Fight of the Year 2024

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Hagler v Hearns is an entry level era defining fight for anyone interested in the golden era. Of course there were more exciting fights. Anyone of rocky Kelly's small hall tearups?

But I suspect there's a bit of modern negging of the golden era and it's undeniable legends due to what I can only describe as 'jakepaulian drift'.

Thats it man we are all huge jake paul fans. You nailed it

[margaret thatcher]

Hagler v Hearns is an entry level era defining fight for anyone interested in the golden era. Of course there were more exciting fights. Anyone of rocky Kelly's small hall tearups?

But I suspect there's a bit of modern negging of the golden era and it's undeniable legends due to what I can only describe as 'jakepaulian drift'.

ya, i been following boxing since before jake paul was born, but it's all due to him

[The Docker]

Hagler v Hearns is an entry level era defining fight for anyone interested in the golden era. Of course there were more exciting fights. Anyone of rocky Kelly's small hall tearups?

But I suspect there's a bit of modern negging of the golden era and it's undeniable legends due to what I can only describe as 'jakepaulian drift'.

ya, i been following boxing since before jake paul was born, but it's all due to him

? You missed his most obvious point.

[squiggy]

The "I'm into cooler fights than you're into" -ism is actually kind of cute.

[SportsRatings]

Wow, people are knocking Hearns vs. Hagler but saying Usyk - Fury One was exciting and might be FOTY?

If "4 titles on the line!" is a reason that one is FOTY, then "two legends in an all-out war" is a legit reason to big up Hearns-Hagler.

Sure we can name better fights and even better "first rounds" from fighters no one cares about, but this was Hearns and Hagler.

Maybe in retrospect the fight isn't all that but at the time, in context, it's hard to beat. That's why it's "legendary" because the people who remember how electrifying it was talked about it for years. Bringing it up on YouTube doesn't have the same effect after it's been oversold, and most people don't care who Hearns and Hagler are anymore anyways.

There's a big difference in emotional impact when you're watching a fight live vs. after being told it's a classic—and knowing the outcome. Anyone being told Fury vs. Usyk is a classic is going to be very, very disappointed, and it won't take 40 years for that to happen.

[gilgamesh]

Wow, people are knocking Hearns vs. Hagler but saying Usyk - Fury One was exciting and might be FOTY?

If "4 titles on the line!" is a reason that one is FOTY, then "two legends in an all-out war" is a legit reason to big up Hearns-Hagler.

Sure we can name better fights and even better "first rounds" from fighters no one cares about, but this was Hearns and Hagler.

Maybe in retrospect the fight isn't all that but at the time, in context, it's hard to beat. That's why it's "legendary" because the people who remember how electrifying it was talked about it for years. Bringing it up on YouTube doesn't have the same effect after it's been oversold, and most people don't care who Hearns and Hagler are anymore anyways.

There's a big difference in emotional impact when you're watching a fight live vs. after being told it's a classic—and knowing the outcome. Anyone being told Fury vs. Usyk is a classic is going to be very, very disappointed, and it won't take 40 years for that to happen.

I didn't see many fights in 2024 to be quite honest, but I have a hard time imagining that Usyk vs Fury 1 is as good as it got Action wise in 2024. It may get points for all the prestige associated with the fight, but even so there had to be fights that were far and away better than that one in terms of action.

You're right though that sports definitely have a heavier impact on you emotionally when they're live as opposed to something that happened back before you were born.

That being said, a lot of the fights that I've enjoyed watching more than Hagler vs Hearns. I didn't see them Live as they happened either. Almost any big major happening in Boxing prior to 2001 I've seen after the fact.

[margaret thatcher]

Hagler v Hearns is an entry level era defining fight for anyone interested in the golden era. Of course there were more exciting fights. Anyone of rocky Kelly's small hall tearups?

But I suspect there's a bit of modern negging of the golden era and it's undeniable legends due to what I can only describe as 'jakepaulian drift'.

ya, i been following boxing since before jake paul was born, but it's all due to him

? You missed his most obvious point.

i didnt miss any of his points , and jake paul has nothing to do with why i think hearns-hagler is overrated

i mentioned hagler-hearns here because on the british foty thread someone said it was the best short fight ever, i simply disagree. omg the sacrilege !!!

[margaret thatcher]

Wow, people are knocking Hearns vs. Hagler but saying Usyk - Fury One was exciting and might be FOTY?

If "4 titles on the line!" is a reason that one is FOTY, then "two legends in an all-out war" is a legit reason to big up Hearns-Hagler.

Sure we can name better fights and even better "first rounds" from fighters no one cares about, but this was Hearns and Hagler.

Maybe in retrospect the fight isn't all that but at the time, in context, it's hard to beat. That's why it's "legendary" because the people who remember how electrifying it was talked about it for years. Bringing it up on YouTube doesn't have the same effect after it's been oversold, and most people don't care who Hearns and Hagler are anymore anyways.

There's a big difference in emotional impact when you're watching a fight live vs. after being told it's a classic—and knowing the outcome. Anyone being told Fury vs. Usyk is a classic is going to be very, very disappointed, and it won't take 40 years for that to happen.

its not that big of a deal for me - i simply have seen several fights that are more entertaining than hagler-hearns, so when someone says hagler-hearns is the best short fight ever i disagree. some others feel the same way too apparently and think its become overrated. is that blasphemous or something? still a fun fight for sure, not saying its sh!t or anything

one of the fights i posted as being better is from a decade before hagler - hearns, it's not an 'older boxing was poo' thing

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

I understand that 2 hof rarely go toe to toe. Its a fun fight albeit onesided. Its a good fight

I just didnt understand why that was the standard for greatest short fight. I contend lewis v klitschko was way more exciting and that had 2 hof going toe to toe