Page 2 of 2

Posted: 28 Jun 2004, 13:18
by dan1030
Not to beat a dead horse (where the hell did that saying come from, anyway?) but what's with this fixation so many people have with moving up in weight? Isn't there something to say in favor of a guy who trains so hard, and stays in sunch good shape, that he can comfortably fight at the same weight at 35 that he could at 25? Am I really supposed to look down on a guy like Bernard Hopkins because he's pushing 40 and still makes 160 with apparent ease?--I'm in my late 30s myself, and only wish I was in anywhere near the shape of my mid-20s.
Not that I don't have tremendous respect for many of the multi-class champs, but it just seems to me there's more than one route to greatness: you can keep chasing bigger and bigger guys (who aren't necessarily bigger challenges that guys your own size), or you can just camp-out at a single weight, dominate it, and take on all comers for years on end--both are impressive accomplishments.

Oh, and yes, Hagler is one of the greats--that's a no-brainer.

Posted: 28 Jun 2004, 13:22
by dan1030
P.S. I rememberfrom an aticle from the time Hagler changed his name, that the main reason he was doing it was so he could insist that "Marvelous" be included on marquees and other promotional displays. Nobody was leaving the "Sugar" off of Ray Leonard, and even longer nicknames like "The Hitman," so why shouldn't his full handle be used too?

Posted: 28 Jun 2004, 14:13
by TheRiverCityHippy
hagler is a true great but i must admit the point tony made about herol graham made me think.
hagler didnt fight graham and took the leonard fight instead. but at that time i think the bomber was probably the most elusive fighter in the world and maybe he would have done a similar job to leonard.
dont forget around that time graham lost a desputed sd to a prime mcallum. the bomber was no bum and hagler was age`n.
i`d still lean towards hagler but it`s no forgone conclusion imo.

Posted: 28 Jun 2004, 17:23
by bollox
Can see the Graham point. Although Herol would have done his usual trick and been intimidated by someone like Marvin in the opposite corner. No way he would or could have beaten Hagler for this reason alone IMO

Posted: 28 Jun 2004, 18:23
by Jukejar
Not to disparage Herol Graham, but I'm certain that Hagler fought Leonard instead of Graham purely for economic reasons and at that stage in his career would have had very little reason to even consider a match with Graham. Just a few weeks after Leonard-Hagler, Graham lost to Kalambay (in England, no less), which doesn't speak well of his chances against even an aging Hagler. Losing to McCallum a couple of years later is no shame, but again doesn't suggest that Graham would have been able to do much with Hagler. This is no slam on Graham--Kalambay was an excellent fighter and McCallum was great--but given his record against upper-echelon opponents, it is difficult for me to imagine a match with Hagler as being anything but an easy victory for Marvin. But maybe there are finer points about Graham's ability that I have overlooked that would suggest otherwise.

Posted: 28 Jun 2004, 18:49
by Steve M
Hagler was the man.

The kalambay/Graham fight in London is one of the best middleweight fights i've seen from the 80's/early 90's group of fighters.

It's a pity it doesn't get mentioned more.

Posted: 28 Jun 2004, 21:13
by Eric the Viking
Too bad Hagler retired after Leonard wouldn't rematch him - we might've gotten to see Hagler/McCallum. *THAT* would've been a fight. McCallum was avoided by many of the top middleweights, and robbed in at last one of his 2 middleweight bouts vs. a prime James Toney, possibly in both - and McCallum was 35 when he and Toney first faced off.

Nice description of the first 2 McCallum/Toney fights by Doghouseboxing's Matt Sanderson - probably a bit pro-McCallum-biased, but it's nice that the Body Snatcher is getting his due after all these years:
Following his reign [at jr. middleweight] as the most avoided champion on the planet, McCallum entered the middleweight division looking for fresh challenges. He would go on to handle the best 160-pound fighters of his generation, only to be cheated by politics and incompetent judging with sickening regularity. But McCallum knew that he was the master between the ropes, and consistently produced some of the finest pure boxing of the 1990's.

After moving up to middleweight, McCallum secured a fight with WBA champion Sumbu Kalambay. McCallum had never seen the skilled Italian from Uganda fight before, and wasn't quite ready for him tactically. In his only legitimate loss for the next seven years, McCallum dropped a close decision. Without a title it was more difficult to secure a big fight, and he had to wait a year for his next meaningful contest.

Politics - which would eventually hurt McCallum's career - were in fact responsible for his next opportunity. Kalambay decided to unify with the IBF champion Michael Nunn, but was stripped of his title for failing to meet his mandatory. McCallum travelled to England and fought Herol Graham for the vacant WBA belt. Graham was even trickier than Kalambay, but McCallum adapted well to the tricky southpaw, winning a close decision.

McCallum defended his title three times on the road in 1990. He outclassed the rugged Irishman Steve Collins in Boston; and then travelled to London to stop the Englishman Michael Watson in one of the finest performances by a foreign fighter on British soil. Defence number three came against nemesis Sumbu Kalambay in Monte Carlo and McCallum boxed beautifully to erase his only defeat.

