Marvin Hagler KO3 Roy Jones

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 02 Mar 2007, 15:34

Can you name one person of note who shares your views about Hagler ?

Yes I can....Me.

And me being me, I am the only one who counts when it comes to my opinion.

Face it your hero wasn't all he was cracked up to be.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 02 Mar 2007, 15:51

I agree with Ringsider on point- the other top middleweights (Minter,Anterfermo,Sibson, Hamsho)weren't that good when Hagler was champion.
However, just what did Jones prove at middleweight? He had trouble against a Bernard Hopkins who wasn't as good of a fighter as he would later become. Tate was ok, but nothing special. Otherwise there really no one decent at all.

While middleweight wasn't the best weight class for Duran,Hearns, and Mugabi, they would certainly better than Jones' competition.

Jones had some of Leonard's athletic skills, but he never proved he had Leonard's heart or chin. Hagler wasn't as fast as these guys but he certainly wasn't slow. Jones isn't going to go the whole fight against without getting hit cleanly. There is a very good chance that Hagler would get to Jones and put him away.

This is all assuming that Jones would have actually taken this fight if he and Hagler would have been the top 2 middleweights at the same time. That is very doubtful.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 02 Mar 2007, 17:04

I agree that most of Hagler's career defining defences were against fighters moving out of the lower weights, and the other genuine 160 lbers in the 80s werent great. But Hagler had a very tough route to the top in the mid-late 70s, beating some very notable middleweights such as Briscoe, Hart, Seales, Finnegan etc.

el tigre del sur · Post by **el tigre del sur** » 02 Mar 2007, 17:11

dr_devious wrote:Have you ever seen any of Hagler's fights ringlicker?

Too funny

The main criticsm ringlicker (to borrow a phrase) seems to have is that Hagler was a plodder. Have a look at his fights against Hart, Briscoe, Minter, Obelmejias, Hamsho to name a few - he's constantly pressing forward offering good head movement and forcing the fight. The man is perpetual motion.

Sorry I just don't get the "plodding" argument.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 02 Mar 2007, 22:16

Moving your head and moving your feet aren't the same thing. Hagler plodded when he moved foreward or any direction for the most part. A guy can move his head all he wants, it does not detract from his plodding feet.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 02 Mar 2007, 22:41

Hagler moved very well on his feet in the 1st bout with Hamsho and against Tony Sibson.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 03 Mar 2007, 12:13

I think with ringsider his main issue when it comes to Hagler is his style. You seem to lean more tawoards the flashier type of fighter which that in itself their is nothing wrong with. But now if you say a guy isn't any good just because he fights with a style that you find to be not to your liking then I think you have to reassess and look at it from the viewpoint that what makes boxing interesting is it's diversity and the different tools and aproaches fighters use, and how a fighter can be effective inspite of not being flashy. It shouldn't make that much difference how a guy looks in the ring as long as he is knocking people out. Lots of fighters have used an unothadox style with great effect. Use another sport just as an example. Magic Johnson used to shoot the ball with one hand. Now that goes against everything that is fundelmentally sound, yet he is one of the top five all time great basketball players.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 05 Mar 2007, 14:55

Terence wrote:I heard a rumour that this was a different Roy Jones. Not the father of the Roy we know. Any truth in that?

I was just re-watching some video of the Seoul 1988 olympic boxing coverage over the weekend, and the NBC announcers mention on numerous occasions that RJJ's dad was a pro and fought Hagler.

It would be nice if BocRecords allowed for links between boxers who are related, like IMDB.com has for movie folks.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 19 Mar 2007, 22:37

In the real world Hagler struggled with fat, overweight, bloated, over the hill lightweight Roberto Duran.

