BoxRec

Deserter wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:De la Hoya beating Hagler is among the all-time worst posts written on this forum.

An instant lobotomy should be performed, it's the only solution.

Deserter wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:De la Hoya beating Hagler is among the all-time worst posts written on this forum.

An instant lobotomy should be performed, it's the only solution.

Deserter wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:De la Hoya beating Hagler is among the all-time worst posts written on this forum.

An instant lobotomy should be performed, it's the only solution.

Deserter wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:De la Hoya beating Hagler is among the all-time worst posts written on this forum.

An instant lobotomy should be performed, it's the only solution.

Lenny wrote:Blah blah blah, even if evolution has gone into warp speed over the last 30 years, tell us how De La Hoya beats Hagler? What are the performances that lead you to believe this, the Vargas fight???

Or maybe write a few more paragraphs on golf and snooker.

jessi wrote:

Lenny wrote:Blah blah blah, even if evolution has gone into warp speed over the last 30 years, tell us how De La Hoya beats Hagler? What are the performances that lead you to believe this, the Vargas fight???

Or maybe write a few more paragraphs on golf and snooker.

Did haggler lose twice in 1976 ? I never knew that, the first guy was 4lbs lighter, hhmmm

Lenny wrote:

jessi wrote:

Lenny wrote:Blah blah blah, even if evolution has gone into warp speed over the last 30 years, tell us how De La Hoya beats Hagler? What are the performances that lead you to believe this, the Vargas fight???

Or maybe write a few more paragraphs on golf and snooker.

Did haggler lose twice in 1976 ? I never knew that, the first guy was 4lbs lighter, hhmmm

Well done, you can use boxrec. Now tell us what situations in those disputed decisions would De La Hoya have been able to capitalise on?

Are you implying DLH was physically stronger than Hagler due to modern training techniques?

jessi wrote:I noticed, deserter, loaded gloves, and Lenny didn't write on the "I told you so topic" ! I bet you all really wanted canelo to whip floyds arse didn't you ?

jessi wrote:I noticed, deserter, loaded gloves, and Lenny didn't write on the "I told you so topic" ! I bet you all really wanted canelo to whip floyds arse didn't you ?

stujones wrote:

Chris W 1982 wrote:

orbtastic wrote:I think McCallum would have beaten Floyd, but I also think against the "fabulous four" he'd have got at least one win.

Not so sure he'd have made 152 though. He was a big old lump for a light middle.

I don't. If you took them all at the their prime then I think Floyd would do well to hear the final bell against any of them.

Leonard would have dazzled him

He was made for Hearns

Hagler far too big

Duran the night he beat Leonard was arguably the greatest man to ever step foot in the ring

A prime Floyd would certainly have beaten versions of the fab 4 but each at their best would have got the win.

I disagree that Duran the night he beat Leonard was the greatest man to step foot in the ring. He was better as a lightweight period than at Welter.

and for me that performance by Leonard that night, although an honourable defeat in a great fight, leaves me questioning the one poster who commented on this thread that Leonard was a more complete fighter than Floyd.

Could Leonard deal with the rough, brawling, mauling type of opponent as well as Floyd. I am NOT comparing Duran to Hatton, but Floyd beat Ricky at his own game. Of all the styles that Floyd has faced not one fighter has truly shown the blueprint of how to beat him.

Its actually some of the performances that have been labelled as "weaknesses" for Floyd that for me show how good a fighter he is. How he dealt with Mosley after being hurt was remarkable... you cannot even afford to hurt Floyd! Every fighter that you think has the style to beat Floyd he proves you wrong with interest.

A crying shame he is not an era that is jammed backed with talent. Shame he even missed out on a Trinidad or a beyond question prime DLH... shame he hasn't (yet) fought Manny.

Deserter wrote:

jessi wrote:I noticed, deserter, loaded gloves, and Lenny didn't write on the "I told you so topic" ! I bet you all really wanted canelo to whip floyds arse didn't you ?

You're merely succeeding in making yourself look extremely foolish. Look anywhere on the forum regarding that fight and I said it would be a walk in the park for Money.
Your attempt to also portray it as some sort of ageist argument is also just embarrassing. I love the era of Benn, Eubank and Collins, but Ward will almost certainly go on to be the best super-middleweight ever and could have beaten all of them. I'm also probably in the minority in believing the Klits would have been competitive in any era.
As others have already pointed out on here, you need to educate yourself and then come back to the forum, as your rationale for De La Hoya being able to take out Hagler is up there with some of the best fairy tales I've ever read.

jessi wrote:

Deserter wrote:

jessi wrote:I noticed, deserter, loaded gloves, and Lenny didn't write on the "I told you so topic" ! I bet you all really wanted canelo to whip floyds arse didn't you ?

