran in 1984.. Fighting Ray and having probably the best round ever with Hagler and all the titles. And then Hagler 12 title fights was it? Both guys were great. Hard to say, the ironic thing is Hearns is in my mind the reason Marvin goes down in history so well. He put his all out fighting Hearns knowing he had to fight that way, and that is why his legacy will be so strong forever. Without Hearns I think he would have been more forgotten. He cannot be forgotten. That fight with Tommy and his will to win and be great is something which cannot be equaled.

 

Tough to call. I think one has to take into consideration that pre-90s, being 'world middleweight champion' was regarded as the 2nd biggest title in boxing- far more stellar than anything else (bar the obvious heavyweight title) and Marvin was proud to be the owner of this very prestigious crown.

 

Over the years i would say the majority have Hagler a little bit ahead of Hearns. It's close. If you like weight jumping and putting yourself on the line it's totally fair to have Hearns slightly ahead.

 

Just because Hearns achieved more doesn't make him the better fighter.
Tommy went up the divisions & beat a very average Andries for the LH title. Having not scrutinised his record closely, he probably beat other 'not so great' champs etc on his way to his many titles.
However, he will be remembered as a great nonetheless.

 

Hearns may have accomplished more. I still take Hagler. But it's close enough to where I wouldn't argue with anyone who takes Hearns.

 

With modern day weigh in rules, Hearns could be the finest fighter to weigh 147 pounds and would have a great chance to beat anyone ever at that weight. Hagler is a legend in his own right. I favor Hearns as well. Like another poster said, apples to oranges though.

 

Yes. Took the WBC belt from Andries, then the WBA version from Hill 4 years later. Some record !

 

I have Hagler just ahead, but it's close & I have no problem with someone ranking Hearns higher.

You raise some good points, but there are obvious counters, i.e. Hagler destroying Hearns inside 3 rounds, Hagler would never be stopped by Barkley, etc.

Ultimately, Hearns best attributes (e.g. height, reach & explosive punching) may have been even better than Hagler's (chin, stamina and ring IQ). But, Hearns weaknesses (his chin & stamina weren't as bad as some make out, but relative to other top 50 ATG's, they were weaknesses) were more more substantial than Hagler's, that's if you consider Hagler had any notable weaknesses, which I don't.

I rank Hagler higher because, whilst not as exciting, he was quite simply harder to beat in his prime than Hearns.

Hagler went 36-0-1 between losing to Monroe aged 21 and losing a close, debatable decision, vs SRL in his final fight, 1-month before his 33rd birthday, which included 13 x wins in lineal world MW title fights, the 2nd most in history behind Monzon's 15.

I think Hearns could (and did) beat the same fighters in more impressive fashion than Hagler, but he was also the more likely (and did) to lose. That counts highly for me.

 

No argument from me either way.
It can be argued Hearns accomplished more than all the five kings combined ( I include Benitez, who is often overlooked because he didn't fight Hagler, but that also means Hagler didn't fight him, Benitez wanted the fight, Hagler didn't .) Hearns won championships from welterweight to cruiserweight, winning a version of a world title at every weight class in between. In a time When weight classes ment something.....
Hagler was a model of consistency for almost a decade, and should've received a title shot before he did. If Monzon had over stayed his welcome, their was an excellent chance Hagler beats him.
Hagler defeated quite a few boxers during his championship run that were champ caliber fighters in their own right. If their was no Hagler fighters like Sibson, Roldan, Hamsho, Mugabi were all very capable of winning at least a version of a middleweight championship. Not to mention Duran and of course Hearns himself.
Both Hagler and Hearns deserve the accolades they've received over the years.
And would've annihilated the fighters called world champions today and last 15-20 yrs.

 

You make some good points, but Hagler would have beaten Hill, definitely.

 

it is hard to say.. Hearns had more guys to fight moving around, but beating Hill at 175, Duran and Benitez at 154, Cuevas at 147 and the wars he had and superfights.. Very impressive. and Hagler was also.. I think Hagler's career oddly enough depends more on the Hearns fight since he fought less of those elites than Hearns did, but what an effort he put out... And when he beat Hearns that way, then looking at this whole career a person sees how great his effort was.

 

Hagler ranks ahead of Hearns for me.