Floyd Mayweather - Marvin Hagler - Some perspective !!!

First topic message reminder :

A few things to think about.........

1. No one questions Hagler's legacy..and he's a bonafide hero..

2. Mayweather gets Castillo chucked at him..........Hagler drew with Vito....lost twice pre-title and sneaked past a lightweight....

3. Mayweather gets marked down for Marquez and yet two of Hagler's biggest wins were Duran and Mugabi both moving up in weight..

4. Mayweather beat 4 current p4pers.......Marvin beat Hearns.........

5. Mayweather gets hammered for Manny...Hagler avoided a Hearns rematch..Who apparently didn't deserve a rematch even though it was the fight of the decade and he smashed out the WBA/WBC number 1 contender straight after.....

6. Hagler was at the top seven years..Floyd 15.............

All I'm suggesting is people need to remember things like this when judging Floyd......I rate Hagler very highly...I've met him and he's a good guy...

manos de piedra wrote:Its easier to take on all comers if you stay at one weight class and never move up.

Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.

Duran and Spinks took on allcomers...........Tested themselves higher elsewhere too..

Spinks-Hagler was a mega-showdown..........Spinks wanted it........

manos de piedra wrote:Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.

Not with me Manos. I'd have great respect for a fighter if he unified and stayed at one weight.

Weight hopping doesn't mean as much as it used to.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're nitpicking.....Fact is he's fighting at a higher weight....

Spinks-Hagler was a superfight.........Spinks weighed 171 for Jim Mcdonald..........

Hagler fought hamsho twice instead........and you're having a pop at Mayweather for taking on a p4per at a higher weight............Hagler only fought one present one and he came up in weight...

Okay for Duran to move from 135-160 to fight Hagler.

more like driving a truck through the holes in your argument.

Atila wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.

Not with me Manos. I'd have great respect for a fighter if he unified and stayed at one weight.

Weight hopping doesn't mean as much as it used to.

It does If they are testing themselves..Did you really want Oscar to stay at 130 fighting Leija types.........

manos de piedra wrote:Its easier to take on all comers if you stay at one weight class and never move up.

Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.

At least staying at one weight helps your cause.

Does anyone seriously imagine Mayweather moved up to seek challenges? He chased the money (nothing wrong with that but why do people make excuses for him -- he doesn't make any for himself!).

hazharrison wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Its easier to take on all comers if you stay at one weight class and never move up.

Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.

At least staying at one weight helps your cause.

Does anyone seriously imagine Mayweather moved up to seek challenges? He chased the money (nothing wrong with that but why do people make excuses for him -- he doesn't make any for himself!).

All fighters want the money.........WTF....He took the challenges regardless of motive...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Spinks-Hagler was a mega-showdown..........Spinks wanted it........

I'm sure Spinks did want it. Hagler would have made him millions, certainly much more than he made fighting Jim McDonald. Unfortunately for Spinks, there wasn't a big clamour for this fight. It would have been a hardcore fans fight. Not a fight that I see the casual fan being interested in.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Atila wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.

Not with me Manos. I'd have great respect for a fighter if he unified and stayed at one weight.

Weight hopping doesn't mean as much as it used to.

It does If they are testing themselves..Did you really want Oscar to stay at 130 fighting Leija types.........

I always thought that Oscar moved up because he was a growing boy. If he had stayed at 130lbs and cleared out the division it would have been fine with me.

Spinks cleaned up with a good payday over Qawi.........Look Hagler was all disappointed when leonard retired..........He was happy for the motivated Duran to come up to 160....He was a career lightweight that's 25 pounds.........

Spinks weighed 171 for a few fights....

Get my drift...

Anyway you didn't answer my question..You'd prefer Oscar to stay at 130 fighting Leija types..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You'd prefer Oscar to stay at 130 fighting Leija types..

The honest truth.......I didn't care. When he was at 130lb I wasn't sitting there thinking "My God I hope this guy moves up".

Just for you Truss

hazharrison wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Its easier to take on all comers if you stay at one weight class and never move up.

Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.

At least staying at one weight helps your cause.

