Marvin Hagler vs Herol Graham. 1987 What If?

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 26 Jul 2005, 20:41

Totybear wrote:
Grimm wrote:
You're comparing a fighter who never even held a major title before to a fighter who held the title for 8 years.
Thats right, you clever little sausage you.... which means of course that Charlie Burley couldn't have been any good either!!

Ask the grown ups who Charlie Burley was, you would be surprised.

Charlie Burley was a great fighter who did not hold a world title because of the era he fought in, and though he did not hold a world title he faced great fighters and beat them also.

What great fighter has Herol Graham beat??????????

Exactly.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 26 Jul 2005, 20:46

He's umm... British, and that's all that counts!!

Steve M · Post by **Steve M** » 26 Jul 2005, 20:57

Kalambay's performance in his first fight with Graham is one of the best i've ever seen at 160.He had an answer for everything Graham tried and made a complete monkey of him.The biased commentary was awful and almost had you convinced Graham was competitive.

I don't think Herol had the mentality to succeed against the elite.He was clearly the more talented fighter against the painfully slow McCallum and limitedjackson but didn't have the guile or ringcraft needed to win either.

He was an eighties version of Zab Judah imo.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 26 Jul 2005, 21:04

Grimm wrote: Charlie Burley was a great fighter who did not hold a world title because of the era he fought in

...must have got a new book...

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 26 Jul 2005, 21:12

Tantum wrote:He's umm... British, and that's all that counts!!

Now we're on the same page.

Steve M · Post by **Steve M** » 26 Jul 2005, 21:27

In all fairness, why are you being so hostile?.It's not as if a fight is being proposed between the two men both at their best.That would be stupid as Grham wouldn't have any chance of winning.

This fight would almost certainly have taken place had it not been for Leonard's comeback and Graham was one of the best middleweights around.

Hagler wasn't great anymore in 1987 and this would have been a tough fight for him.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 26 Jul 2005, 21:35

Sweet Scientist wrote:
Grimm wrote: Charlie Burley was a great fighter who did not hold a world title because of the era he fought in
...must have got a new book...

...must have ran out of cacophonous remarks...

Totybear · Post by **Totybear** » 27 Jul 2005, 02:48

Grimm wrote:
Sweet Scientist wrote:
Grimm wrote: Charlie Burley was a great fighter who did not hold a world title because of the era he fought in
...must have got a new book...
...must have ran out of cacophonous remarks...

....must have borrowed McGuigan's thesaurus!

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Jul 2005, 06:41

Grimm wrote:
Sweet Scientist wrote:
Grimm wrote: Charlie Burley was a great fighter who did not hold a world title because of the era he fought in
...must have got a new book...
...must have ran out of cacophonous remarks...

......must be late for his bed and cup of hot milk!...

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 27 Jul 2005, 08:20

I really have to strongly disagree with a lot of you on this one. Herol Graham? Is this a joke? Couldn't last 4 rounds with Julian Jackson. Who did he ever beat? Close losses to Kalambay and McCallum make you think he would beat Hagler? No way.
Hagler was still a great fighter in 1987, he just lost to another all-time great in Sugar Ray Leonard in a great fight. Graham wasn't as good as Leonard in any category.
This may have been the most silly "what if" fantasy fights that I have seen. Hagler wouldn't have had any problem catching the "slippery" Graham. This fight wouldn't have made past 6 rounds.
I really like some of the "what if " fantasy fights, but this one is just silly.

Richie Aprille rules · Post by **Richie Aprille rules** » 27 Jul 2005, 08:47

Ambling Alp wrote:I really have to strongly disagree with a lot of you on this one. Herol Graham? Is this a joke? Couldn't last 4 rounds with Julian Jackson. Who did he ever beat? Close losses to Kalambay and McCallum make you think he would beat Hagler? No way.
Hagler was still a great fighter in 1987, he just lost to another all-time great in Sugar Ray Leonard in a great fight. Graham wasn't as good as Leonard in any category.
This may have been the most silly "what if" fantasy fights that I have seen. Hagler wouldn't have had any problem catching the "slippery" Graham. This fight wouldn't have made past 6 rounds.
I really like some of the "what if " fantasy fights, but this one is just silly.

