SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'll give you one thought, at Middleweight, Toney has zero chance against Hagler. None at all.
bollox wrote:Ditto with Hopkins. They were on different levels, those two
Talk about hyperbole. Both Toney and Hopkins had the chin, defense, and boxing skills to be competitive with any middle in history. If Duran could give Hagler fits, then these two most definitely would have. Hagler never walked over a fighter with their skill set.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'll give you one thought, at Middleweight, Toney has zero chance against Hagler. None at all.
bollox wrote:Ditto with Hopkins. They were on different levels, those two
Talk about hyperbole. Both Toney and Hopkins had the chin, defense, and boxing skills to be competitive with any middle in history. If Duran could give Hagler fits, then these two most definitely would have. Hagler never walked over a fighter with their skill set.
Agree Hagler would have issues with Hopkins.
As for Toney, he struggled against fighters who were far below Duran (Johnson, Tiberi).
I had Hagler/Duran 10-4-1 Hagler; didn't think Duran gave him many fits, and that was not a one point fight.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'll give you one thought, at Middleweight, Toney has zero chance against Hagler. None at all.
bollox wrote:Ditto with Hopkins. They were on different levels, those two
Talk about hyperbole. Both Toney and Hopkins had the chin, defense, and boxing skills to be competitive with any middle in history. If Duran could give Hagler fits, then these two most definitely would have. Hagler never walked over a fighter with their skill set.
I don't think he'd stop either but his workrate would be too much for Toney and Hopkins, wide UD over both IMO.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'll give you one thought, at Middleweight, Toney has zero chance against Hagler. None at all.
bollox wrote:Ditto with Hopkins. They were on different levels, those two
Talk about hyperbole. Both Toney and Hopkins had the chin, defense, and boxing skills to be competitive with any middle in history. If Duran could give Hagler fits, then these two most definitely would have. Hagler never walked over a fighter with their skill set.
Agree Hagler would have issues with Hopkins.
As for Toney, he struggled against fighters who were far below Duran (Johnson, Tiberi).
I had Hagler/Duran 10-4-1 Hagler; didn't think Duran gave him many fits, and that was not a one point fight.
I had Duran winning the fight after round 12. Hagler won the last 3 rounds. To me, the great Marvin Hagler is 3rd in the all time middleweight list behind the great Sugar Ray Robinson (2nd) and the great King Carlos (#1 middleweight for me).
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'll give you one thought, at Middleweight, Toney has zero chance against Hagler. None at all.
bollox wrote:Ditto with Hopkins. They were on different levels, those two
Talk about hyperbole. Both Toney and Hopkins had the chin, defense, and boxing skills to be competitive with any middle in history. If Duran could give Hagler fits, then these two most definitely would have. Hagler never walked over a fighter with their skill set.
Duran didn't really give Hagler fits, the decision was closer than the fight. If you want to play that game if Dave Tiberi could dominate Toney, what would hagler do to him? I thought Reggie Johnson beat Toney too. That being said, I don't think the fight would be noncompetitive or James would get stopped, I just can't see him winning.
I wouldn't bet two dollars against Hagler against any great middleweight of all time. He had gears that other fighters simply didn't have. I never saw him hurt or even winded in any of his fights. He likely could have beaten any middle weight of all time including Robinson (heresy), Monzon, Ketchel, Walker
or anyone else. Notice I said "could have".
His only flaw as that he played down his game against lesser and smaller fighters. This he did regularly. If he "went for it" as he did against Hearns and Mintor he would have been the equal against any of the all time greats. I, for one, think he would outwork Monzon, Toney, Jones and Hopkins. The wildcard in this is Roy Jones who is the definition of a "superfreak". Even then I think he would win a fifteen round decision as well. The Roy Jones that fought Toney at 168 was supernatural. I'll leave it up to the reader whether or not he was "jacked up" illegally or not. That cat, that night, at 168 pounds was
something we aren't likely to see ever again.
I wasn't Hagler's biggest fan but he was everything and more that you could ever want in a fighter. His chin was made of steel, his stamina was supreme, and his skills were world class. In closing, I'll say once again, his achilles heel was that he took smaller, lesser fighters for granted and it ultimately cost him against Ray Leonard. Even then the outcome was highly in doubt.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'll give you one thought, at Middleweight, Toney has zero chance against Hagler. None at all.
bollox wrote:Ditto with Hopkins. They were on different levels, those two
Talk about hyperbole. Both Toney and Hopkins had the chin, defense, and boxing skills to be competitive with any middle in history. If Duran could give Hagler fits, then these two most definitely would have. Hagler never walked over a fighter with their skill set.
