When was Hagler in his prime?, what fight.

The year he beat Sibson was his breakout year, I watched the Sibson fight in `83 when I was 6 years old and became a Hagler fan, that same year he became a superstar by beating Roberto Duran in a barn stormer of a bout. I`d say this year was Hagler at his best, he was great in the Hearns fight too, but the fight didn`t really test his speed after he looked pretty slow vs Roldan, that was in `84 when Leonard first commented that Hagler had slowed down, so maybe he was a little past it when he fought Hearns but his in-fighting IQ might be what saved him in a great clash, it`s hard to say though, two years later he was slower vs Sugar, he was more impressive in the Hearns fight.

 

This content is protected

 

In all these fights on this vid Hagler was on great form.

This content is protected

 

The Sibson fight was IMO his pinnacle

 

Around Sibson and Scypion was absolute peak Hagler imo. I know Duran was next but i do believe Hagler peaked thru those two fights.

 

Post Vito 1 thru Scypion .. His absolute peak was Minter .. 26 years old, had the experience of going 15 w Vito so comfortable w the distance and ferocious after getting robbed. Many forget that Minter was a strong, very talented fighter who lost when he did due to cuts .. he was a hell of a fighter, in his own prime, defending his title at home and Hagler just destroyed him. What a brutal performance .. When Minter describes Hagler he just calls him an absolute monster.

 

I'd say between Obejeimas#1 and Duran. Hagler between those two fighters was the best middle in history. Unlike Monzon , most of Haglers Championship opponents were at their best when he fought them . And fighters like Obejeimas, Sibson, Hamsho, Mugabi, and Hearns probably win a championship if their was no Hagler. Most of Haglers opponents get no credit from posters on this site. But he dominated a hell of a group of fighters when in his prime.

 

77-78 he was at his best. Counterpunching hard.

 

Probably from 80-83 from winning the title against Minter through to the Sibson win. But he was still dynamite up to and including the Hearns fight so maybe it's a bit arbitrary to just limit it to those three years.

 

I don’t think you can pin down a boxer’s prime to a single fight. One might just as well ask what they thought the said boxer’s best career performance had been.

I don't necessarily disagree with the Sibson bout marking Hagler's peak and I've no doubt referred to this one as being such, myself, in the past. It certainly stands out to me, as the most complete performance of his championship.

However, watching a few of his fights from the late '70s ('77-'79) has made me wonder whether or not the Sibson bout was more a 'resurgent', rather than a peaking Hagler. Or, could it be the case that Hagler’s prime years traversed a long period - from ’77 to ’83, inclusive?

Just a thought or three.

 

Good point.

Oh, I think Hagler gets credit. He beat a good group. A much better group of lower weight fighters moving up in comparison to Monzon.

Hagler could be a bit of a victim of what fans wanted him to be. A tough looking guy, sometimes he seemed to lack confidence in himself and that dialed down his performance.

 

The Minter fight was the best Hagler I ever saw. Jabbing, moving his heading and pivoting well. Sound boxing and damn good power. A an absolute well schooled beast.

 

I know he dominated Minter but he did get caught a bit in that bout too, he actually looked a little hurt by a straight punch from Alan and that`s why Minter went for it, then got totally battered.

 

I think Griiffith and Napoles were as good as Leonard at middle if not better, Napoles showed more skill and better footwork in his fight vs Monzon than Ray showed vs Hagler.