I strongly disagree with you. I think this is a very intriguing matchup. It would be silly if we talk about prime vs prime, but in 1987 Hagler was clearly slipping, and Graham was a very slick fighter. Hagler is my favourite boxer, but in 1987 he was not a great fighter, nor in 1986 (he was very slow against Mugabi, which was the only reason that made Leonard fight him).

No offense here, friend, just my opinion.

Hagler vs Graham in 87, I lean towards Hagler by a very close if not unfair decision.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 27 Jul 2005, 11:02

Ambling Alp wrote:I really have to strongly disagree with a lot of you on this one. Herol Graham? Is this a joke? Couldn't last 4 rounds with Julian Jackson. Who did he ever beat? Close losses to Kalambay and McCallum make you think he would beat Hagler? No way.
Hagler was still a great fighter in 1987, he just lost to another all-time great in Sugar Ray Leonard in a great fight. Graham wasn't as good as Leonard in any category.
This may have been the most silly "what if" fantasy fights that I have seen. Hagler wouldn't have had any problem catching the "slippery" Graham. This fight wouldn't have made past 6 rounds.
I really like some of the "what if " fantasy fights, but this one is just silly.

Someone give this man a handclap.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 27 Jul 2005, 12:44

Well to start with I thought Hagler beat Leonard, just, I say that only to show the angle I am coming from.

Also I assume that this fight would have taken place in the states which I believe would be a great advantage to Hagler for the following reason. I really can't see American judges being very impressed with Grahams sometimes 'slappy and open handed punches'. They would certainly favoure Haglers more aggressive approach to Boxing.

I have seen many of Grahams fights and have nothing but respect for his skills and ability.

However.......Although Hagler was near shot in 87 he was still an intimidating force and dangerous fighter. I sometimes felt that Graham would 'freeze' a little on the big stage this would do him no favoures even against the faded Champion. The size of the ring would also be a factor a small ring would not suit the slippery Graham.

In Graham favoure aside from his elusive skills was that at times as great a fighter Hagler was from time to time he would get his tactice wrong. If this fight took place over 12 rounds, in a large ring and Hagler tried to out slick the younger Graham in the early rounds (a bit like the SRL fight). I could see this fight going to a very tight points or even contriversial win for Hagler (depending on how the judges liked Grahams style of punching of course).

Over 15 rounds in a small ring with Hagler choosing the right tactict I can see him still loosing the first few rounds and at times made too miss widely but by the midway point his pressure would start to tell and Hagler would take a points win or late TKO. Then be forced to listen to the calls for him to retire.

If I had to pick a winner I go for the fighter with the better track record at world level. Hagler late TKO.

Totybear · Post by **Totybear** » 27 Jul 2005, 15:49

Totybear wrote:
Grimm wrote:
You're comparing a fighter who never even held a major title before to a fighter who held the title for 8 years.
Thats right, you clever little sausage you.... which means of course that Charlie Burley couldn't have been any good either!!

Ask the grown ups who Charlie Burley was, you would be surprised.

damn...thats the last time I make a post after drinking stella!!! sound as petulant as you there grim. Apologies.

The point I was making was that until the Ingle camp split no-one came even close to beating Graham. I know he fought no legends but he did fight some good solid pro's.

He won british titles then european titles at light middle then middle, all in seperate fight and quite often outclassed his opposition. It was welldocumented at the time that none of the top guys wanted Graham and who could blame them, even if they did win he would have made them look terrible.

I still maintain that had he not left the Ingle camp and tried to change his style he would have handled Kalambay.

Steve M · Post by **Steve M** » 27 Jul 2005, 17:06

But he fought the same way as he always did in the Kalambay fight.Watch his fights with Kalule, Mark kaylor, sanderline Williams etc.