Duran didn't really give Hagler fits, the decision was closer than the fight. If you want to play that game if Dave Tiberi could dominate Toney, what would hagler do to him? I thought Reggie Johnson beat Toney too. That being said, I don't think the fight would be noncompetitive or James would get stopped, I just can't see him winning.
Hopkins/Hagler is a very close fight.
Mostly agree. Hagler clearly beat Duran. Toney/Tiberi was a disgrace. Thought Toney beat Johnson by a point. Agreed on Hagler/Hopkins.
Hagler’s biggest problem was that he struggled when he had to lead. That’s why he had problems with Duran. Not because he gave him too much respect or because he didn’t bring his A game.
If Duran had been 3 years younger and a natural welter I think it would have been a razor thin decision.
But I do agree that Hagler could have beaten anyone.
Ezzard wrote:Hagler’s biggest problem was that he struggled when he had to lead. That’s why he had problems with Duran. Not because he gave him too much respect or because he didn’t bring his A game.
If Duran had been 3 years younger and a natural welter I think it would have been a razor thin decision.
But I do agree that Hagler could have beaten anyone.
I just have a problem calling a 10-4-1 fight a struggle. That fight was a case of the scorecards obscuring a clear victory.
Hagler has to be the toughest man p4p to get into a boxing ring.
The way how he repelled bombs from the likes of Mugabi & Hearns, bearing in mind that he was slow & probably past his best too, will live long in my memory.
I tend to veer between him & Monzon as the greatest MW ever.
I think I might just edge in favour of Monzon, but I don't say it with absolute certainty.
Ezzard wrote:Hagler’s biggest problem was that he struggled when he had to lead. That’s why he had problems with Duran. Not because he gave him too much respect or because he didn’t bring his A game.
If Duran had been 3 years younger and a natural welter I think it would have been a razor thin decision.
But I do agree that Hagler could have beaten anyone.
I just have a problem calling a 10-4-1 fight a struggle. That fight was a case of the scorecards obscuring a clear victory.
It was a clear win but that doesn’t tell the whole story. He struggled with a lightweight who had seen better days. Duran’s right hand gave him a lump under one eye.
Hagler had to step it up and rely on being the bigger, younger man.
I don’t hold any of this against him…or try to make out he loses to Dick Tiger or Tiger Flowers based on this one night. Just that he struggled when leading. Duran solved the puzzle but didn’t have the physical means to take the win.
After the final bell Duran went straight over to Leonard at ringside and said, “You can beat him”.
Ezzard wrote:Hagler’s biggest problem was that he struggled when he had to lead. That’s why he had problems with Duran. Not because he gave him too much respect or because he didn’t bring his A game.
If Duran had been 3 years younger and a natural welter I think it would have been a razor thin decision.
But I do agree that Hagler could have beaten anyone.
I just have a problem calling a 10-4-1 fight a struggle. That fight was a case of the scorecards obscuring a clear victory.
It was a clear win but that doesn’t tell the whole story. He struggled with a lightweight who had seen better days. Duran’s right hand gave him a lump under one eye.
Hagler had to step it up and rely on being the bigger, younger man.
I don’t hold any of this against him…or try to make out he loses to Dick Tiger or Tiger Flowers based on this one night. Just that he struggled when leading. Duran solved the puzzle but didn’t have the physical means to take the win.
After the final bell Duran went straight over to Leonard at ringside and said, “You can beat him”.
Leonard obviously didn't agree; he didn't fight Hagler for over three years. He determined he could beat Hagler after Mugabi. I don't consider getting a bruise proof of a struggle; I thought Hagler won decisively. Duran was his only title victim who took him the distance, but Hagler controlled the fight. I'm too young to have seen it live, but I never got the sense (knowing the result) that he was in any danger in that fight.
Ezzard wrote:Hagler’s biggest problem was that he struggled when he had to lead. That’s why he had problems with Duran. Not because he gave him too much respect or because he didn’t bring his A game.
If Duran had been 3 years younger and a natural welter I think it would have been a razor thin decision.
But I do agree that Hagler could have beaten anyone.
I just have a problem calling a 10-4-1 fight a struggle. That fight was a case of the scorecards obscuring a clear victory.
It was a clear win but that doesn’t tell the whole story. He struggled with a lightweight who had seen better days. Duran’s right hand gave him a lump under one eye.
Hagler had to step it up and rely on being the bigger, younger man.
I don’t hold any of this against him…or try to make out he loses to Dick Tiger or Tiger Flowers based on this one night. Just that he struggled when leading. Duran solved the puzzle but didn’t have the physical means to take the win.
