Hagler was Absolutely the WEAKEST of the Big 4.

[soul_survivor]

The 4 probably go: Leonard, Duran, Hagler and Hearns. But, whether or not you believe Hagler is the best or worst, the fact still remains that all four were great fighters.

[joseph5620]

Hagler lost to Leonard not because he was past it....he lost it because always had to much sped and intelligence for him...Duran when he boxed hagler was way past it after losing to Leonard and the hearns and Benitez ....a classic comparison s when Marcos Geraldo boxed Leonard and he boxed hagler....they asked who would win between them 2 ..Geraldo looked up and said Leonard...he is to refined and has to much skill... He's the better boxer..drawing with searles , losing to Monroe who totally out boxed hagler the first fight ....juan roldan who was actually bossing hagler untill hagler thumbed him intentionally...and if you look closely you actually see hagler punching up with his fist sideways......gong back to Leonard he had one fight in five years ....never weighed above 153 ....hagler 2 years previous had one of his defining fights with hearns.....when Leonard was in his prime he never lost to a type like Monroe, or draw with a searls ...he was just a better boxer and that's why he is ranked above hagler in every p4p list from any historian...hagler got his legacy from calling up welterweights or lightweights .....but one of the those welterweights was just a notch above.....hagler a limitations were shown when Duran took him all the way and after the fight Duran leaned through the ropes and said to Leonard ...sugar u can beat hagler

You mean "seales" and that draw was bogus. Hagler crushed him in a rematch. Boxrec doesn't tell you everything. Hagler also wasn't in his prime in any if those fights. That was in the early part of his career.

[billeau2]

Stay in NSB

Cosign!!

[billeau2]

It is the essence of ******ity to make an argument for greatness based on a decision a fighter makes to stay in their weight class...and im not going to get into a comparison of fighters who choose a different path...they are choices not indicators of quality. There seems to be this sense in some fans now that fighters should be taking belts in multiple divisions, ridiculous!! It matters the quality of the fighters fought.

And why does there have to be a "better" or "worse" for a time when there where four talented guys who ruled the roost? Who was a better infielder for the yankees Billy Martin or Phil Rissuto? Who can say? who cares?!

People seem to occasionally hate in Hagler because he fought tough in his neck of the woods...Show me a middle weight who would regularly fight guys like Margarito? No Margarito was not a great fighter by any means but fighting guys like that day in and day out would be a challenge of its own and thats the way guys like Vito were.

Certainly there are grounds when comparing Hagler to other middle weights to bring up some of the issues regarding his competition. But denying his greatness because of saying the course at middle weight and not recognizing tough competition and competitiveness against fellow greats is absurd.

[The plunger man]

You mean "seales" and that draw was bogus. Hagler crushed him in a rematch. Boxrec doesn't tell you everything. Hagler also wasn't in his prime in any if those fights. That was in the early part of his career.

Excuse me but what's the excuse for a washed up duran pushing him all the way...this was after duran was beaten by kirland Laing.....a lightweight who was thourghly dominated by benitez and Hearns who after the leonard no mas fight was considered a lost cause.....the Monroe fight he got totally outboxed ...that's a fact and also the seales fight was a deserved draw.....by the time Leonard was 22 and 23 leonard was beating Durans and benites of this world...hagler was losing and drawing to monroes and seales.....sorry buddy Leonard's resume will always be above hagler and that's just the way it is.....before hagler boxed an all time great in duran he went through The scypions, obelmejias, caveman lees of this world....then when it was duran who was world class he was found to be lacking ...which shows hagler was beatable ....and it was 1983 and hagler was considere to be in his utmost prime...sorry buddy leonard was better and he proved not just at one weight but from multiple.....hagler would have got destroyed by Michael spinks which was the same equivalent from weltwerweight to middleweight

[The plunger man]

You mean "seales" and that draw was bogus. Hagler crushed him in a rematch. Boxrec doesn't tell you everything. Hagler also wasn't in his prime in any if those fights. That was in the early part of his career.

I don't need boxrec...I watched and read boxing all my life......countless books....countless nights staying up and watching live 5 am boxing nights.....hagler was great but he was beatable and past losses he suffered indicated that.....anytime u feel like you can beat me with any knowledgable quiz or challenge....then we're on son.......and from when I was 12 I always knew leonard could beat hagler......a man who had 1 fight in 5 years...who had suffered a sever injury to his eye..who have never competed above the light middlweight division ...against a naturally bigger more active opponent ..who had not lost for 10 years with 13 defences...who was written off by almost every publication and journalist in boxing and sports....and leonard was nowhere near the fighter who was at his prime in 1982..... And he still beat hagler.....go away silly boy

[The plunger man]

The 4 probably go: Leonard, Duran, Hagler and Hearns. But, whether or not you believe Hagler is the best or worst, the fact still remains that all four were great fighters.

Of course he was a great fighter...but when you really break down there achievements then you have to say they were slightly greater than hagler because they dared to do it outside there natural weight class......example 2 marines running on the beach...one marine has a backpack of 20 kilos on the back and the other has 30 kilos on there back.....they both finish the course in the same time....but who took the harder challenge....30 kilo marine of course

[soul_survivor]

Of course he was a great fighter...but when you really break down there achievements then you have to say they were slightly greater than hagler because they dared to do it outside there natural weight class......example 2 marines running on the beach...one marine has a backpack of 20 kilos on the back and the other has 30 kilos on there back.....they both finish the course in the same time....but who took the harder challenge....30 kilo marine of course

Hey, listen, one of my complaints about Hagler is the weight thing too. I posted a thread about why Hagler never moved up to 175, which was a pretty common occurrence in those days, middleweight champs fighting light heavy champs and light heavy champs fighting heavy champs.

Having said that, you can't fault Hagler for what he did at the weight and is easily one of the top 3 middleweights ever, does he rank as high as the other 3? Well that's up for debate but he was THE guy in his division until the great Leonard dethroned him. Duran was THE guy at lightweight and arguably THE guy at 147 in 1980.

Hearns, for all his prowess, was never the man, not at any weight.

[WalkerSmithJnr]

Hearns, for all his prowess, was never the man, not at any weight.

Depends whether you count light middle as a weight I reckon he was the man at LMW for a while

[The Old LefHook]

King Kong was weaker than Godzilla. Carmen Electra is uglier than Kim Basinger.