Was Marvin Hagler really so marvellous?

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 26 Jun 2004, 17:58

Looking through his record is and it ain`t fantastic.
He made his name, from what I see from fighting smaller weight fighters, and they gave him hell also.
Sure there is the odd dangerous middle in there, but I do not see him as `Marvellous`.
Fighting smaller fighters, in my eyes does not add prestige; true greats gained their greatness fighting bigger opponents.
I would list many middles since who I would fancy against Marvin, and I would rate him no higher than Carlos Monzon.
If he wanted to prove his prowess he could have fought Spinks who was about the same time, but no he called out welter’s and lightweights.

Convince me…

kentaro · Post by **kentaro** » 26 Jun 2004, 18:06

Yes he was marvellous!!

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 26 Jun 2004, 18:33

But no argument or facts to back it up then ?

The_Power · Post by **The_Power** » 26 Jun 2004, 18:45

Marvin Hagler is without Doubt one of the greatest of all time, if not THE greatest middleweight of all time.

Physically the man was a tank, Impossible to hurt or KO.

He made the 2nd highest amount of unifyed middleweight title defences.

He beat high class ALL TIME GREAT opposition.

Forget this silly little new weight classes, i mean Light middle? what sort of silly division is that, most of this guys where very effective at middleweight as they where in the lower weights.

Hearns, Duran and Mugabi and what should have been the decision against leonard.

The man gave us probably the greatest fight ever seen. Certainly one of the greatest rounds.

Hagler was indeed Marvellous.

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 26 Jun 2004, 18:50

The_Power wrote:Marvin Hagler is without Doubt one of the greatest of all time, if not THE greatest middleweight of all time.

Physically the man was a tank, Impossible to hurt or KO.

He made the 2nd highest amount of unifyed middleweight title defences.

He beat high class ALL TIME GREAT opposition.

Forget this silly little new weight classes, i mean Light middle? what sort of silly division is that, most of this guys where very effective at middleweight as they where in the lower weights.

Hearns, Duran and Mugabi and what should have been the decision against leonard.

The man gave us probably the greatest fight ever seen. Certainly one of the greatest rounds.

Hagler was indeed Marvellous.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 26 Jun 2004, 19:07

But the facts are, he gained the recognition fighting fighters moving up.
Why didn’t he,If he had been so marvellous move up the next division to prove it, instead of expecting fighters to move up to him?
The greatest fight you say is, I am guessing the Hearns fight, it was a close fight up till the end though wasn`t it?
And an old lightweight took him the full distance.
There was never no call to fight Spinks, great middles move up..

The_Power · Post by **The_Power** » 26 Jun 2004, 19:18

tonyevs wrote:But the facts are, he gained the recognition fighting fighters moving up.
Why didn’t he,If he had been so marvellous move up the next division to prove it, instead of expecting fighters to move up to him?

Because of the pathetic fragmentation of weights, it leaves fighters in divisons where they shouldnt be. Hearns, Duran and JM where all good fighters, AT MIDDLE

The greatest fight you say is, I am guessing the Hearns fight, it was a close fight up till the end though wasn`t it?

It was. But who won? Is there any shame in going close with an all time P4P great?

And an old lightweight took him the full distance.

Pathetic arguement. Look at Durans record. Duran was still world class.

There was never no call to fight Spinks, great middles move up..

So according to you, Hagler, Monzon and Hopkins ARENT great middles.

So who is a great middle?

I feel your playing Devils advocate here. I think you believe he was great also.

The_Power · Post by **The_Power** » 26 Jun 2004, 19:22

Just to confirm your logic.

The 3 fighters with the longest and most successful reigns in not just middleweight, but all Boxing history, ARE NOT GREAT MIDDLEWEIGHTS.

I think you have answered you ;'convince me' part in your first post.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 26 Jun 2004, 19:48

Point1
There is no shame in going close to an all-time great..if he’s your own weight.
How long did Hearns last at middle?
Point2
Duran was 29yrs old when he moved to welterweight.
How long did Duran last at middle?
Point3
Hagler, Monzon and Hopkins are/were good middles.
Hagler lost to Leonard….he did lose the fight.
Monzon I have said, I rate higher than Hagler, still no fantastic results on his record, apart from the length of time as champion.
Hopkins has never stepped up also, he follows the Hagler path of beating smaller weight fighters to gain recognition.
Point4
So who was great?
The fighters who moved up..McCallum was a light middle, he moved up, Hagler avoided him and McCallum fought way over his weight to win at light heavy.
Hagler was good, not great.

