Was Marvin Hagler Denied Greatness?

Hagler achieved greatness with his reign at Middleweight, but if you're asking whether or not he would be held in even higher esteem had he been given the nod over Leonard? The answer is undeniably yes.

 

Sure a win over Leonard would not hurt, but Hagler was not "Denied" greatness. He is still consider one of the best middleweights of all time. He lacks my top ten, but he is in the top 20.

He will always be rember for his Hearns fight, and that fight right there seal Hagler as a great.

 

Hagler is great..regardless of a contenious outcome of a close fight in the latter part of his career. Truthfully, the win elevated Leonard more than it discredited Hagler.

 

Yep, Hagler was great regardless, but I had him beating Leonard and Antuofermo so he ranks very highly in my eyes.

 

Yes, He would have!

 

I think he would be held in higher esteem, but not by much. If he had beaten Leonard over the distance, the loser would have been the moral winner, considering that nobody gave Leonard a chance to last the course. He had one fight in five years, was overwhelmingly the underdog, and it was also his first fight at the weight. If Hagler knocked out Leonard, it wouldn't have done much for his greatness. It would have looked better riding off into the sunset with a knockout under his belt rather than a close decision win. But before the first bell rang, the thought of him losing hurts his legacy more than the a win enhancing it.

 

Hagler wasn't denied greatness, he reached that easily, but he was denied near immortality. The Leonard loss really hurt him historically tho he still shits in "greatness".

 

na i think he forcefully took greatness from the critics who tried to keep it from him...

 

he had already achieved greatness by the the time he fought Leonard,so no he wasnt denied greatness.

 

Hagler is great. Had he clearly beaten Leonard, he would not have gotten much credit for it because Leonard was a natural WW and coming off of a 3 year lay-off, when all is said and done. Had Hagler gotten the decision that many feel he was entitled to anyway, I'm not sure that it would have made a bit of difference in terms of legacy.

Now I'm going to take a page from your book: Hagler and the Petronelli's cast somewhat of a shadow over his legacy because of the faulty strategy (and foolish concessions during negotiations) that enabled a man who should not have been competitive to be so (ie. Leonard). The criticism is usually reserved to analysts like us, but it is there, and it is warranted.

 

I disagree. I agree that if he won he would not have gained much credit at all. However in losing he lost a lot of ground. Many feel he was entitled to it, but just as many feel he wasn't and in the books it's a loss. It has undoubtab ly hurt him historically. A bog blotch at the end of an utterly fantastic run.

If not for Leonard he would not have been defeated in his last 11 years and 37 fights. This would have put him right with and possibly above the Monzon's et al top 20. It is a big scar, no doubt about it. Leonard should have been the exclamation mark but instead is the asterisk. I have very little doubt some would be putting him top 10 if not for this fight, but as it is i don't think i've ever seen him top 10 and rarely top 20.

The fact of the time is that he had to work very very hard for acceptance. He lost a huge amount of ground with the poor showing vs Duran. He regained that and more with the great win over Hearns. The Leonard loss then abolished all that for many. That was the feeling of the time.

Given his great success with the said team i find it hard to blame them too much. A great like Ali had the immense adaptability to ignore the longings of a guy like Dundee and rope a dope Foreman. Surely Hagler should have realised orthodox wasn't the go way before they all did. A Leonard or Ali would have.

I actually ponder whether cockiness and overconfidence got Hagler himself un this one. He was greatly outspoken over Leonard's poor effort vs Howard and supremely confident going into the fight. Well, Leonard had trouble and looked bad against the most ordinary Howard YEARS earlier and had done nothing since.

To be honest i think Hagler thought he could beat Leaonrd any which way he wanted to. I really do. He paid dearly.

 

In summation it's not the lack of credit he would have received for beating Leonard, but the sheer impact not beating him caused.

 

As I said earlier. Bang on the money, JT.

 

No because on a round by round basis he lost fair and square. He is great anyway BUT beating 2 WWs (1 retired for 4years) and an old LW even if they are great doesnt make you a GOAT no matter how good they are