Fitz vs Hagler @MW

[Ezzard]

Hardest puncher at MW versus arguably hardest chinned...

I like Hagler because he could adapt his game plan and, to be 100% honest, because I know his style much more than Fitz's. Marvin doesn't have any glaring weakness that Fitz can definitely exploit.

Put Fitz in with any swarmer or man with even an above average chin and Bob wins...

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Going by newspaper accountd and eyewitness reports, and also the little footage we do have, Fitzimmons was not a come forward pressure fighter. He was known for being VERY patient, waiting and feinting for long durations in order to strike in his knockout punch. So that is why I find your Hagler-Briscoe correlation nonsensical.

Could he outjab Fitz? Maybe . . but the certainty with which you stated that left me puzzled. Was he faster? Maybe . . we certaintly can't tell via the hand-cranked footage we have.

Are you claiming Hagler is a harder hitter than Corbett? B/c I think that's a fairly 'out-there' statement. And I think Corbett showed enough in-fighting ability in 60+ rounds vs Jackson. And if you're going to bring up the switch-hitting angle, come on, then Hagler is suddenly more versatile than any other boxer in history.

I know Hagler was past-it and I even had him winning a narrow decision, but if a coming off a 4 year layoff Leonard can dance and flurry to a decision vs Hagler, was is the much larger, much harder punching, very fast and superbly conditioned James Corbett going to do? Run out of the ring when he finds out Hagler can switch stances??

Again, I think a Hagler victory here is a definite possibility, but with Bob Fitzimmons you are talking about one of the lb for lb greatest fighters who ever lived (top 10). I guess you rate Hagler as high . . .I do not.

Because Briscoe & Fitz were different Hagler couldn't fight the same way? You can't get more nonsensical than that. That is so out there it doesn't even merit a reply. Why in the world are you so stuck on that? I was just pointing out a situation where Marvin wasn't moving his opponent and switched gears.

The thread isn't about Hagler/Corbett, or did I miss the change? Corbett would provide a much tougher style for hagler, not to mention he would be bigger than anyone Marvin ever fought. But yes, I would say marvin was a harder hitter than Corbett, absolutely.

I have Hagler in the 20 range p4p and Fitzsimmons at the end of the top 100, maybe as high as 80 or he might not make it at all. So if it wasn't already obvious, we totally disagree.

[dr_devious]

A difficult one to call because these two fighters era's were 90 years apart. Fitz had freakish power and kayoed the top men right up to heavyweight, Hagler's modern technique is superior and is the most durable of the post war middleweights. My guess is that Hagler wins big on points, or by late TKO due to superior speed, footwork and technique.

[dempseyfire]

Going by newspaper accountd and eyewitness reports, and also the little footage we do have, Fitzimmons was not a come forward pressure fighter. He was known for being VERY patient, waiting and feinting for long durations in order to strike in his knockout punch. So that is why I find your Hagler-Briscoe correlation nonsensical.

Could he outjab Fitz? Maybe . . but the certainty with which you stated that left me puzzled. Was he faster? Maybe . . we certaintly can't tell via the hand-cranked footage we have.

Are you claiming Hagler is a harder hitter than Corbett? B/c I think that's a fairly 'out-there' statement. And I think Corbett showed enough in-fighting ability in 60+ rounds vs Jackson. And if you're going to bring up the switch-hitting angle, come on, then Hagler is suddenly more versatile than any other boxer in history.

I know Hagler was past-it and I even had him winning a narrow decision, but if a coming off a 4 year layoff Leonard can dance and flurry to a decision vs Hagler, was is the much larger, much harder punching, very fast and superbly conditioned James Corbett going to do? Run out of the ring when he finds out Hagler can switch stances??

Again, I think a Hagler victory here is a definite possibility, but with Bob Fitzimmons you are talking about one of the lb for lb greatest fighters who ever lived (top 10). I guess you rate Hagler as high . . .I do not.

Because Briscoe & Fitz were different Hagler couldn't fight the same way? You can't get more nonsensical than that. That is so out there it doesn't even merit a reply. Why in the world are you so stuck on that? I was just pointing out a situation where Marvin wasn't moving his opponent and switched gears.

The thread isn't about Hagler/Corbett, or did I miss the change? Corbett would provide a much tougher style for hagler, not to mention he would be bigger than anyone Marvin ever fought. But yes, I would say marvin was a harder hitter than Corbett, absolutely.

I have Hagler in the 20 range p4p and Fitzsimmons at the end of the top 100, maybe as high as 80 or he might not make it at all. So if it wasn't already obvious, we totally disagree.