ThirdPartyView · Post by **ThirdPartyView** » 26 Jun 2004, 20:43

Good to see that trolls are alive and well at Boxrec!

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 27 Jun 2004, 01:55

...if i wanted to teach an example of the meaning "no brainer" this thread would be high on the list of candidates. hagler was a middleweight. he was not a heavy guy who had to sweat to get down to that weight, as did jake lamotta, for example. he was natural middleweight....it was his best fighting weight...it was a good division then and there was no reason to move up. the last time i saw him on tv ....not ages ago...he didn't look a lot of pounds over that even then.

as for his record...he was one of those guys who had to fight his way to get a shot at the title and he beat a lot of good fighters doing that. Too many people are aware only of a champions title reign, and not his fights before he got there. ....and, his championship reign was a very good one. boxrec is right there to click on. look at his record ...his pre-title fights were against better fighters than a lot of champions defend their titles against. he fought a strangely cautious fight against duran and the leonard fight discussions have resulted in better brawls than the fight itself...but his overall career definitely earned him the right to change his legal name to marvelous marvin hagler.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Jun 2004, 11:15

Please tell us who was a great fighter then, in your humble opinion Tony?... 8)

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Jun 2004, 11:17

Or can you only trash legends like Hagler and Monzon because you know nothing about the fighters they fought???.....

8)

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 27 Jun 2004, 13:59

I am not trashing these fighters, the question was, was Marvin Hagler really so marvellous?
Not.. Hagler was shit and fought like a twelve-year-old girl.
I know he was good, no doubt.
But was he really THAT GOOD?
The facts speak for themselves on his record….which I have mentioned.
And a little list, in no particular order, of great fighters in my humble opinion are-

Roberto Duran…..light/welter
Ray Leonard…….welter
Ray Robinson……welter
Roy Jones…………middle/s-middle/l-heavy
Mike McCallum…..light middle/middle

Coincidently didn’t he refuse to fight Herol Graham...so got stripped of the WBA recognition?? Would he have beaten the Bomber? I think not.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 27 Jun 2004, 14:32

phoney tony..thanks for reminding me to click on the "stop reading this thread" option.

..."would he have beaten the bomber?"....!!!!!!!!!

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 27 Jun 2004, 15:07

ouch..trash talk

Richie Aprille rules · Post by **Richie Aprille rules** » 27 Jun 2004, 15:11

tonyevs wrote:I am not trashing these fighters, the question was, was Marvin Hagler really so marvellous?
Not.. Hagler was shit and fought like a twelve-year-old girl.

Coincidently didn’t he refuse to fight Herol Graham...so got stripped of the WBA recognition?? Would he have beaten the Bomber? I think not.

This must be one of the dumbest posts ever written

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 27 Jun 2004, 15:55

[quote="Richie Aprille rules

This must be one of the dumbest post name ever written[/quote]

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Jun 2004, 17:40

tonyevs wrote:I am not trashing these fighters, the question was, was Marvin Hagler really so marvellous?
Not.. Hagler was shit and fought like a twelve-year-old girl.
I know he was good, no doubt.
But was he really THAT GOOD?
The facts speak for themselves on his record….which I have mentioned.
And a little list, in no particular order, of great fighters in my humble opinion are-
Roberto Duran…..light/welter
Ray Leonard…….welter
Ray Robinson……welter
Roy Jones…………middle/s-middle/l-heavy
Mike McCallum…..light middle/middle

Coincidently didn’t he refuse to fight Herol Graham...so got stripped of the WBA recognition?? Would he have beaten the Bomber? I think not.

