.
The middleweight division is probably the one division where there is a top tier group of fighters who stands well above the rest. Hagler shares that top 4 spot with Robinson, Greb and Monzon.
.
You can place Hopkins and Jones Jr. in the next tier and the rest of the middleweight division falls well behind this group of six. This includes the middleweight version of Sugar Ray Leonard. There is a far greater difference between Leonard the 147-160 versions of Leonard and those of Robinson. Robinson didn't lose much as a middleweight.
.
You could argue that Hagler was past his prime when he faced Leonard. And if most were aware of the sacrifices Hagler blindly made to make the Leonard fight, it becomes harder to give Leonard much credit for the "win". Still, Leonard exposed enough for anyone watching closely, at Hagler's career, to see where he had his flaws.
.
Now look at Robinson at 160. While The 147 version of Robinson is the one in discussion when talking about THE greatest fighter p4p of all time, the middleweight version wasn't far off. He might rank #2 or #3 but no lower. The 147 version of Leonard was FAR better than his 160 lb. counterpart. That said, it's difficult to see how Hagler would ever outbox or defeat Robinson.
.
Hagler has always had trouble with quick-fisted mobile boxers. No one did it better than Robinson. Imagine Thomas Hearns with Ray Leonard's balance and Roberto Duran's chin. While you're at it, throw in Joe Frazier's heart.......or Jake LaMotta's. The bottom line is that Robinson, ANY version, is very difficult to beat.
.
The reason Hagler is not number one at 160 is because he would suffer more losses in a series of battles with his other fellow greats in the Top 4. If you look at his early fight against Willie "The Worm" Monroe, you will see why Hagler would also have his hands with Carlos Monzon and Bernard Hopkins. Look at the Vito Antoufermo fight and you will see why he would also have his hands full against Harry Greb.
.
Now, I believe that NO fighter goes undefeated in a series of battles with those he shares at the top tier. Ex: ALI, Louis, Holmes, Lewis. ALI might be the best but even he doesn't go undefeated in a series of fights.. He, like Robinson, suffers fewer losses in the series. That's what makes him the greatest. . . . Hagler, great as he is, suffers more losses than Robinson, Greb or Monzon, in the same type of series. It's all in styles.
.
That's why he's great but not THE greatest and certainly NOT greater than Robinson.
Far be it from me to question Emanual Stewart's opinion, Hagler was one of the most "dominant" boxers period, Middleweight or otherwise, and while Marvin didn't have a run like Tyson, he did take on a higher caliber of opponent and didn't duck anyone. Does that make him "better" then Robinson, or just as Stewart said, "more dominant" at Middleweight? Hagler was certainly more intimidating than Robinson, which is almost the same thing as "more dominant", so I can understand Stewart's comment. I still consider Ray Robinson the best Middleweight of all time, with Hagler 2nd and Monzon 3rd, but my opinion is just that, an opinion. I got Roy Jones at 4th, ahead of Hopkins and the likes of Greb, LaMotta, Toney, Basilio, Fitzsimmons and Hearns rounding out my top ten Middleweight list. In truth Hearns and Leonard were at their best at Welterweight and Duran at Lightweight. Mugambi was like McClellan a junior Middleweight, so for that reason, I put Hagler behind Robinson.
Yes. He has a valid argument. Robinson was greater at welterweight. He lost fights at middleweight. He was also older in years at the middleweight limit as well. Hagler stayed at middleweight and was dominant. He had no desire to move up. Hagler was offered big money to move up and fight Michael Spinks however he declined. He said point blank I am a middleweight. Yes this is an in house debate.Monzon was also a great middleweight. Hagler would get my nod with Sugar Ray a close second. Sugar Ray pound for pound is still the greatest ever.
Every boxer, boxing trainer and boxing expert has their own individual opinion.
Stewart, like most fighters/trainers, had their bias. His first prized fighter Thomas Hearns was destroyed by Hagler, many times when this happens the loosing corner tends to put the winning opponent in a pedestal to lower the pain of a loss; ''i lost to the best ever, no big deal''. Stewards top 10 ATG is a relatively stupid list, he has Foreman above Langford & Duran LOL
Hagler was great but he lost the biggest fight of his life against a smaller man in Leonard, and he almost lost to an old past it blown up lightweight in Roberto Duran. All fights were close.
As far as domination goes; Hagler was as dominant a middleweight as Bernard Hopkins, and almost as dominant as the great Carlos Monzon & Sugar Ray Robinson.
I believe the International Boxing Research Organization got it right in ranking Harry Greb as the greatest middleweight ever.
Not even Sugar Ray Robinson has Greb's resume in middleweight. The downside with Greb is that we don't have footage of his fights, only of his opponents.
It's hard to compare fighters of different eras although Robinson's time was not too far from Hagler's as both are classified as having fought in the modern era of boxing already. In fact, Robinson, who debuted in the late 40s, fought well into the mid 60s, just more than a decade before Hagler made his pro debut, before hanging up his gloves. Given the assumption that the fighters in the middleweight division from Robinson's time to Hagler's time were not far apart in terms of quality and skills, Emmanuel Stewart who could have conceivably seen both fighters in action, had some valid points. But personally, I think Robinson, despite winning the middleweight title as many times he lost it, is the best middleweight fighter and champion ever. I think Carlos Monzon is close second with Hagler coming in just third.
As far as dominating the division give the edge to Carlos Monzon who like Hagler was a complete fighter with no weakness.
I wouldnt mind anyone who has Hagler @#1 cause both are excellent fighters who dont get the credit they earned
I'm inclined to believe him. Hagler was pretty dominant for several years in the 80's and he had great competition, facing the likes of Hearns, Duran, Mugabi and Ray Leonard, losing only to Leonard, albeit controversially. Also, he was strong and had that menacingly ripped physique and he was pretty fast and quick too. Most of all, he was highly-skilled, with that switch-hitting technique.
He makes a strong case, but I'm going to disagree.Probably Greb, or Monzon is the best of all-time.
Manny Steward, not Stewart.
opinions... and how much it weighs
well, according to stewarts age, he probably witnessed both fighters
A couple of years ago, Emanuel said something that I never forgot.
He said that he thought that Hagler was the best middleweight of all time, and that SRRobinson really had his heyday as a welterweight? Coming from a knowledgeable guy like Emanuel Stewart I gave this comment serious credibility. Certainly, Hagler was the most dominant middleweight in my lifetime.
What do you think of Emanuel's comment.
I agree.