But in the fairy tale world he can beat lightheavyweights.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 19 Mar 2007, 22:41

kick asner wrote:I think with ringsider his main issue when it comes to Hagler is his style. You seem to lean more tawoards the flashier type of fighter which that in itself their is nothing wrong with. But now if you say a guy isn't any good just because he fights with a style that you find to be not to your liking then I think you have to reassess and look at it from the viewpoint that what makes boxing interesting is it's diversity and the different tools and aproaches fighters use, and how a fighter can be effective inspite of not being flashy. It shouldn't make that much difference how a guy looks in the ring as long as he is knocking people out. Lots of fighters have used an unothadox style with great effect. Use another sport just as an example. Magic Johnson used to shoot the ball with one hand. Now that goes against everything that is fundelmentally sound, yet he is one of the top five all time great basketball players.

Good grief, asner.

All the great jump shot shooters shot with one hand.

Jerry West would be interested in your comment.

So would Dr. J.

I'm sure you know as much about boxing as you do about basketball.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 19 Mar 2007, 22:43

dr_devious wrote:I agree that most of Hagler's career defining defences were against fighters moving out of the lower weights, and the other genuine 160 lbers in the 80s werent great. But Hagler had a very tough route to the top in the mid-late 70s, beating some very notable middleweights such as Briscoe, Hart, Seales, Finnegan etc.

Briscoe was completely washed up when he fought Hagler.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 20 Mar 2007, 10:25

Briscoe wasnt at his peak but he wasnt shot either - he gave Hagler a good fight

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 20 Mar 2007, 12:14

dr_devious wrote:Briscoe wasnt at his peak but he wasnt shot either - he gave Hagler a good fight

Horsesh*t.

Briscoe was losing to nobodies by that time.

Hagler fought only at safe long range in that fight, where the slowed down Briscoe could be outpointed at that late stage of his career.

At one point Hagler moved in close to see what he could inside with the old Briscoe. Briscoe immediately threw some of his body punches, which were heavy enough to knock down the side of a house.

Hagler got the hell out of there, and spent the rest of the fight pecking away at long range.

He would never have been able to stay in there with Briscoe in his prime.

Hagler stood toe to toe with fat, old LIGHTWEIGHT Roberto Duran and had to work hard to win a decision against his opponent, who fought for 12 years at 135 pounds.

In that fight Hagler disgraced the long history of the 160 division.

Fat old Duran would have been blasted out of there in short order by Stanley Ketchel, Billy Papke, Mickey Walker, Harry Greb, Tony Zale, Gene Fullmer, etc etc etc.

Hagler spent his career struggling with fighters smaller than he was in his most important fights.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 20 Mar 2007, 14:16

granberry wrote:
kick asner wrote:I think with ringsider his main issue when it comes to Hagler is his style. You seem to lean more tawoards the flashier type of fighter which that in itself their is nothing wrong with. But now if you say a guy isn't any good just because he fights with a style that you find to be not to your liking then I think you have to reassess and look at it from the viewpoint that what makes boxing interesting is it's diversity and the different tools and aproaches fighters use, and how a fighter can be effective inspite of not being flashy. It shouldn't make that much difference how a guy looks in the ring as long as he is knocking people out. Lots of fighters have used an unothadox style with great effect. Use another sport just as an example. Magic Johnson used to shoot the ball with one hand. Now that goes against everything that is fundelmentally sound, yet he is one of the top five all time great basketball players.

Good grief, asner.

All the great jump shot shooters shot with one hand.

Jerry West would be interested in your comment.

So would Dr. J.

I'm sure you know as much about boxing as you do about basketball.

Not where the other hand is not even touching the ball as the way Magic shot the ball. But that was just an example. The main point was athletes use a variety of techniques to acheive an outcome. Lee travino didn't have the perfect golf swing, but it won him tournaments. Babe Ruth had a unique batting style and swing but he hit home runs with it. Juan Maricial had an unorthadox pitching motion but he is in the hall of fame.

Maybe you saw something with Haglers technique you think was flawed but he got results with it.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 20 Mar 2007, 14:26

kick asner wrote: Babe Ruth had a unique batting style and swing but he hit home runs with it. .

Good grief asner.

Babe Ruth said he saw Shoeless Joe Jackson hit and adopted Jackson's batting style. "That was good enough for me," Ruth said.