Your argument holds no water as you do not say who you rank above Hagler and Monzon and simply say silly things like they fought nobodies etc. To suggest that Hagler ducked Herol Graham is just plain silly!.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 27 Jun 2004, 19:05

The point was he got stripped for not fighting Graham, nothing more.
I would rate, on a modern perspective, Toney or Jones Jr. above Marvin Hagler.
Monzon, I have not said anything bad, the subject was Hagler.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Jun 2004, 19:09

tonyevs wrote:The point was he got stripped for not fighting Graham, nothing more.
I would rate, on a modern perspective, Toney or Jones Jr. above Marvin Hagler.
Monzon, I have not said anything bad, the subject was Hagler.

Yeah Jones was real great wasn't he! shame he ducked nearly all the top supermiddles etc and had a penchant for steriod abuse!....other than that the guy was great!!!......

Jukejar · Post by **Jukejar** » 27 Jun 2004, 19:35

First of all, I find it peculiar that so many boxing fans, and boxers, believe that greatness can only be achieved by "moving up." I think this is partially a result of the multi-weight classes where "moving up" might mean gaining only a few pounds, but I find it a limted measure at best. Some fighters naturally add weight as they develop, but others just let it go and campaign at the heavier weight because a) it's easier to let it go and/or b) there's a commercial benefit to fighting at a higher weight class. To criticize Hagler for staying at middleweight--staying disciplined and in championship shape, which for him is 160lbs--is without substance in my view.

And just for the record there are some solid middleweights on Hagler's record, some of whom--when Hagler fought them--would have been too much for the marquee names that appeared on Hagler's record toward when he was past his prime: Ray Seales, Bobby Watts, Willie Monroe, Eugene Hart, Kevin Finnegan, Bennie Brisoe, Mustafa Hamsho, Wilford Scypion, Tony Sibson, and Juan Roldan. And some of the lesser names on his early record are not the typical bowling pins found on the record of so many "greats." Just because a fighter doesn't achieve marquee status doesn't mean he isn't a tough or gifted fighter. Okay, that's my spew on Hagler--a great middleweight and a great champion indeed.

And as for rating Hagler "only" as high as Monzon, well, I have no idea what to make of that thought, but I think both guys would be in most top ten lists for middleweights of any era, and Hagler makes my top three.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 28 Jun 2004, 01:06

...well, as count basie said..."just one more time once..." willie pep, ike williams,joe gans, benny leonard, manuel ortiz,billy conn,kid gavilan and jimmy wilde are just a few who never won a title at more than one weight, therefore they were not great fighters. jimmy bivins, lloyd marshall, charley burley never won any titles at all...therefore they were not great fighters.

henry armstrong won only THREE titles (3/8ths of the existing ones)..unlike ray leonard, for example, who won more titles (i guess i should really call them belts)....therefore he was not a great fighter by today's standards.

most of the above names will be totally unfamiliar to thes tony fellow, but mabe they'll' arouse his curiosity enough to check them out on boxrec.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 28 Jun 2004, 05:21

Marvel-less Marvin Hagler. Yep, crap fighter who beat nobodies

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 28 Jun 2004, 09:51

tonyevs wrote:Looking through his record is and it ain`t fantastic.
He made his name, from what I see from fighting smaller weight fighters, and they gave him hell also.
Sure there is the odd dangerous middle in there, but I do not see him as `Marvellous`.
Fighting smaller fighters, in my eyes does not add prestige; true greats gained their greatness fighting bigger opponents.
I would list many middles since who I would fancy against Marvin, and I would rate him no higher than Carlos Monzon.
If he wanted to prove his prowess he could have fought Spinks who was about the same time, but no he called out welter’s and lightweights.

Convince me…

From your quote it seems that you have to convince us that you belong on this forum.

Why should Hagler 5'9" and 160lbs fight Spinks who was 6'2" and 175?, and who walked around at 190. Its like saying Bernard Hopkins should fight Tarver. It defies logic.

Hagler beat plenty of good middleweights Bennie Briscoe, Antuofermo, Minter, Fully Obel, Sibson, Mugabi (yes Mugabi was a natrual 160lbder)

Hagler is one of the greats for sure.

Was Marvin Hagler really so marvellous?

Was Marvin Hagler really so marvellous?

Re: Was Marvin Hagler really so marvellous?