In 1991 McCallum secured a unification match with IBF champion James Toney. Toney was the hottest thing in boxing at the time, having stopped unbeaten IBF champion Michael Nunn in a thrilling contest. He was a superb craftsman even then, an expert counter puncher with two-fisted power. 'Lights Out' had defended his title twice, and was considered one of the three best fighters, pound-for-pound, in the world.

It was a fiercely contested battle. The 35-year-old McCallum used his superior footwork to stay out of trouble and keep Toney out of range. He kept busy all night with his thudding left jab, outworking the younger man throughout. McCallum dictated the pace, built a big lead, and took away Toney's danger punch - the left hook - by slamming sharp right hooks into his left side.

Toney had his best success when he fired stinging rights over McCallum's jab. But he could only do this when McCallum left his punches out too long. Mike's defence was so tight and his punching so precise that Toney could only capitalise occasionally.

Although Toney rattled McCallum in the fourth, sixth and eighth rounds, Mike would simply resume control with the jab and box calmly on the move. It was a commanding performance, and from the seventh through the ninth he went back to 'Body Snatcher' mode, hurting his man on the ropes and grinding him down to the midsection.

By the twelfth round both men were exhausted. McCallum seemed to be comfortably ahead. Sensing that he needed a knockout to win, Toney went hell for leather, throwing astonishing salvos and hurting McCallum in the first minute. Toney was totally punched out, however, and Mike went back to the body. In the final ten seconds, Toney launched another hurtful assault, but McCallum's chin - seemingly made from iron - held up. By the final bell few could dispute who had won.

It was a great fight and McCallum had produced one of his best ever performances. When the decision was announced, however, he was in for a shock. The bout was declared a draw, and McCallum - who should have been the partially unified champion - was left without a title. It has often been referred to as a "dodgy decision", and Mike was back in the wilderness.

McCallum waited eight months for a rematch, and implemented a foolproof strategy. Toney's success in the first fight depended on timing his right over McCallum's incessant jab. So McCallum cancelled him out. He threw enough thudding jabs to keep Toney at bay, but not enough for Toney to counter. When Toney did throw the right, McCallum would intercept it with short left hooks that put his man out of range, before landing sharp counters of his own.

It was a spare, cagey performance, a masterpiece of economy. McCallum made every punch and every move count. Toney appeared bewildered by these tactics, and was outworked by the older man. In a battle between tacticians, McCallum was superior. At this stage in his career Mike preferred to be called 'The Professor,' and he earned the nickname with this marvellous thinking man's approach.

It was Hall of Fame material, but the judges didn't see it that way. One judge scored it a draw, which was bad enough, but the other two cards of 117-110 in favour of Toney was a disgrace. "That was a shocker," one commentator remarked, and the decision was met angrily by the crowd. McCallum was peerless between the ropes, but had been robbed for the second time.

"He's the best I've ever fought," admitted Toney, now a three weight champion and leading heavyweight contender. "He made you do things you didn't want to do."

Posted: 28 Jun 2004, 21:51
by Jukejar
Great stuff on McCallum. His starching of Donald Curry was classic; he would have been a great match for Leonard or Hagler in '87. I'm sure Hagler wouldn't have backed off from the fight, but a smart manager would steer clear of a fighter like McCallum (and most did). Since he fought until the late '90s it's easy to forget that age-wise he was a contemporary of those guys. I remember that he went through a succession of management situations in the '80s that hurt his ability to get the more important fights. He should have fought Hearns, Duran, Hagler, and Leonard, but didn't fight any of them. Any of the above (except maybe Duran) makes for an interesting fantasy fight. If Hagler had fought "The Body Snatcher" in '88 or '89, we might have seen Marvin's only convincing loss . . . emphasis on might.

Posted: 29 Jun 2004, 12:02
by Eric the Viking
bollocks wrote:Excellent fighter, McCallum. And you're right about the constant changing of management. He was called 'head-case' for good reason
Yes, the writer of the piece doesn't seem to have considered the possibility that all the management changes may have had as much to do with McCallum's getting "avoided" as the obvious fact that he was a very dangerous fight for anyone. Nice description of the fight action, though.

Seeing what happened to Kalambay in his fight with Nunn, I can't help but wonder whether he still occasionally finds himself muttering, "I shoulda just faced my WBA mandatory, but noooooooooooooooo..." ;)

Posted: 29 Jun 2004, 14:25
by tonyevs
Answer to Silkov,
I am just stating a fact that the WBA withdrew their recognition from Hagler for not fighting Graham. How long did it take to arrange the Hagler v Leonard fight? And how long was Graham the mandatory before they stripped Hagler? Or is that being plain silly, stating facts that you cannot give a conceivable excuse for?? :-?
Do you have a short memory, or is it you just don’t know your boxers? Ask someone to help you read Jones’s fight record and explain to you who the names on there are. :oops:


Answer to Jukejar,
Greatness is not achieved just by only moving up, it is achieved by beating other very good fighters, and the step up by the past greats was to show even when the odds were stacked against them, they were great enough to still win. Who gets the most credit if and when they fight, Oscar if he wins or Bernard? :roll:
Ray Robinson gets credit for running Joey Maxim close, what credit does Maxim receive for making Sugar Ray quit?
I do not criticise Hagler for staying at middle, only like other fighters before and after him, when they want to cement their place in history, they take on bigger challenges to earn it, and to me a bigger challenge if you have beaten all the top fighters your own weight, is fight the ones above you. Jones could make light heavy but went to heavy.
And yes Hagler would be in my top ten middleweights, though not as highly as you put him.

