Who would you favor over hagler at middleweight?

Monzon. Valdez would give him a long night.Greb judging on resume.Benton Grifith give him a rough time too. A top form Carter presents problems also.

 

McCalllum was still a junior middle at the age of 29 .

At 36 McCallum still made 158 lbs for a shot at Toney's IBF Middleweight title.



Since the match is at 160lbs all he has over Hagler is height.

Hagler feasted on taller guys such as Hearns, Obelmijias,Scvypion,Watts,Seales,Geraldo,Demmings,Lee.

Oh and Hagler has the longer reach!

I think the lack of knowledge is on your side!

 

If you can't see that McCallum is much bigger(doesn't matter what weight class) than Hagler then there is no point in even continuing to talk about this hypothetical.

 

McCallum is taller that's it!
He was a natural junior middleweight. and remained one until he was nearly 30 , at 36 he still made 158lbs .

If you cant do that math, perhaps its time for you to fold your tent?

Hagler is bigger in:
biceps
chest
neck
thigh
calf
forearm
reach

So unless you have seen them in the shower, you are once again talking out of your rectum.

 

... but maybe if Monzon gets a leg massage ... ???

 

Mike McCallum had 22 fights where he weighed 160 or more out of 55. His Middleweight title fights career spanned 7 fights of which he lost 2 and drew 1.

All Mike has over Hagler is a couple of inches in height. His upper body, arms, and legs were all smaller than Hagler's, as was his reach

I can't account for your fictional version of McCallum, but I suggest you do far more research before you start spouting nonsense about people showing a lack of knowledge.

Make no mistake had they fought I would be rooting for the Jamaican, but if I was forced to part with money, it'd be on a Hagler win.

 

That has nothing to do with size. A guy could weight less be shorter and have a shorter reach and still be a bigger human being.

 

This. The first para here for me is a revealing stat. I wouldn't fancy anybody with a 4-2-1 record in MW title fights over MMH.

I suspect those who fancy Mike over Marvin at 160 were not there at the time and are looking at this subject without that benefit.

 

nobody but I think giardello would give him a good fight.

 

It seems you have a problem with reading, so lets try again.

Hagler is bigger in:
biceps
chest
neck
thigh
calf
forearm
reach.

If that is too difficult for you to comprehend, try this. Mike McCallum is taller than Hagler ONLY. Since Hagler destroyed taller man than him and MM, and bigger built men than McCallum, I don't see him having too much trouble with a guy whose career was mainly successful at 154.

 

Duran deserves a mention

 

Not really sure. There are a couple of candidates but nobody stands out a lot.

I'm not sure about SRR. He was really much better lower down. At 160 he was still excellent but not the same force as at 147. In a one-off, he had the brilliance to do it sure, but I would not bet on it.

I think speedsters like Jones or the lanky Nunn would give him problems. Win? I could make a case for Jones, not so much for Nunn. I don't see McCallum having a good shot at all. Too slow, just not outstanding enough where it counts. Hagler is a better all-rounder, imo.

I'd like opinions from the informed about Monzon-Hagler or Valdes-Hagler.

I wonder if someone not immediately obvious, someone like Gene Fullmer, would not have a shot. Fullmer was as stong as hell, durable as old leather, had the engine to fight 15 at a good pace and never let up. Good technical boxer with good balance too.
Not that I'm trying to build a case for him but hey, if Antuofermo could...??

 

Not to many...Hagler is near the top of the food chain at middle.

 

Yeah, I mean sure, I think there are a couple of guys like Giardello and Steele that could maybe pull something off. I'm just not all that well versed on either to really make that call though.