BoxRec

mugabi wrote: well argued but back when mugabi was coming up, he beat a string of highly rated middleweights...he was practically cleaning out the top ten...and he had taken some hellacious shots and not even blinked.... before he foughthagler mugabi was even being spoken of as top 10 pound 4 pound....he was right up there as high as 5...I have the old magazines and have seen the videos.

I dont think Froch as a comfortable 168 pounder is much bigger than minter and sibson ...those guys boiled themselves to make 160 in ways that would be outlawed today...and they fought without real recovery....as back than either u were amiddle weight and aswallowed it.....or u became a l blown up unatural light heavyweight...and as we saw much later in his career sibson ws no light heavyweight.......no the 8lb difference is nowehere near the factor peole are making out....the whole reason the delayed weigh ins were bought in was so guys would have time to get back up to their natural weight....sadly over time some guys are using that to abuse the system.....froch isnt one of them he makes 168 easily.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

mugabi wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Mugabi quite simply is your run-of-the-mill BoxRec expert, never actually watching guys, just reading their records.

Anyone who believes Hagler goes in some 10-12 lbs smaller against guys like Froch and Calzaghe and stops both in a handful of rounds has never seen these guys box. Its THAT simple.

Well id rather be a run of the mill expert rather than the crocodile dundee of boxrec....so adept at catching crocs but unable to use a american shitter properly! lol! ( i always thought the sequel was the best).

Hagler was one of the strongest 160 pounders ever.Only his discipline and hunger allowed him to stay at 160 in those days....he would have relished a 168 era where the best middles were at 168 rather than 160 like in the 1980's.
So your so idiotic that u think as an englishman i havent seen calzaghe or froch box? ive watched almost all of frochs fights including his amateur world championships fights...and ditto i watched calzaghe in the flesh in the amateurs in dingy halls. Im one of Froch and Calzaghes biggest fans but they never came close to meeting a Marvin Hagler in their careers. Neither of them would make it to round 15 . Many a tough man was broken by Hagler.

My mistake. You have watched them --- you just have the analytical ability of a goldfish.

& learn the distinction between, 'your,' &, 'you're,' my obnoxious, Oxford-educated numpty.

Controversial wrote:

mugabi wrote: well argued but back when mugabi was coming up, he beat a string of highly rated middleweights...he was practically cleaning out the top ten...and he had taken some hellacious shots and not even blinked.... before he foughthagler mugabi was even being spoken of as top 10 pound 4 pound....he was right up there as high as 5...I have the old magazines and have seen the videos.

I dont think Froch as a comfortable 168 pounder is much bigger than minter and sibson ...those guys boiled themselves to make 160 in ways that would be outlawed today...and they fought without real recovery....as back than either u were amiddle weight and aswallowed it.....or u became a l blown up unatural light heavyweight...and as we saw much later in his career sibson ws no light heavyweight.......no the 8lb difference is nowehere near the factor peole are making out....the whole reason the delayed weigh ins were bought in was so guys would have time to get back up to their natural weight....sadly over time some guys are using that to abuse the system.....froch isnt one of them he makes 168 easily.

Yes but Hagler wasn't a big middleweight, 5ft9 and normally around 158-159lbs compared to Froch at 6ft1 and 168lbs, normally over the 170lbs earlier in his career. I agree Hagler would outbox him but I can't see how he would stop him in 4 rounds, especially when no-one has ever done that to Froch and Hagler didn't stop loads of fighters in the first 4 rounds. I'm no Froch fan but he has a great chin and can't see the naturally smaller Hagler doing that to him.

mugabi wrote: Hearns was 6ft 2 and a half and no one had stopped him in 3. Mugabi was a beast with rock like firsts and rock in his chin...Hagler ruined him....Roldan was supposed to be a piece of rock as well, but Hagler chipped away....I just think Frochs style with the hands down and unneccesary machismo, not to mention the slow starts make him easy prey for Hagler, who was better than Ward with his sharp counters and had far more power....Hagler had a knack for doing what others had not done before.Of course we will never know but its my hunch Hagler stops him early......those who dont agree can argue their reasons, but getting hysterical, and saying "it would never happen" is pretty disingenious, as none of us "Know " what would happen.

Controversial wrote:The lightest weight Froch ever fought was 166.5 and the heaviest was 172.25

mugabi wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

mugabi wrote: Well id rather be a run of the mill expert rather than the crocodile dundee of boxrec....so adept at catching crocs but unable to use a american shitter properly! lol! ( i always thought the sequel was the best).

Hagler was one of the strongest 160 pounders ever.Only his discipline and hunger allowed him to stay at 160 in those days....he would have relished a 168 era where the best middles were at 168 rather than 160 like in the 1980's.
So your so idiotic that u think as an englishman i havent seen calzaghe or froch box? ive watched almost all of frochs fights including his amateur world championships fights...and ditto i watched calzaghe in the flesh in the amateurs in dingy halls. Im one of Froch and Calzaghes biggest fans but they never came close to meeting a Marvin Hagler in their careers. Neither of them would make it to round 15 . Many a tough man was broken by Hagler.