Ruth drew back his back hip and turned his entire bone structure and spine back, so that he could come forward the opposite way with full force.

Exactly the way Dempsey punched.

You think there is something odd about Babe Ruth and Shoeless Joe Jackson's batting stance?

You picked a loser there.

I suppose you are going to tell me Dr. J always shot the ball with two hands.

He often shot it with a flick of the fingers of one hand.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 20 Mar 2007, 14:31

granberry wrote:
dr_devious wrote:Briscoe wasnt at his peak but he wasnt shot either - he gave Hagler a good fight
Horsesh*t.

Briscoe was losing to nobodies by that time.

My memory was a little fuzzy on Briscoe’s career in the late 70’s so I checked and discovered that after losing to Vinales in April ’72 Briscoe lost to Monzon, Griffith, Valdez and Antuofermo in the 6+ years before Hagler beat him in ’78.

If you consider those guys “nobodies”, who do you consider quality opposition?

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 20 Mar 2007, 15:38

granberry wrote:
kick asner wrote: Babe Ruth had a unique batting style and swing but he hit home runs with it. .
Good grief asner.

Babe Ruth said he saw Shoeless Joe Jackson hit and adopted Jackson's batting style. "That was good enough for me," Ruth said.

Ruth drew back his back hip and turned his entire bone structure and spine back, so that he could come forward the opposite way with full force.

Exactly the way Dempsey punched.

You think there is something odd about Babe Ruth and Shoeless Joe Jackson's batting stance?

You picked a loser there.

I suppose you are going to tell me Dr. J always shot the ball with two hands.

He often shot it with a flick of the fingers of one hand.

Your arguing for the sake of it here. We can debate different styles of athletes all day long but I only intended them as examples to demonstrate that some styles seem unorthadox but yet are effective.

Babe Ruth used to stand back in the box and walk foreward when he swung. You just don't see that type of style. If you have seen film of him you would know that. Also if you watch any baseball you would know that hitters don't swing like that. You don't like that example fine, then take Ty Cobb he used to spread his hands apart on the bat. Now you really don't see that.

But that is not the argument here, that was just an example. You could look at Ty Cobb and say he couldn't be any good because of his hitting style the same way you look at Hagler and say their is something wrong with his boxing style. But the point is it worked for them.

Say for the sake of discussion evreything you say is true and Hagler is just some slow, plodding, akward fighter bumbling around the ring as you seem to think. Then what does any of that matter when you look at the way he dominated his division?

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 20 Mar 2007, 15:47

The Great John L wrote:
granberry wrote:
dr_devious wrote:Briscoe wasnt at his peak but he wasnt shot either - he gave Hagler a good fight
Horsesh*t.

Briscoe was losing to nobodies by that time.
My memory was a little fuzzy on Briscoe’s career in the late 70’s so I checked and discovered that after losing to Vinales in April ’72 Briscoe lost to Monzon, Griffith, Valdez and Antuofermo in the 6+ years before Hagler beat him in ’78.

If you consider those guys “nobodies”, who do you consider quality opposition?

I will help your fuzzy memory.

Briscoe at his best fought Monzon in 1972.

It was 1978 when old Briscoe, who had been fighting since 1962, fought Hagler.

In his very next fight after Hagler, Briscoe lost to worldbeater David Love.

In his next fight, which I saw, Briscoe was very old and tired as he fought inexperienced Nick Ortiz at the DC Arena.

Hagler fought a washed up, old Briscoe.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 20 Mar 2007, 16:21

granberry wrote:I will help your fuzzy memory.

Briscoe at his best fought Monzon in 1972.

It was 1978 when old Briscoe, who had been fighting since 1962, fought Hagler.

In his very next fight after Hagler, Briscoe lost to worldbeater David Love.

In his next fight, which I saw, Briscoe was very old and tired as he fought inexperienced Nick Ortiz at the DC Arena.

Hagler fought a washed up, old Briscoe.