You're merely succeeding in making yourself look extremely foolish. Look anywhere on the forum regarding that fight and I said it would be a walk in the park for Money.
Your attempt to also portray it as some sort of ageist argument is also just embarrassing. I love the era of Benn, Eubank and Collins, but Ward will almost certainly go on to be the best super-middleweight ever and could have beaten all of them. I'm also probably in the minority in believing the Klits would have been competitive in any era.
As others have already pointed out on here, you need to educate yourself and then come back to the forum, as your rationale for De La Hoya being able to take out Hagler is up there with some of the best fairy tales I've ever read.

So we agree on the klits, kind of agree on ward ( although it's still rjj IMO at present ) and disagree on Floyd and Oscar ! So what, judge Floyd when he retires.

stujones wrote:I think both sides of the arguments can be made.... resume wise, rivallary wise yes I don't think Floyd is in the greatest era - BUT, do I think we need to look at the performance levels also.

Would Canelo been able to beat Duran, Hagler, Leonard etc? Nope.... would Leonard, Duran and Hagler been able to shut out (practically) in the same manner Floyd did.... No way.

Lets not forget a "prime(ish)" Duran lost to Laing, Leonard had a tough fight against Kalule and Hagler didn't exactly have it all his own way Mugabi.... Now I would certainly say Alvarez is on the level of these three fighters.

Hagler's dominant Middleweight era wasn't exactly a whose who of boxing in the 12 or so defences.

Infact there is no comparison in the resume of Floyd and Hagler. Hagler smashed everybody but Hearns aside, who did he beat who was top draw and in their prime? Roldan, Mugabi? Rose tinted glasses.

Tom Ford wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:

hurlock wrote:Best defensive fighter ever.

Who else is there pep, Benitez,Whittaker I'd say floyds the best

Pep. Bennie Leonard , Pernell Whittaker. I'd say those 3 off the top of my head were better defensively

As good as they were, they all were beaten and Floyd has not been in over 17 years.

stevieb_8006 wrote:Floyd is great, but damages his legacy with his negotiating everything in his favour. Making hatton go up, Canelo go down etc. plus he's fought a lot of good fighters only when they've been found out.

But obv. He's class, a true great. Thing is, as good as he is, he bores me to tears, particularly out the ring with his tired, dated 'bling' act.

I'd like to see fighters talk more smack to him, show him less respect. They all admit to not liking him, but never run their mouths. I honestly believe that he's so attention seeking and needy that he'd be ripe for a bit of mind manipulation.

I know it sounds childish but it really wouldn't surprise me if he was a closet gay, him and 50 cent. I watched that all access show where he was basically paying attractive women to be seen with him in public, what does that tell u?

Side note: I wish people wouldn't be so damn aggressive when replying to posts they disagree with on here, there's no need for it, it's only a forum.

jessi wrote:Absolute nonsense as there are a multitude of variables at play that affect this such as participation levels and TV interest. Name me anyone who thinks the current heavyweight scene and standard is the best it's ever been, for example?
If you want an example outside of boxing, tell me why no British middle distance runners can come close to the times set by the likes of Coe and Cram 30 years ago?
The idea that De La Hoya could have beaten Hagler still leaves me chuckling and if you can find one other person to support this hypothesis I salute you.

Chris W 1982 wrote:
Cheers for the educated response Stu. Makes a change on this forum

Think you might have gotten a little lost on my point regarding Duran mate. Although his lightweight achievements pretty much outweigh anything he done at higher weights, I think his performance in the first SRL fight was the greatest display by any boxer ever and that he was quite simply unbeatable that night.

I'd bet my mortgage on that version of Duran beating any fighter mate.

arlovski wrote:

stujones wrote:I think both sides of the arguments can be made.... resume wise, rivallary wise yes I don't think Floyd is in the greatest era - BUT, do I think we need to look at the performance levels also.

Would Canelo been able to beat Duran, Hagler, Leonard etc? Nope.... would Leonard, Duran and Hagler been able to shut out (practically) in the same manner Floyd did.... No way.

Lets not forget a "prime(ish)" Duran lost to Laing, Leonard had a tough fight against Kalule and Hagler didn't exactly have it all his own way Mugabi.... Now I would certainly say Alvarez is on the level of these three fighters.

Hagler's dominant Middleweight era wasn't exactly a whose who of boxing in the 12 or so defences.

Infact there is no comparison in the resume of Floyd and Hagler. Hagler smashed everybody but Hearns aside, who did he beat who was top draw and in their prime? Roldan, Mugabi? Rose tinted glasses.

Here is the key difference for me, a bewildered and outclassed Canelo would not have seen the final bell against Leonard, Duran or Hagler, yes they may have taken a few more shots than Floyd in the process, but they were FIGHTERS, and willing to flirt with danger and self destruction in pursuit of a dominant victory, the same can never be said of Mayweather...