Who is greater pfp Hearns or Hagler?

I think they are close. I personally have Hagler slightly higher, but I've no problem with Hearns being ranked ahead, and understand the valid arguments for doing so.

I don't consider that Hagler ever lost during his prime. His consistent dominance during his prime, relative to Hearns' inherent vulnerability, just edges him ahead imo.

I assume you rate Hearns top 3 at WW H2H? If so, that's reasonable imo. His record there is certainly nowhere near worthy of being the 3rd greatest WW ever, whereas I do rank Hagler #3 at MW.

 

I’m going with Hearns.

 

Agreed.

Hearns was more devastating. I can see him destroying fighters who would be competitive with Hagler, e.g. Duran. However, even in a p4p sense, I just see Hagler as being more difficult to beat, even though sometimes Hearns' vulnerabilities can be exaggerated.

Both great fighters. I like watching Hagler. I love watching Hearns.

 

Yeah. I rank Monzon above Hagler too, albeit its close and debatable again

Monzon's dominance once he hit his stride was astonishing. Benvenuti and Griffiths achieved more at MW then anyone Hagler beat, imo, too.

 

It’s the P4P criteria that needs to be clarified. Hagler/Monzon never fought outside their weight division. Quite right too. What would multiple titles prove. They quite rightly stayed in their own division. But Hearns fought up to Cruiser. Does that make him greater than Hagler. P4P maybe. But overall no way. He never was unified champion in any of his weight divisions although 154 was close. P4P could be looked at the same way as Lineal. Goalposts, criteria and rule set moved all over the place. Anyway Hagler was ranked higher around 84/85 P4P than Hearns yet never moved out of 160.

 

P4P is almost an anomaly. They were pretty much the same weight really. Tommy was a huge welter, Marvin a small middleweight. Really, weightwise there's nothing in it. And, despie being much the same size, Marvin beat Tommy very convincingly.

Better P4P, therefore, is Hagler. Who is greater is open to debate. Tommy had some great performances over various weight classes, Marvin was consistent for a long time. Each criterion will have its fans.

Marvin for me. But both gilt edged greats.

 

Hagler

 

Hearns.

I've always viewed Hagler a bit behind the other 3 of the four kings (though still a top 25 all time). H2H is pretty minor in how I rank fighters (unless you absolutely wow me like Pep), instead, resume then accomplishments take priority.

 

Hagler would have to be ranked pretty far down on any P4p list, simply for the fact he stayed at 160 his whole career.

Certainly far below Hearns who completed across several weight classes.

On one hand, Hagler deserves props for ruling his division with an iron fist, staying disciplined and keeping weight....

On the other hand he never proved himself outside of his most comfortable weight, and shouldn't be given credit for doing so.

 

It appears that "p4p" means different things to different people. My interpretation is its how good a fighter is relative to their size.

Moving through the weights and consistently beating naturally bigger world class opposition is an indicator of an excellent fighter, but it is possible to be a great fighter without doing so.

Benny Leonard has a couple of notable wins at WW, but other than that he was a career LW. I have him #8 all time p4p.

Louis and Ali were career HWs. They're my #9 and #10 p4p.

Pep did little of note outside of FW and he's my #11 p4p.

And I value victories against naturally bigger fighters more highly than most. I rank consistent dominance highly, too.

 

I see the argument since Hearns moved through multiple weight classes and was truly a phenom at 147... but I just think Hagler is better overall. Harder to beat just better overall.

 

Although the two had completely different careers, they share a commonality in the sense that at their best weight, there were only a handful of people who would stand a chance against them (Hagler at 160, Hearns at 154). I never liked rating fighters based on how many weight classes they were able to traverse. I feel that some are simply better equipped for these tasks. ODLH not only had the frame to move up, but he was also very young when he turned pro. Both these factors helped him become a 6 division champion. Hearns falls in the same category. But at the same time, Hagler had an iron dome, iron fists, and iron lungs. Those factors certainly helped him become the legend that he is. Everyone has their 'gift' so to speak. Hagler is the best middleweight of all time imo and that means a lot more to me than being the best junior middleweight of all time. Hagler also denied Hearns from becoming a 3 division champion in '85 which forced him to purse 175lbs champ Dennis Andries in order to fulfil his dream. As potent as Hearns' offense was, I believe Hagler was more well-rounded and better at getting the job done.