Sorry, but those fights were after the Hagler fight. I agree that Briscoe was well past it, but your original statement was horses**t. Briscoe was not "losing to nobodies by that time". He may have been heading down into the abyss, but he wasn't quite at that point yet. Certainly not the same fighter that fought Monzon, but he had something left.

And Love may not have had a great record, but he was actually a pretty good fighter. You're being too simplistic by simply looking at his record.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 20 Mar 2007, 16:32

Yeah, Briscoe had lost to those "nobodies" Rodrigo Valdez and Vito Antuofermo before he fought Hagler.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 20 Mar 2007, 16:41

dr_devious wrote:Yeah, Briscoe had lost to those "nobodies" Rodrigo Valdez and Vito Antuofermo before he fought Hagler.

Two fights prior to Hagler, Briscoe had beaten fringe contender Tony Chiaverini and it had only been about 10 months since he lost a title fight to Valdev. While the Valdez fight wasn't particularly close, Valdez wasn't able to blow Briscoe out either. And I recall that Chiaverini was actually a pretty good fighter. Not a HOF fighter, but a solid journeyman/fringe contender.

I don't think anyone was trying to claim that the Briscoe that Hagler fought was nearly as good as the one Monzon beat, but he certainly wasn't completely shot. And he certainly hadn't been losing to nobodies prior to Hagler beating him.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 20 Mar 2007, 23:47

At the time Briscoe fought Hagler, he could no longer fight effectively at long range, only in close.

The good Briscoe would never have lost to David Love.

As I already said, when Briscoe fought his next fight after Love in the Washington DC Armory he could not do ANYTHING at long range. He didn't have it any more.

Chiaveroni was a second rater who was stopped by Wilfred Benitez, a welterweight who was never a big puncher.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 21 Mar 2007, 01:10

granberry good points! Give it to them!

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 21 Mar 2007, 08:04

granberry wrote:At the time Briscoe fought Hagler, he could no longer fight effectively at long range, only in close.

Yes I think we all agree that Briscoe wasn’t as good as he was 5 years earlier. However, he was still dangerous, as I think one of your earlier posts mentioned.

granberry wrote:The good Briscoe would never have lost to David Love.

Yes, a peak Briscoe would have stopped Love. What I was objecting to was your rather simplistic discounting of Love because he had 12 loses. This sounds like an argument that a young inexperienced boxing fan would use, not someone who knows the sport well. Love was a pretty good fighter, and as I recall he beat some other pretty good fighters and flirted with a top 15 ranking a few times during his career. No world beater, but certainly he was also not a “nobody”.

granberry wrote:Chiaveroni was a second rater who was stopped by Wilfred Benitez, a welterweight who was never a big puncher.

It’s a little easy to pick one fight from someone’s career in order to disparage them. This is a pretty disappointing argument from someone who seems to have good boxing knowledge. Chiavirini beat some good fighters during his career and was a world ranked contender for a while when that actually meant something. Losing to Benitez is certainly nothing to be ashamed of, and does little to detract from a pretty good ring career.

Care to insult some other fighters from the past? In fact, Briscoe lost to club fighter Vinales just 2 fights prior to his fight with Monzon. Does that mean he was a second rater also?

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 21 Mar 2007, 13:14

The Great John L wrote:
granberry wrote:At the time Briscoe fought Hagler, he could no longer fight effectively at long range, only in close.
Yes I think we all agree that Briscoe wasn’t as good as he was 5 years earlier. However, he was still dangerous, as I think one of your earlier posts mentioned.

granberry wrote:The good Briscoe would never have lost to David Love.
Yes, a peak Briscoe would have stopped Love. What I was objecting to was your rather simplistic discounting of Love because he had 12 loses. This sounds like an argument that a young inexperienced boxing fan would use, not someone who knows the sport well. Love was a pretty good fighter, and as I recall he beat some other pretty good fighters and flirted with a top 15 ranking a few times during his career. No world beater, but certainly he was also not a “nobody”.

granberry wrote:Chiaveroni was a second rater who was stopped by Wilfred Benitez, a welterweight who was never a big puncher.
It’s a little easy to pick one fight from someone’s career in order to disparage them. This is a pretty disappointing argument from someone who seems to have good boxing knowledge. Chiavirini beat some good fighters during his career and was a world ranked contender for a while when that actually meant something. Losing to Benitez is certainly nothing to be ashamed of, and does little to detract from a pretty good ring career.