After the final bell Duran went straight over to Leonard at ringside and said, “You can beat him”.
Duran's right hand may have been the most accurate punch in history. I totally disagree that Marvin struggled to lead, he was equally efficient pressing forward and going backwards. He didn't have a weakness. He definitely gave Duran too much respect imo, it was his first super fight and he was facing a legend. Though I suppose you can hold that against him in mythical fights because his prime was close to over, or already over at that point.
Marvin was always one of my favorite fighters. He was a boxer/puncher with a phenomanal chin. Southpaw,good head movement great motor,he could really do it all. I really enjoyed the earlier days of his career when he went into Philly and regularly took on some of the baddest middleweights around. Briscoe,Hart,Watts,Monroe. Hell Marvin sought out the toughest guys in his quest to be the best. Gotta respect that.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Monzon wouldn't have stopped Duran either.
As much as I like Duran (and highly favor Monzon), I would agree with this. However.....Duran just might take another early day off, because he's going to be beaten in this fight, and beaten badly. It would not be competitive like the Hagler affair.
Expug wrote:Marvin was always one of my favorite fighters. He was a boxer/puncher with a phenomanal chin. Southpaw,good head movement great motor,he could really do it all. I really enjoyed the earlier days of his career when he went into Philly and regularly took on some of the baddest middleweights around. Briscoe,Hart,Watts,Monroe. Hell Marvin sought out the toughest guys in his quest to be the best. Gotta respect that.
Well put. I've thought for a hell of a long time that his Philly opposition was superior to his post title winning fights
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Duran's right hand may have been the most accurate punch in history. I totally disagree that Marvin struggled to lead, he was equally efficient pressing forward and going backwards. He didn't have a weakness. He definitely gave Duran too much respect imo, it was his first super fight and he was facing a legend. Though I suppose you can hold that against him in mythical fights because his prime was close to over, or already over at that point.
I think he was not as efficient when leading. Duran was the first challenger to go the distance because, imo, he was the first to try and counter Hagler. I think it's telling that Hagler also lost to Monroe early on in his career. He also had a very hard time with Finnegan.
Anyone who went to Hagler got mowed down. I don't think there's a guy who could beat him like that at 160. The moment a guy countered Hagler their chances of winning improved.
laying back to counter Hagler does mean you give him chance to set up on the outside and repeatedly hit you with that lazer-like/bionic-right-arm jab. lots of guys underestimated distance where Hagler's jab was concerned.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Duran's right hand may have been the most accurate punch in history. I totally disagree that Marvin struggled to lead, he was equally efficient pressing forward and going backwards. He didn't have a weakness. He definitely gave Duran too much respect imo, it was his first super fight and he was facing a legend. Though I suppose you can hold that against him in mythical fights because his prime was close to over, or already over at that point.
I think he was not as efficient when leading. Duran was the first challenger to go the distance because, imo, he was the first to try and counter Hagler. I think it's telling that Hagler also lost to Monroe early on in his career. He also had a very hard time with Finnegan.
Anyone who went to Hagler got mowed down. I don't think there's a guy who could beat him like that at 160. The moment a guy countered Hagler their chances of winning improved.
Monroe was a good fighter, Marvin made adjustments and stopped him twice with pressure. He was hell on guys in rematches, very underrated thinker in the ring. I've honestly never heard this criticism before. The only fight I saw him uncomfortable coming forward in was against Briscoe, and Bennie was a slab of concrete.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Duran's right hand may have been the most accurate punch in history. I totally disagree that Marvin struggled to lead, he was equally efficient pressing forward and going backwards. He didn't have a weakness. He definitely gave Duran too much respect imo, it was his first super fight and he was facing a legend. Though I suppose you can hold that against him in mythical fights because his prime was close to over, or already over at that point.
I think he was not as efficient when leading. Duran was the first challenger to go the distance because, imo, he was the first to try and counter Hagler. I think it's telling that Hagler also lost to Monroe early on in his career. He also had a very hard time with Finnegan.
Anyone who went to Hagler got mowed down. I don't think there's a guy who could beat him like that at 160. The moment a guy countered Hagler their chances of winning improved.
Monroe was a good fighter, Marvin made adjustments and stopped him twice with pressure. He was hell on guys in rematches, very underrated thinker in the ring. I've honestly never heard this criticism before. The only fight I saw him uncomfortable coming forward in was against Briscoe, and Bennie was a slab of concrete.
If we're going to talk about Monroe I (which I don't believe was filmed--I've never seen it), should we discuss Monzon's three early losses?
