On the night of Hagler vs. Hearns...

[Rattler]

...I don't believe there's a Middleweight in history who could've beaten Marvin.

No one.

[GazOC]

It was an exciting fight but Hearns was new at the weight, didn't have the best chin in the world and broke his hand in the first round. It was a good win for Marvin but nowhere near enough to say he could've beaten anyone that night.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Hearns had nothing left after that first round. So it's too tough a fight to gauge how Marv would have done againts the Monzon's and Ray's (based on that fight)

[Bokaj]

I would give RJJ a good chance to get a decision. It's hard to say what happens in the last 3 or 4 rds, though.

[paidinrakim]

Dick Tiger
Jake LaMotta
Carlos Monzon
and like Gazoc said Hearns broke his hand in the first round and got sucked into Haglers fight

[Vantage_West]

jem mace
jimmy wilde
duffy paddy

[Raging B(_)LL]

...I don't believe there's a Middleweight in history who could've beaten Marvin.

No one.

I think your in the minority then, as I can think of a good number of middleweights who may well have beaten Hagler, although I will concede that it wouldn`t have been easy as he was a man on a mission that night.

[Unforgiven]

Hearns broke his hand by hitting Hagler in the head with a shot that would have flattened the vast majority of fighters at 160, many all-time greats included.
Hagler's punch resistance to Herans' super-power caused that injury.

It was war. And Hearns got destroyed.

How it relates to Hagler vs. other ATG middleweights is another matter though. It should suffice to just say that Hagler was as close to invincible as any of them.

[stonemittens]

I would take Sugar Ray Robinson in a UD with a broken right hand
and
Ezzard Charles in SD with a broken right hand.

Both SRR and Charles were boxers as hagler was more of a slugger, however i'm not sure if either of them could knockout hagler.

[GazOC]

Hearns broke his hand by hitting Hagler in the head with a shot that would have flattened the vast majority of fighters at 160, many all-time greats included.
Hagler's punch resistance to Herans' super-power caused that injury.

It was war. And Hearns got destroyed.

How it relates to Hagler vs. other ATG middleweights is another matter though. It should suffice to just say that Hagler was as close to invincible as any of them.

Hearns broke his hand a few times in fights where he didn't KO the opponent in the process. Far from being a 9 minute war it was a 90 second war, Hearns broke his hand, started shipping punishment and Hagler walked him down. There was added suspense because of the cut and the possibility that Steele would stop the fight but other than that I think its an overrated fight if looked at in its entirety.

[Dempsey1238]

Add in Walker, Greb, and a few others.

Sure no easy win, but I can see it happening.

[Unforgiven]

Hearns broke his hand a few times in fights where he didn't KO the opponent in the process. Far from being a 9 minute war it was a 90 second war, Hearns broke his hand, started shipping punishment and Hagler walked him down. There was added suspense because of the cut and the possibility that Steele would stop the fight but other than that I think its an overrated fight if looked at in its entirety.

Well, it was good enough from where I was sitting. If it were PPV I'd say value-for-money certainly.

Yeah, Hearns broke his hand other times hitting people. Beat guys with broken hand too, if I remeber rightly. Marvin was something special that night for sure. And not just that night.

[GazOC]

Yep, it was a good fight, no argument there. Just a little overrated as a 3 round fight IMHO and certainly not enough to give Hagler a "best ever" award.

[Unforgiven]

Yep, it was a good fight, no argument there. Just a little overrated as a 3 round fight IMHO and certainly not enough to give Hagler a "best ever" award.

I agree.
It was a good fight to further confirm that Hagler was one of the ATG middleweights though.
:good

[GazOC]

That fight, the other 11 successful defenses and the impressive pre-title opposition.;)

[Dave's Top Ten]

Although it was a great performance, I think Hagler was already slipping when he fought Hearns. He needed an iron chin, tremendous will, superior strength, and a wealth of experience to beat Hearns. He had all those in abundance, which is why he won. What was already on the wane were his speed, reflexes, movement and defensive skills (shown in a terrible performance against Roldan and even in the short lived fight with Hamsho).

I think the Hagler of 1983 is much tougher proposition.

[natonic]

Although it was a great performance, I think Hagler was already slipping when he fought Hearns. He needed an iron chin, tremendous will, superior strength, and a wealth of experience to beat Hearns. He had all those in abundance, which is why he won. What was already on the wane were his speed, reflexes, movement and defensive skills (shown in a terrible performance against Roldan and even in the short lived fight with Hamsho).

I think the Hagler of 1983 is much tougher proposition.

I agree. Hagler was at his best between 80-83 IMO.

[Robbi]

Although it was a great performance, I think Hagler was already slipping when he fought Hearns. He needed an iron chin, tremendous will, superior strength, and a wealth of experience to beat Hearns. He had all those in abundance, which is why he won. What was already on the wane were his speed, reflexes, movement and defensive skills (shown in a terrible performance against Roldan and even in the short lived fight with Hamsho).

I think the Hagler of 1983 is much tougher proposition.

I disagree. The Hagler between 82-83 would not have performed any better when fighting the same kind of fight. IMO Hearns' height, reach, and devastating power got Hagler into the kind of zone, physically and mentally, that was required to show a peak performance.

It was just a case of him winding back the clock. I couldn't disagree with anyone who suggests the Hagler of 2 or 3 years earlier does suttle adjustments and takes slightly less punches while fighting pretty much the same fight. But they would be minimal.

[Dave's Top Ten]

I disagree. The Hagler between 82-83 would not have performed any better when fighting the same kind of fight. IMO Hearns' height, reach, and devastating power got Hagler into the kind of zone, physically and mentally, that was required to show a peak performance.

