Mike Spinks at175lbs v Marvin Hagler at160lbs?

[Bronson66]

Self explanatory,who wins and why?

[JAB5239]

Self explanatory,who wins and why?

Spinks awkwardness, length and solid chin would be a big problem for Marvin. Can't see Marvin stopping him and am very doubtful he could win on points. Spinks by clear decision if not a late stoppage.

[djtmal]

This is a joke right

[Bronson66]

This is a joke right

Only if you believe size matters in boxing.

[djtmal]

Only if you believe size matters in boxing.

As good as Hagler was, Mike Spinks was just as good @175

[JAB5239]

How about Hagler vs Victor Galindez? Not as tall or fast as Spinks, not as hard a puncher, but a tough guy with some solid wins at lightheavyweight.

[Willie Pep 229]

How about Hagler vs Victor Galindez? Not as tall or fast as Spinks, not as hard a puncher, but a tough guy with some solid wins at lightheavyweight.

Your suggestion shows one of the problems with this whole size comparison thing.

While the first suggestion, Hagler vs. M. Spinks, two ATGs, tries to make the question pure. An ATG (MW) vs. ATG (LHW)

The moment we change the dynamics to a different qualification, e.g. Hagler vs. Galindez or maybe Hagler vs. Mke Rossman, the entire argument takes a twist. Now we have an ATG against two 'almost greats.'

I think Hagler could very well beat both men. But so could Spinks.

I doubt Hagler could take Spinks.