Who would have had a better shot?

Since Spinks was more proven vs. heavyweights than Foster was, I would say Monzon has the better chance.:good

 

Monzon.

 

Monzon, though I reluctantly say so.

Spinks durablity was proved as a LHW beating out the best fighters before moving up to HW and taking on Larry Holmes. Hagler wouldve been, outboxed, befuddled and hurt and then stopped.

I seriously doubt that Monzon would fare any better than Marvin but by the slimmest of margins I think his chances were better.

 

Spinks would not stop Hagler, bar a freak cut. A fighter does not go from being practically invincible at 160lbs to being stoppable at 175, regardless of the puncher. Spinks most likely hit harder than any fighter Hagler faced, but it wasn't by some astronomical amount - we aren't comparing a lightweight to a heavyweight here - it's only fifteen pounds in weight, I wouldn't exaggerate its effect. If anything, Monzon is being stopped here; Foster was far more of a predator than Spinks, and Monzon's durability was arguably slightly less than that of Hagler's (but I don't think Monzon would be stopped either).

 

15 lbs is a great deal.

Hagler was durable, not invincible and yes he could be stopped.

 

I said Hagler was 'practically invincible' at 160lbs - are you denying that?

Fifteen pounds is a fair gap, but as I said, not an astronomical amount that means a once immortal fighter starts getting bashed about and detached from his senses. You might have had a stronger argument if Spinks was a hunter like Foster, but he wasn't; he boxed a lot more and would probably be put on the back foot by the shorter Hagler often in their clash.

 

Agreed.

Both Monzon and Hagler had granite chins, and were near unstoppable at 160. Neither would be getting stopped, though Monzon is the more likely of the two, considering the immense power Foster carried at 175.

Tough to say who had a better chance, probably Hagler.

 

Neither is winning. If Hagler tries to force the win it's lights out, and Monzon may or may not last the distance.

 

Probably Monzon. Hagler seemed content at middleweight.

 

I think that Haglers style would be far more suited to steping up in weight.

Monzon relied verry heavily on his physioical advantages which would be removed at light heavyweight. In Hagler I see a lot more that I could work with against a bigger opponent.

 

Monzon was verry much a fighter who used his physical advantages in height and reach to dominate his oponents. When you put him up against sombody who exceeds him in these parameters he could be in trouble.

Fighters who have beaten good bigger men have tended to do it by working on the inside. They also tend to have both good power and good chin. Haglers style can be adapted to this better than Monzons.

Like I say I see more that I could work with in Hagler.

 

In a nutshell yes.

I dont think either would win but Hagler would have the tools to give Spinks some problems. Mickey walker was able to beat a lot of much bigger fighters by working the inside.

I would also note that Hagler used to knock about heavyweights in sparring.