Who ranks higher all-time: Michael Spinks or Marvin Hagler?

tuff one. thing on spinks guys he went up in weight hagler never did. rate em hagler at 160 and spinks at 175 only or who wins hagler vs spinks with the great marvin moving up in weight. i like hagler as a fan more.

 

easily the 5 yr p4p king

 

Hagler,fractionally. Like most of us,though,I rate them pretty close together.

 

hagler

 

I voted for Spinks as well. He was dominant in his own weight class, and went up to challenge and beat the champion 40 lbs over his natural weight. Some may say Holmes was old, and he was, but at the same time, he was undefeated with 48-0 and had one of the longest reigns in heavyweight history. His knockout loss to Tyson does not bring him down very far, in my opinion. It would be like Hagler fighting a peak CW Holyfield after 2 years of inactivity at the end of his career.

 

Yeah, Hagler probably has greater name recognition by virtue of his membership in the fabulous four. But, mere association isn't enough. He needed to do better in some of those fights.

 

Hagler by a hair. He was more dominant in his division than Spinks, who's fewer amount of fights by hurt him in comparision like this.

 

Surprised Hagler would be winning this, and especially by such a landslide.

I don't really see that much of an argument for Hagler. Just comparing Spinks as a LHW to Hagler at MW, I think Spinks has roughly as good a resume despite not being the champ as long. Either way, he far outdid Hagler IMO by going up and winning the "impossible" fight against Holmes. People talk about Spinks' loss to Tyson as being "embarrassing," but I think Hagler's loss to Leonard was at least as much so, maybe more, given the circumstances. Leonard was coming out of retirement following a detached retina, and fighting for the first time at 160; and Hagler was a hefty favorite to win. Most people expected Spinks to lose to Tyson, just perhaps not so quickly.

 

The poll sucks, people who are picking Marvin are crazy!

They see Spinks loss to Tyson, which is heavily unfair. Let's see a past it Hagler go up to Cruiserweight and see what happens when he faces Holyfield, eh? :roll:

Alan Minter< Marvin Johnson

Vito Antuofermo< Eddie Mustapha Muhammad

Roberto Duran< Dwight Muhammad Qawi

Thomas Hearns< Larry Holmes 1

John Mugabi> Larry Holmes 2

Comparing their best five wins, Spinks outdoes Hagler in all but one. One can also see from this that Spinks best wins were against people at or above his weight class. Three out of five of Hagler's opponents came from below his weight class.

Spinks loss to Tyson and Hagler's loss to Leonard were both equally embarrising, but I'd rather be a former light heavy understandably get knocked out by the most ferocious heavyweight of his time than get outboxed and lose a disputed split decision against a former welterweight fighting for the first time at 160 and the second time in five years. It must be said that both were past it at this stage, but still, one was the favorite (Hagler), and one was the underdog (Spinks).

 

Considering who Mike Tyson was at that particular time I find it hard to fault Spinks for losing. But he reigned supreme in a deep LHW division and rose up above the ranks after Marvin refused to come up in weight to face him he took on another challenge, the undefeated HW Champion Larry Holmes.

Some could argue that Hagler should be faulted for losing to what could be considered a blown up welter in Leonard, who was inactive for 5 years prior to thier meeting. While SRL was great and therefore made it a very competitive match (whether or not you gave him the nod) so was Tyson.

Bottom line, In thier respective divisions, Marvin ranks higher amongst his peers. But his HW reign contained a very talented bunch and his HW stint in beating Holmes makes a big difference and therefore I give him the nod.

 

Marvin.

 

Some good points here.

 

I will reiterate the fact that I voted for Michael Spinks, but in all fairness its not unreasonable to pick Hagler either. Both men were all time greats with their own unique acheivments. I think Hagler's career had more Charisma primarily due to his excited style as a puncher combined with his association to the fab four. Spinks on the otherhand had accomplishments that slightly eclipse Hagler's but were somewhat quiet in a way.

 

I feel sorry for Marvin Hagler. He was a great boxer but he is so underrated.

 

. . . . :rofl

Haven't been on these boards for very long have ya?