It was just a case of him winding back the clock. I couldn't disagree with anyone who suggests the Hagler of 2 or 3 years earlier does suttle adjustments and takes slightly less punches while fighting pretty much the same fight. But they would be minimal.

I completely agree that "The Hagler between 82-83 would not have performed any better when fighting the same kind of fight." but that doesn't contradict what I said earlier. I meant the 1983 Hagler was a tougher proposition generally, not for Hearns necessarily.

[MagnificentMatt]

I wouldnt say that.. Marvin just new exactly what he had to do to win against Tommy, and executed.

[enquirer]

No way is hagler beating monzon with that or any other strategy.....
Robinson or leonard could beat the 85 hagler with boxing smarts or speed....

[redrooster]

...I don't believe there's a Middleweight in history who could've beaten Marvin.

No one.

True. Marvin Hagler was just better than everyone else, could fight at a much higher rate than anyone else. He is so far above the other middleweights that there is no second.

I think Tiger could give him a tough fight. Walker? He's great too but by round five his face would start coming apart. hagler would give him the same treatment he gave Sibbo. A few stiff hard rights would put him in his place.

Monzon would be tough to figure for a couple rounds because he's not the easiest guy to reach. He's also not the fastest guy either. He simply can't match jabs with Hagler and forget about the follow up right. Hagler would be long out of range before it arrived. Too much rib, too little handspeed. What else can he do? he's hopelessy outgunned.

And if you ask me, Roy Jones and Ray Robinson come in second and third respectively because of their athleticsm. And i dont give a damn what people say that Roy Jones not fighting by the book and crticizing his technique. he always won and won big and that's what matters.

[brownshell]

hagler at his best would give any middle hell. Only a few could hvae beaten him and if they fought more than once, Hagler would win a some too.

[Manassa]

Although it was a great performance, I think Hagler was already slipping when he fought Hearns. He needed an iron chin, tremendous will, superior strength, and a wealth of experience to beat Hearns. He had all those in abundance, which is why he won. What was already on the wane were his speed, reflexes, movement and defensive skills (shown in a terrible performance against Roldan and even in the short lived fight with Hamsho).

I think the Hagler of 1983 is much tougher proposition.

Sums it up best.

[Robbi]

Monzon would be tough to figure for a couple rounds because he's not the easiest guy to reach. He's also not the fastest guy either. He simply can't match jabs with Hagler and forget about the follow up right. Hagler would be long out of range before it arrived. Too much rib, too little handspeed. What else can he do? he's hopelessy outgunned.

What I have highlighted is nonsense. You're making out as if Monzon was a second rate middleweight. He was anything 'but'.

Biased with a capital B.

[redrooster]

What I have highlighted is nonsense. You're making out as if Monzon was a second rate middleweight. He was anything 'but'.

Biased with a capital B.

Monzon is a great defensive fighter but who has he really fought?

[Rubber Warrior]

...I don't believe there's a Middleweight in history who could've beaten Marvin.

No one.

I disagree.

Hearns had trouble with certain fighters that employed a straight at you type of physical fight. Marvin rolled the dice and managed to drag Hearns into something that favored the champ, thus taking away much of Tommoy's physical advantages and game plan.

[GPater11093]

hagler on that night showed he was a beast

before that hagler was a boxing machine add to it hes a beast

i think any middleweight champ ever would struggle and have their hardest fight against hagler and alot would lose

in the words of tyson hagler was the most complete boxer ever

and tyson is an encyclopedia of boxing

[fernando4cv3]

No way is hagler beating monzon with that or any other strategy.....
Robinson or leonard could beat the 85 hagler with boxing smarts or speed....

i would really like to doubt leonard would beat hagler in 85

[enquirer]

Leonard beat hagler in 87 when well above his best weight, with no tune up and when past his best. What if ray naturally went up to 160,fought regularly AND was still youthful? Hagler always had trouble with elusive speedsters,and ray was that par excellence and much much more....

[redrooster]

Leonard beat hagler in 87 when well above his best weight, with no tune up and when past his best. What if ray naturally went up to 160,fought regularly AND was still youthful? Hagler always had trouble with elusive speedsters,and ray was that par excellence and much much more....

That's what I've been wondering. Too bad he didnt prove himself when he had the chance. but to some extent he did. At 154 with 4 fights under his belt he didnt do very well with Norris and the bad part is he looked great in his last fight proving age hadnt slow him.

If ray was par excellence as you say he was shouldnt he at least won that fight since his edge in experience evened out Terry's edge in youth?

The way I see it, the Hagler-leonard fight was close and the Norris fight was a blow out so all the lavishes you heaped onto Ray Leonard really belong to Norris.

If you really believe what you say then you have no trouble coming up with an answer. Being age 34 is not that old when you only have 38 fights and little wear on your body.

[Unforgiven]

There's no excuse for Hagler losing to Leonard, but I didnt think he lost. I dont believe it was an outright robbery, but I scored the fight for Hagler.

Anyway, even seeing it as a close win for Hagler the real victory that night was Leonard's. If the judges had seen it as i do, it still would have been Leonard's night.
Hagler was an overwhelming favourite, had been more active, and was the career middleweight. I see the Leonard fight as a blemish on Hagler's record, even if the verdict was far too harsh on him.
It was a perfect time to retire though. Hagler did the right thing, went out at the right time.

[markedwardscott]

Hagler was ferocious that night but Monzon was cagey and tough enough to give Hagler very tough fight. Have to pick Monzon.