Hagler fought vs Briscoe with an opponent coming forward . . does that make sense? A gameplan involving lateral movement and counter-punching is made much more effective and easier if your opponent is plodding forward. Sure, Hagler COULD fight in any style he wants, but your stating that he'd fight that way vs Fitz with the same effects he did Briscoe, and Bob being a fighter known for patiently waiting for counter-punching opportunities, is what didn't make sense.


Haha, OK . . .so the only man in history to win the linear middle, light heavyweight, and heavyweight championships "might not make" your top 100 lb for lb list. I'll end this discussion right there. Talk about "out there" . . .

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You never answered how hagler would be forced to come at Fitz either. If Fitz layed back and waited, I think he gets outboxed. But that was also nonsensical in your world. Feel free to disagree, but don't act like you're the only person who ever picked up a book.

Quite fine to end it there by me. I never was looking to engage with someone who finds their opinions the end all when it pertains to boxers we just read about. Nothing is more out there than that.

Edit: I have Hagler/Briscoe. I've said it four times and you refuse to acknowledge the point. I just don't think if I repeat it for the fifth time you will do anything more than ignore it again.

[dempseyfire]

You never answered how hagler would be forced to come at Fitz either. If Fitz layed back and waited, I think he gets outboxed. But that was also nonsensical in your world. Feel free to disagree, but don't act like you're the only person who ever picked up a book.

Quite fine to end it there by me. I never was looking to engage with someone who finds their opinions the end all when it pertains to boxers we just read about. Nothing is more out there than that.

Edit: I have Hagler/Briscoe. I've said it four times and you refuse to acknowledge the point. I just don't think if I repeat it for the fifth time you will do anything more than ignore it again.

You have Hagler/Briscoe? OK . . .so what? What is there to acknowledge?

If you think Hagler outboxes him as Fitz waits for opportunities, that's fine. THAT makes sense. But your saying that Hagler outboxes like he did Briscoe, which REQUIRES a willing dance partner in the form of someone coming forward against you, was what did not.

I think you are usually a quality poster but saying things like Bob Fitzimmons "might not make my top 100 lb for lb" . . I don't know if you are just trying to push buttons by being "against the grain" or what. For any person knowleagable of boxing that is an untenable and frankly stupid comment. I'd like to see your justifications for ranking 30 people ahead of Fitz let alone 80 or 100 . . .

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You never answered how hagler would be forced to come at Fitz either. If Fitz layed back and waited, I think he gets outboxed. But that was also nonsensical in your world. Feel free to disagree, but don't act like you're the only person who ever picked up a book.

Quite fine to end it there by me. I never was looking to engage with someone who finds their opinions the end all when it pertains to boxers we just read about. Nothing is more out there than that.

Edit: I have Hagler/Briscoe. I've said it four times and you refuse to acknowledge the point. I just don't think if I repeat it for the fifth time you will do anything more than ignore it again.

You have Hagler/Briscoe? OK . . .so what? What is there to acknowledge?

If you think Hagler outboxes him as Fitz waits for opportunities, that's fine. THAT makes sense. But your saying that Hagler outboxes like he did Briscoe, which REQUIRES a willing dance partner in the form of someone coming forward against you, was what did not.

I think you are usually a quality poster but saying things like Bob Fitzimmons "might not make my top 100 lb for lb" . . I don't know if you are just trying to push buttons by being "against the grain" or what. For any person knowleagable of boxing that is an untenable and frankly stupid comment. I'd like to see your justifications for ranking 30 people ahead of Fitz let alone 80 or 100 . . .

As I suggested, you're once again completely missing the point I made about Hagler/Briscoe. I'm not sure what is so confusing about it.

Hagler tried to break Bennie in half and he couldn't. Then he switched to Boxing, that was the only reference I made. The rest is in your head. When he switches I think it forces Fitz to come after him, or he will get outboxed. That's it, I never compared Fitzsimmons & Briscoe in anyway. I never even said it would be a mirror image. Just an example of how I think Marvin would fight. If anything, it was giving credit to Fitzsimmons toughness.

No, I'm not pushing buttons at all. Lists are subjective, I don't argue with people that want to rate him high, he routinely gave up a ton of weight which is the definition of P4P. His record is just too thin on names for me. Nobody he ever beat would make my top 200. I'm just not as much about the 3 divisions as I am the names that got you there. Corbett, Gardiner & dempsey were all good fighters. But nothing to generate a top 10 or 20 for me.

The last list I did he wasn't on it. But he was in the group of 20 or 30 that was right there with the last group.