Does anyone seriously imagine Mayweather moved up to seek challenges? He chased the money (nothing wrong with that but why do people make excuses for him -- he doesn't make any for himself!).

How does staying at one weight help his cause when there a numerous divisions around him? What excuses are being made for him? There are multiple divisions surrounding seperated by little weight. Common sense would indicate that with so many additional divisions, the talent pool is stretched thinner.

Atila wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.

Not with me Manos. I'd have great respect for a fighter if he unified and stayed at one weight.

Weight hopping doesn't mean as much as it used to.

Not for me. Weight hopping means les in terms of acheivement by virtue of having more divisions but at the same time its more neccessary now when you have so many divisons seperated by small amounts of weight. Staying a dominating a weak division is inferior to moving around weights against tougher opposition in my view.

manos de piedra wrote:

Atila wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.

Not with me Manos. I'd have great respect for a fighter if he unified and stayed at one weight.

Weight hopping doesn't mean as much as it used to.

Not for me. Weight hopping means les in terms of acheivement by virtue of having more divisions but at the same time its more neccessary now when you have so many divisons seperated by small amounts of weight. Staying a dominating a weak division is inferior to moving around weights against tougher opposition in my view.

If there's a genuine big fight out there and you have to move a divison to take it then fair enough. But most of the time these 'tougher opponents' are just opponents that sell more tickets and the champion gets to avoid decent fighters in his own division.

Besides, if a fighter dehydrates down to 140lbs for one fight and for his next fight dehydrates less and fights at 147lbs has he really moved weights and done something special?

manos de piedra wrote:

Atila wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.

Not with me Manos. I'd have great respect for a fighter if he unified and stayed at one weight.

Weight hopping doesn't mean as much as it used to.

Not for me. Weight hopping means les in terms of acheivement by virtue of having more divisions but at the same time its more neccessary now when you have so many divisons seperated by small amounts of weight. Staying a dominating a weak division is inferior to moving around weights against tougher opposition in my view.

Mayweather didn't do that. He sought fighters that could sell PPV fights -- names rather than his toughest challenges.

If he'd looked to dominate welterweight when it was red hot, this wouldn't even be an argument.

Atila wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Atila wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.

Not with me Manos. I'd have great respect for a fighter if he unified and stayed at one weight.

Weight hopping doesn't mean as much as it used to.

Not for me. Weight hopping means les in terms of acheivement by virtue of having more divisions but at the same time its more neccessary now when you have so many divisons seperated by small amounts of weight. Staying a dominating a weak division is inferior to moving around weights against tougher opposition in my view.

If there's a genuine big fight out there and you have to move a divison to take it then fair enough. But most of the time these 'tougher opponents' are just opponents that sell more tickets and the champion gets to avoid decent fighters in his own division.

Besides, if a fighter dehydrates down to 140lbs for one fight and for his next fight dehydrates less and fights at 147lbs has he really moved weights and done something special?

Spot on.

Atila wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Atila wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.

Not with me Manos. I'd have great respect for a fighter if he unified and stayed at one weight.

Weight hopping doesn't mean as much as it used to.

Not for me. Weight hopping means les in terms of acheivement by virtue of having more divisions but at the same time its more neccessary now when you have so many divisons seperated by small amounts of weight. Staying a dominating a weak division is inferior to moving around weights against tougher opposition in my view.

If there's a genuine big fight out there and you have to move a divison to take it then fair enough. But most of the time these 'tougher opponents' are just opponents that sell more tickets and the champion gets to avoid decent fighters in his own division.

Besides, if a fighter dehydrates down to 140lbs for one fight and for his next fight dehydrates less and fights at 147lbs has he really moved weights and done something special?

Thats not really the point I was making. With more weight classes easily alternated between then if a fighter chooses he can move weights to avoid challenges more easily. I wouldnt argue with that.

But if he wants become really great then I think its inneviteable he will have to move weights to reach for bigger challenges. Ideally you want a fighter to beat the best couple of fighters in his division and then move on. Once Pacquiao had beaten Morales, Marquez and Barrera I think it was better he move on and face the likes of Hatton and Cotto than to stick around in a division that didnt pose anymore challenges. Or what Donaire did which is basically stay small amounts of time in each division but challenge the best guys in each one and move to the next one. Better that than beating the top guys and sticking around for years fighting contenders of lesser quality.