Care to insult some other fighters from the past? In fact, Briscoe lost to club fighter Vinales just 2 fights prior to his fight with Monzon. Does that mean he was a second rater also?

Neither Chiavrini nor Love was a championship fighter, which Briscoe was for over a decade. Love, of course added up to more than Chiavrini.

Chiavirini showed he was not a top level fighter when he was stopped by non puncher Benitez.

Angelo Dundee was in his corner and instead of doing anything to help his fighter he sneered and cursed at Chiavirini between rounds as he was losing.
It was a disgusting performance by a so called cornerman. (They showed the between rounds on TV after some rounds),

Later Chiavirini was KO'ed by Odell Leonard.

The reason I posted on this thread is because a REAL fighter, Benny Briscoe, was falsely described in earlier posts.

I probably saw Briscoe work out and spar close to fifty times.
He specialized in sending young kids stupid enough to spar with him to the hospital with bleeding kidneys from his body shots.

Briscoe liked to walk up to you and slide his fingers up under your rib cage on your right side and touch something in there that was never meant to be touched.

He tried that with me and I somehow kept a straight face and said, "Hi Bennie, what's going on around here today?"

His eyes lit up and he smiled at my non-reaction, and he never tried that with me again.

He was a terror to trainers and others at Frazier's gym with his liver touch.

Briscoe was a great body puncher and during his prime years any middleweight who ever lived would have found him a rough customer.

Monzon used his best right hand as often as a fighter would usually use a jab just to keep Briscoe off of him.

Monzon said after fighting Briscoe, "It was like fighting a Sherman tank."

The Briscoe who fought Hagler was way downhill from the real Briscoe of earlier years.

There is no way Hagler could have stayed in there with the real Briscoe.

Hagler was not a physically strong 160 pounder--as compared with the top level 160 pound champions (Ketchel, Mickey Walker, Greb, Zale, etc )

In his first fight against Antofermo, Hagler showed he was an inferior physical specimen, running out of gas and getting driven all over the ring without fighting back for the last five rounds.

When Hagler got cut badly late in the fight by Antofermo and didn't fight back but just continued to allow Vito to drive him around the ring, the fighters I was watching the fight with sneered with contempt at Hagler.

Hagler showed in that fight he was a not a physical specimen on a 160 pound championship level. He was fighting a guy who couldn't fight a lick, he landed every punch he could hope to land earlier in the fight, and then was embarrased and beaten thoroughly for the last five rounds because he didn't have big leaque strength and stamiina, which Vito did.

Roldan was too strong for Hagler, so Hagler thumbed him.

In the second fight with Antofermo Hagler wanted no part of what happened in their first fight, so he butted Antofermo as soon as the fight started, effectively ending the fight. The cut was HIGH on Vito's forehead, where a punch cannot cause a cut.

Hagler never fought a light heavyweight (or heavyweight) as Ketchel, Walker, Greb, Zale etc did.

But Hagler spent his career struggling with fighters smaller than he was in his most important fights.

He would have no chance against the real Briscoe.

I sat with several fighters at the Philly Spectrum fight with Briscoe and Hagler (whose first name Marvin was a cause of great amusment among the Philly fighters).

Hagler stayed at long range and pecked away, which was the way to handle the aging Briscoe.

After about five rounds of outpointing Briscoe, Hagler decided to see what he could do in close, which was almost a fatal mistake.

With Hagler right in front of him, Bennie threw some of his body shots, and Hagler immediately got the hell out of there and stayed at long range for the rest of the fight.

Everyone around me saw that, and laughed and laughed at Hagler.

It was obvious Hagler couldn't have stayed in there with the real, younger Briscoe.