My mistake. You have watched them --- you just have the analytical ability of a goldfish.

& learn the distinction between, 'your,' &, 'you're,' my obnoxious, Oxford-educated numpty.

Many a Oxford educated person was a little slack with spelling at times and even the most educated persons have one or two words they spell wrong when in a hurry.Even you have made many a spelling mistake Urineie .If we all got stuck at first base like you neurotic about spelling. all of us would be sitting on boxing forums bitter and looking for ways to feel less insecure about our education at billibong creek comprehensive rather than achieveing in the real world, and yes that last spelling mistake was to spite you!

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

mugabi wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: My mistake. You have watched them --- you just have the analytical ability of a goldfish.

& learn the distinction between, 'your,' &, 'you're,' my obnoxious, Oxford-educated numpty.

Many a Oxford educated person was a little slack with spelling at times and even the most educated persons have one or two words they spell wrong when in a hurry.Even you have made many a spelling mistake Urineie .If we all got stuck at first base like you neurotic about spelling. all of us would be sitting on boxing forums bitter and looking for ways to feel less insecure about our education at billibong creek comprehensive rather than achieveing in the real world, and yes that last spelling mistake was to spite you!

Nice try, bud, but you're not making mistakes --- you literally cannot compose a sentence which doesn't look like a 10-year-old slapped it together, because your understanding of spelling, grammar & diction are at a third-grade level.

mugabi wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

mugabi wrote: Many a Oxford educated person was a little slack with spelling at times and even the most educated persons have one or two words they spell wrong when in a hurry.Even you have made many a spelling mistake Urineie .If we all got stuck at first base like you neurotic about spelling. all of us would be sitting on boxing forums bitter and looking for ways to feel less insecure about our education at billibong creek comprehensive rather than achieveing in the real world, and yes that last spelling mistake was to spite you!

Nice try, bud, but you're not making mistakes --- you literally cannot compose a sentence which doesn't look like a 10-year-old slapped it together, because your understanding of spelling, grammar & diction are at a third-grade level.

Get over your bitterness and jealousy urineiee. I really pity you , you seem to sincerely be mad with delusions that your crocodile dundee English is better than mind. Let me remind you, I am English, you are a thieving Aussie with no education! Get over it bruce and stop being such a moaning lyig sheila! hahaha D

walshb wrote:Name wise Hagler is so superior, but isn't a fight on stardom. Hagler was an average sized middle. Froch is a big SMW, weighing 170+ on fight night and probably 3-4 inches taller than Hagler. Froch is strong as fcuk, with an excellent chin and more than enough wallop to get Hagler's respect. There's a reason Hagler never moved up to LHW. He gets murdered. Not saying Froch is as good as say a Spinks or Qawi, but he's as big and strong as them. Hagler could well win on points, but he'll be made work real hard for the win. He doesn't just turn up and beat on Froch all night and expect nothing in return from the clearly bigger man. Any poster here saying Hagler turns up and easily wins hasn't a fcuking clue about the sport. Hagler was not some marvel. He was predictable and had slow feet. He isn't RJJ or James Toney.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Hagler wins easily.

What is Froch going to do? Outbox him? That's obviously not going to happen. Froch isn't going to stay on the back foot either. So he'll come marauding forward trying to club Hagler in his caveman style, land nothing square and be obliged to eat a steady flow of heavy counters. After 6 or so rounds, when he's dizzy enough, Hagler will mount the pressure & make moves to finish him. I can't fathom why anyone would think Froch could endure 15 rounds of return fire from Marvin Hagler. Because he's big? That's not a sound argument. If he was big but with totally different attributes that would be different, but Carl Froch being what he is? Bad match up.

Tuan_Jim wrote:But the first three fellows were squashed. Duran troubled Hagler with his boxing genius, but Froch doesn't possess such a big bag of tricks.

I'm not disparaging Froch at all, but he really has no defence at all & would be unmissable with his rigid standup approach.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Froch is good enough to win titles when they are fragmented, he has proven that. But how many titles does he win if all the belts are entwined, as they were in the 80s? The best man in the division is Andre Ward, and Froch lost every round against him - while being shown up as technically incompetent.

And without the glamour attached to Froch's 'world' title belts, what is he? Another strong challenger fans probably wouldn't discuss much, like Tony Sibson or Mustafa Hamsho.

I don't think his titles or the men he won them from amount to much, if the discussion is how he fares against Marvin Hagler. Hagler was so complete in every way that a bit of extra bulk is going to be useless against him. Particularly when the brain conducting that bulk has been jumbled about by four or five rounds of measured, precision counters.

BoxBuzz wrote:This just makes me smile. I think it's about the only way that one would ever see Hagler and Froch's name in the same thread.