There are just too many lower weight classes to support a potentially great fighter staying in one for the best part of a carrer in my view. If there were only 8, then it becomes more acceptable. With the amount now, it just means the individual divisions become too shallow.

hazharrison wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Atila wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.

Not with me Manos. I'd have great respect for a fighter if he unified and stayed at one weight.

Weight hopping doesn't mean as much as it used to.

Not for me. Weight hopping means les in terms of acheivement by virtue of having more divisions but at the same time its more neccessary now when you have so many divisons seperated by small amounts of weight. Staying a dominating a weak division is inferior to moving around weights against tougher opposition in my view.

Mayweather didn't do that. He sought fighters that could sell PPV fights -- names rather than his toughest challenges.

If he'd looked to dominate welterweight when it was red hot, this wouldn't even be an argument.

And Im not arguing that he did. Im saying that with so many weight classes seperated by small amounts of weight, that in order to become a great fighter nowadays its inneveteable that they will need to move weight classes rather than just dominate a single division for his whole carrer. Inneviteably, even a strong lower division will run out of decent opponents and there will be pressure to move up and challenge in the division above.

Hagler has time on his side. Give it 20 years and Floyd will be remembered well

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather 130.......Oscar at 154

Hagler 160...........Spinks at 175.......

Mayweather- WBC at 130lbs
De La Hoya- WBO at 130lbs

Hagler- Unified at 160lbs
Spinks- Unified at 175lbs

Amended that for you, you're argument here is full of holes and is largely dependent on anyone rating Hagler higher than Mayweather which reading through the comments doesn't seem to be the case.

I rate Hagler above him.

I think in years to come once Mayweather has been retired a few years the put downs will calm a little. It's always easier to put down those that are still active. Once you no longer have such a talent around people realise what class they had.

I'm off to Marbella for a long weekend to celebrate/commiserate my in-laws wedding anniversary........

Wish you all a good weekend...rest assured I won't be having one...

Interesting debate.....Good points...

Cheers... 

Haha enjoy as much as you can mate. Catch you when you get back.

If (should I say when) Floyd beats Canelo he'll go top 10 for sure. Probably somewhere around 8, for me.

Hagler deserves to be rated above Mayweather. The 1980s had better boxers than the ones around now. Being a champion back then meant more and Hagler was one of the best. He had a real aura around him.

Just tweeted a few respected writers:

Boxing Monthly Editor says Mayweather
Boxing News Editor says Hagler

With that logic if the greatest talented boxer ever was to grace the boxing ring tomorrow you would dismiss him solely on his available opposition. Yes competition is one yard stick to judge a fighter on, but that can not be the only criteria to rank fighters.

How would you know he was the greatest talented boxer ever?

People can nitpick records all they like, and I have, in the past, been critical of Floyd in taking a bit of a safety first approach in picking opponents. But, I think, when all is said and done, that he'll be considered somewhere in the top 15 ATG lists by most. His non-dominance in most of his weight categories doesn't help. Plus he has a lot of really good wins (Corrales, Judah, JMM, Hatton) without having too many great wins (beating ODLH at 154 is the only one for me). Alvarez would be another really good but not great win. Manny circa 2009-10 would've been great but not so now. But, as I say, you look back at anyone's record and you can pick holes. Floyd has done enough to be a great.

winchester wrote:How would you know he was the greatest talented boxer ever?

How do we know who is the greatest boxer of all time is?

It's all personal opinion with the general being Robinson but he wasn't around at the time of any of Leonard, Hearns, Monzon, Greb Hagler, Hopkins, Ross so how do we know?

Needs to be based on the quality of work they got done.

Kevin Iole - Floyd
Lee Wylie - Hagler

2-2

It's groundhog day again! Truss how many more times are we going to talk about the fact that you perceive that Floyd doesn't get his dues? Can I suggest that you let it lie and wait til a few years after he retires and we all have the old rose tinted specs on, then we'll all agree that the sun shone out of his arse.

