bobbyd wrote:Elton John wrote:Booby-Dee knows nothing about boxing period, let alone anything on Hagler. Probably just caught some big name bouts on youtube.
Don't mean to brag but I had him in my hip pocket once he went into his illustration on Dempsey "fighters don't lose their punch" and "Dempsey once knocked out a man when he was 70".
The guy's a troll and needs a girlfriend.
Go to Myspace.com/Bobbyd70
I think that you will all agree that i do not very much AT ALL look like a
Troll.And if you's read any of my Blog's,you's will see that i'm miles above a Troll's intellect.
George Foreman came back at 38 after a 10 year layoff.I'm well aware of this,plus the fact that he was 2 months shy of 46 when he ko'd moorer.
Let me just put it this way.I guess we're even.Hagler didnt want to lose face by fighting a few more years.4 more years would've been ideal cause then he'd get to face a young Jones jr,and an upcoming Hopkins.
Hagler was going on 33 when he fought Leonard.Monzon was 35 when he fought his last fight in 1977.Apparently,his management talked him into retiring and also talked him out of coming back in 1980.I still have the magazine somewhere where they talked about him wanting to come back in 1980 at 38,apparently to take on hagler,which was,fortunate for him that they(his management)talked him out of it,as he was definately at least a couple years past it by then.
It's too bad that Monzon lived so hard though(boozing and smoking cigarrettes).Also,too bad about his problems with woman throughout his life.Kinda reminds me of myself on that one. :(
But anyway.Yeah.Monzon/hagler in 77 or 78 would've been a pick em by then,but in 75 or 76,i say,clearly Monzon would've outclassed em and outworked em.Too much of a TOTAL package,that Monzon was.Hagler just reminds me of a mdwt southpaw version of Sonny Liston.Someone who was a brute and a bully but could be outworked and thrown off his gameplan if fought correctly.
i just think it's quite lame that hagler didnt stick around at least for another couple of years.Then,you would'nt be hearing hagler critics like myself so much.Oh.And another thing.Monzon was 89-3-9+1 no decision in his carear.That's 102 fights right there folks!Hagler was 62-3-2.That's 67 fights folks.I really would give more leniancy towards Monzon's slightly earlyish departure/retirement(due to legitimate circumstances) than Hagler's 3-4 years too early departure/retirement.Which just simply DID NOT have any legitimately considerable just cause behind it.It just had fear of losing face and greed written all over it.
You forgot to leave your signature (signed confused) and you're still a troll.
Bobby, how come you don't make any sense? You think Dempsey should have continue his ring career at age 70 because he knocked out a guy on the street? If not then why should Hagler continue his career?
4 more years and Marvin would have run into Jones jr. If only he knew who Roy was at the time except he retired before Roy lost at the 88 olympics. Hagler's supposed to know Roy is future champ at 160, 168, 175 and should hang around another 5 years?
Look at what you're saying. You're all over the place complaining Hagler retired too soon. Then you in reponse to my question only wind up confusing yourself saying it's a good thing Monzon didn't return to the ring to face Hagler, (who would have rippped him apart anyways) because in your own words was "definitely a couple of years past it by then".
Don't you see how you're contradicting yourself?
Okay, so Monzon is 89-3-9 but against who? He racked up most of those wins in South America. Julio Cesar Chavez was great too when he fought inside Mexico but put him in with Pernell or Oscar and he gets embarrassed while falling apart.
You get the picture.
Monzon's got maybe 20 wins outside it. So who was his top opposition? Emile Griffith in 73, Rodrigo Valdez, Napoles, and Bennie Briscoe. Fair opposition but to put things in proper perspective, Vito Antuofuermo in only his second years as pro also defeats Emile the following year.
Briscoe has lost to almost every top contender you can point to including Griffith, Antuofuermo, Valdez. And that was during his good years.
Valdez lost to Corro. Not once but twice. In fact, he never could handle a good boxer. Napoles lost his own title the following year in what some as an upset to an average fighter. The truth is, Jose had been fading for at least the past two years.
Somehow those wins don't seem so impressive now.
Then you practically admitted to me that Monzon could only whip a novice Hagler. That's not saying so much.
And I wouldn't complain about Hagler's record being that it was somewhat lengthier than his contemporaries throughout the same decade.
In fact, hagler had more quality wins because more of them came within the States. he also beat the best Argentina and Columbia had to offer. The best England had to offer including Finnegan (twice), Minter, Sibson, Mugabi. That's three of Mickey Duff's best fights getting stopped by the same man.
Add to that he destroyed the greatest fighter ever to to come out of the kronk gym at his absolute peak while Hagler was on the downslide.
So not only that but were younger, but more athletic, hungrier, faster, more powerful, harder hitting, and with more all around talent. In my mind, Hagler best win was the first Hamsho fight.
You can't beat such a wide variety of class opposition consistently if all you have is a set of sturdy whiskers and a punch. That's coming across as too simple minded for a supposedly knowledgable boxing fan.
that would explain our friend's rant. Bowel problems are responsible for many a temper tantrum.