The only thing he occasionaly did that i didn't see in the fight with Sumbu was the hands on hips stuff and the showboating that he did against McCallum and Rod Douglas.I think he would have lost even worse had he fought like that though.

kalambay made him lead and picked him off.He had much more success in the second fight with Kalambay because he made the african lead.I thought he won that fight, albeit both men were ancient by then.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 27 Jul 2005, 18:01

Grimm wrote:
Totybear wrote:
Grimm wrote:
You're comparing a fighter who never even held a major title before to a fighter who held the title for 8 years.
Thats right, you clever little sausage you.... which means of course that Charlie Burley couldn't have been any good either!!

Ask the grown ups who Charlie Burley was, you would be surprised.
Charlie Burley was a great fighter who did not hold a world title because of the era he fought in, and though he did not hold a world title he faced great fighters and beat them also.

What great fighter has Herol Graham beat??????????

Exactly.

Good point

But what great `middleweight` did Hagler beat

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 27 Jul 2005, 18:04

Regardless if he started at MW or not, Tommy Hearns would have tore Graham a new one.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 27 Jul 2005, 19:25

Tantum wrote:Regardless if he started at MW or not, Tommy Hearns would have tore Graham a new one.

Is that really the best you can offer in defence

Was Tommy really that great outside of the welterweight division, is this Haglers defining moment at middle that cements his place

I know you know better

Jackson wiped out Graham, McClellan wiped out Jackson, Benn beat McClellan...Benn wanted nothing to do with Graham..ever.

I know it is a bit silly to compare them like this...but who was it that brought up Graham getting blitzed by jackson as some way of proving a point

Burley too was a sort of unattractive type like Graham...does that make him any less a fighter

And the McCallum loss could have been so easilly a win..remember

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 27 Jul 2005, 20:21

All of the arguements for Graham, are based on fights that he lost who cares if he was outboxing Julian Jackson he got KTFO.

And you ask what great middleweight Marvin Hagler beat, like it or not Thomas Hearns was a great middleweight.

Hagler also beat a slew of opponents that were title contenders.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 28 Jul 2005, 05:34

How was Hearns a `great middleweight`

Looking at his record at middle is just baffling

What middleweight fight does he gain `greatness` his blow-out by Hagler

this was one of Haglers quickest defences.

Or a middleweight fight he won

Doug DeWitt

I feel your losing your argument with each post :P
Keep the good work up

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 28 Jul 2005, 05:35

Grimm wrote:All of the arguements for Graham, are based on fights that he lost who cares if he was outboxing Julian Jackson he got KTFO.

And you ask what great middleweight Marvin Hagler beat, like it or not Thomas Hearns was a great middleweight.

Hagler also beat a slew of opponents that were title contenders.

I think its past your bedtime!.....

Totybear · Post by **Totybear** » 28 Jul 2005, 16:53

Grimm wrote:All of the arguements for Graham, are based on fights that he lost who cares if he was outboxing Julian Jackson he got KTFO.

Just for the record Grimm. Could you tell me which middleweight you have seen that would have took that punch and carried on?

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 29 Jul 2005, 00:32

Totybear wrote:
Grimm wrote:All of the arguements for Graham, are based on fights that he lost who cares if he was outboxing Julian Jackson he got KTFO.

Just for the record Grimm. Could you tell me which middleweight you have seen that would have took that punch and carried on?

Hagler?....Maybe Lamotta.

But who cares, that's not the point he shouldn't have got hit by it in the first place, bringing that fight in to the matter of why he would beat Hagler doesn't make any sense because he lost it.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 29 Jul 2005, 05:06

But who brought it up in the first place :P

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 29 Jul 2005, 06:44

The Graham of '85-'87 wouldn't have been hit by that punch... against Jackson Graham was slipping/slowing down and his style had been all messed up by 'kiss of death' Barney Eastwood who had tried to make Graham a more aggressive and come forward fighter....