I don't have Mayweather or Hagler in my Top 20 ATG's. I imagine they will eventually be ranked similarly.

Floyd's cherry picking goes against him athough obviously he is the greater talent.

Hagler would beat Floyd if they met so should be ranked higher.

hazharrison wrote:Needs to be based on the quality of work they got done.

Kevin Iole - Floyd
Lee Wylie - Hagler

2-2

You'll probably put me in my place by finding dozens of writers etc who'll disagree, but I'd really struggle to make a case for Hagler ranking higher than Floyd, Haz.

Suffice to say, I think Floyd is a far greater talent than Marvin, before we even get in to records. Hagler had plenty going for him, don't get me wrong, but he wasn't even half the ring general that Mayweather is and he had a nasty habit of making really, really hard work of fights that he should have been winning at a canter. His rematches against Watts (ok, so Boogaloo was probably on a slight downturn, but the point still stands) and Antuofermo just make it even more confusing that he managed to make such hard work of the fights first time out, even if he was unlucky on both occasions with the scoring.

How many times has Mayweather really struggled? Castillo I, for sure. Aside from that, it's literally just very, very small snippets here and there. Mosley and Corley hurt him, but were dominated for the other eleven and a half rounds of those fights. Judah, Cotto and De la Hoya threatened very briefly before Mayweather pulled away without ever really being in trouble in any of those cases. Those minor (very, very minor) hiccups aside, he's hardly lost a round in an eon.

I appreciate that Hagler did more work pre-title than just about anyone else has had to do in the modern era, but I think you perhaps overrate the Philadelphia Middleweights of the era too, just a shade. Watts, for instance, basically fought Hagler as a brawler without a punch in that first fight, and still Hagler shut off enough in the last two rounds to make a bit of a pig's ear of it. Briscoe was the pick of the bunch but had seen better days by the time Hagler fought him.

A guy who can totally annihilate them in rematches and also completely abuse Minter, Sibson and Hearns shouldn't really be having to leave fights against Watts and Vito to chance!

Good wins for Marvin, of course, and all the more commendable considering that he was thrown in with them (along with guys like Monroe and Seales) in an almost round robin style with such regularity with no protection from the Petronellis, but those kind of names would be further down on Floyd's list of best victories than they are on Marvin's, for me.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:

winchester wrote:How would you know he was the greatest talented boxer ever?

How do we know who is the greatest boxer of all time is?

It's all personal opinion with the general being Robinson but he wasn't around at the time of any of Leonard, Hearns, Monzon, Greb Hagler, Hopkins, Ross so how do we know?

My answer was in response to another answer which was a pointless question in my view. There no way of properly knowing who the best boxr is but Hagler deserves to be recognised as better than Mayweather. He fought in a better era of boxing and became a legend.

I thought Oscar did well against Floyd and had a game plan that was working until he ran out of gas. I saw enough to suggest a younger De La Hoya could well have beaten Mayweather that night.

Floyds best wins are Corrales and Hernandez. Neither of those wins rank as high as Hagler's over Hearns in my view.

Winchester my point was that you were only taking one criteria to make your decision. With that reasoning you could never have anyone above hagler again until you got another freak generation that matched the four kings. Which is highly unlikely. I'm not saying that I would rule out having hagler above mayweather but to use one criteria is overly simplistic in my eyes.

Strongback wrote:I thought Oscar did well against Floyd and had a game plan that was working until he ran out of gas. I saw enough to suggest a younger De La Hoya could well have beaten Mayweather that night.

Floyds best wins are Corrales and Hernandez. Neither of those wins rank as high as Hagler's over Hearns in my view.

That first para echoes my views strongy. There's an argument that Oscar regularly faded down the stretch, but it looked to me that the game plan was there. I'd have been fascinated to see how they'd have fared at lightweight, or light welter where Oscar was a bit more mobile.

Some think floyd Oscar was a masterclass, I thought it was a bore where nothing much landed til Oscar gassed. When assessing floyd's ATG status (and I have him pretty high) I have this fight more in the minus column than the plus column where some have it.

Don't get me wrong, milky, I don't consider Oscar to be one of Mayweather's best performances, but at the same time when watching it I've never felt that Mayweather was in any real danger of losing the fight either, even when De la Hoya was coming on strongly in the middle stages.

Oscar certainly threw less and less as the rounds went on, but I do think that Mayweather did just about shift up a gear as well to compound De la Hoya's shortcomings.

Not a great performance, but not an average enough one to be seen as a minus against his legacy either is probably how I'd try to sum it up, if that makes sense.

Up to 6 or 7 rounds in I thought Oscar was going to win. circling around Mayweather landing punches was impressive to me. The plan was working.Oscar just couldn't dance for 12 rounds. Mayweather won in the end by a couple of rounds but he was tested in my view.


An old Oscar was the last semi decent opponents Floyd's had.

Ha, I wasn't thinking of you, when I was referring to the masterclass chris. We might not always agree 100% but your arguments are always well constructed and balanced.

There was a period of mayweather Oscar, maybe around the end of round 8, where I thought it was in the balance. But Oscar stopped jabbing and floyd pulled away. Would mayweather have done so without Oscar gassing? Think it's hard to say myself, but clearly floyd had plenty left in the tank, so it's a possibility.

In balance, I just thought that mayweather would have dealt with a post prime Oscar with more to spare than he did... And as Oscar is the only 'great' fighter he fought, it raises more questions than it answers for me, with respect to his ATG rankings. Again to be clear, I have floyd pretty high, so it's just a minor differentiator.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm off to Marbella for a long weekend to celebrate/commiserate my in-laws wedding anniversary........

Wish you all a good weekend...rest assured I won't be having one...

Interesting debate.....Good points...

Cheers... 

the very definition of a middle class problem!

spencerclarke wrote:Winchester my point was that you were only taking one criteria to make your decision. With that reasoning you could never have anyone above hagler again until you got another freak generation that matched the four kings. Which is highly unlikely. I'm not saying that I would rule out having hagler above mayweather but to use one criteria is overly simplistic in my eyes.

Hagler was a legend in an era of legends. He fought lots of other great fighters and beat most of them. I think he beat Sugar Ray Leonard but the judges took it away from him. Mayweather hasnt beat the kind of legends that Hagler did. He didnt even face Pacquaio. I think Hagler deserves to be rated higher. He is more proven than Mayweather.

On the flip side you can argue that Hagler should be the lowest of the four kings certainly behind Duran and Leonard while Hearns is a bit more tricky, i'd have them about even. He may have fought at a time when there were more legends but those legends made their names in lower divisons and all had to step up to face Hagler. Is being the 4th or 5th best of your era better than being head and shoulders above everyone in your era.

Arguello was near or at the top for the majority of Haglers career and he is easily above him while Holmes is again quite close.

Hagler virtually wiped the middleweight division out,and so his big purses were alway's going to be against Hearns,Leonard and Duran.The result against Hearns cemented Haglers legendary status,the win against Hearns and the way it was accomplished is outstanding,many tipped Hearns to dethrone him.
Hagler fought everyone out there and ducked nobody one of the greatest middles of all time, never cherry picked his opponents that's why I rate him above Mayweather.

Truss for a fight to warrant a rematch the first one has to be close or it's got to be in the original contract. The Hagler Hearns fight was exciting but you can't say it was close ,so no need for a rematch.

rapidringsroad wrote:   Truss for a fight to warrant a rematch the first one has to be close or it's got to be in the original contract. The Hagler Hearns fight was exciting but you can't say it was close ,so no need for a rematch.

Never heard so much carp...Fight of the decade not the year!! and he was also number 1 by the wbc and wba.......

Just.............don't !!

Fight of the decade???


Not sure about that myself, after the initial onslaught by Hearns, it was all one way traffic. Blown up welterweight with suspect chin who hadn't grown into the weight, against a peaking Hagler? It had Hagler win written all over it. You could tell Hagler knew he was going to win too.

So much for what Trussman calls the greatest boxer ever! Hagler got to him with ease.