Answer to Jaclem,
Click on the “stop reading this thread” you have nothing intelligent to add.
But let me educate you, the fighters you listed had been known t give weight and fought out of their division regularly, perhaps you need to do a little more reading, and not just the easy things like fight records and Harry Potter. :wink:

Answer to Knockout artist,
What has height got to do with it, how tall was Dwight Muhammad Qawi? And how tall was Leon Spinks? Has no other fighter stepped up from middle(160lb) to light heavy(174lb).
Bernard Hopkins did talk of fighting Tarver, before he secured the Oscar fight, doesn’t that defy logic!! Or yours anyway.
I think that should convince you I belong on this forum, now convince me you belong on here also. :o

Answer to Dan1030,
Read all the above again, only this time don’t copy off others. That’s a no-brainer thing to do. Also ask a grown up to help you next time with the spelling. :oops:

End note,

I hope you have all enjoyed this post, I know I have. 8) :lol:
Feel free to write what you like in reply..amuse me.(but keep it original)
:TU:

Posted: 29 Jun 2004, 14:43
by crooked nose
You've got some personal beef with Hagler so you take it out on his rep. Pure nonsense. Hagler didn't fight soft touches. He went to Philly and took on the best. He had nearly fifty bouts before a title shot, then got stiffed by cockeyed judges. Finally got the belt (on the road again) by removing the face from the front of Minter's head in just under nine minutes. His reward was to be pelted with jugs of ale. He defended ably for years and deserves to be considered among the best. Anyone who argues otherwise can't be taken seriously.

Posted: 30 Jun 2004, 01:40
by Jaclem
damn....i keep forgetting to click on the "stop reading" selection.

I have a strong aversion to someone refering to himself in the third person... but I can't help it here:

Open your window and listen and all that chuckling from several directions and many miles is by regular readers here who think you would have anything near the qualifications to "educate" JACLEM!!! :lol:

Posted: 02 Jul 2004, 15:40
by Richie Aprille rules
Jaclem wrote:damn....i keep forgetting to click on the "stop reading" selection.

I have a strong aversion to someone refering to himself in the third person... but I can't help it here:

Open your window and listen and all that chuckling from several directions and many miles is by regular readers here who think you would have anything near the qualifications to "educate" JACLEM!!! :lol:
Frankly, Jaclem, I don't know if you know about boxing or not (i'm not a regular in this forum), but i'm totally sure you don't need to be educated by a guy who says that Hagler wasn't great because he didn't move up.

This thread is a blasphemy. I beg the moderators to close it.

Posted: 02 Jul 2004, 19:09
by tonyevs
Perfect example of a `Sheep`
nothing original to add.
nothing intelligent to add.

Posted: 03 Jul 2004, 02:02
by Jaclem
... a thread should be closed if it's raging with racism or outrageously offensive in other areas...not just because we disagree with it. i've already said i find this conclusion stupid... but dumb comments have a place here too..if only to stir things up. i may have even made a few myself, though that seems as unlikely as finding life on saturn...

Posted: 03 Jul 2004, 06:01
by bollox
Jaclem wrote:... a thread should be closed if it's raging with racism or outrageously offensive in other areas...not just because we disagree with it. i've already said i find this conclusion stupid... but dumb comments have a place here too..if only to stir things up. i may have even made a few myself, though that seems as unlikely as finding life on saturn...
Has their ever been life in Uranus?

Posted: 03 Jul 2004, 07:49
by Richie Aprille rules
As much as I like McCallum (he was a very good boxer, top-2 in my opinion at 154), to rate him above Hagler in a "greats list" may be original, but definitively it's not intelligent.

Posted: 03 Jul 2004, 12:02
by tonyevs
Mike McCallum, now there is a fighter there can never be an argument about his greatness.
Definitely deserves to be ahead of Hagler in a list of boxing greats.

Posted: 03 Jul 2004, 16:03
by dan1030
tonyevs wrote:Perfect example of a `Sheep`
nothing original to add.
nothing intelligent to add.
Hmmm...so, people who don't agree with you are unintelligent, unoriginal, sheep? That must be a conveniently reassuring little world you live in. :D

Posted: 06 Jul 2004, 13:16
by Eric the Viking
bollox wrote:
Jaclem wrote:... a thread should be closed if it's raging with racism or outrageously offensive in other areas...not just because we disagree with it. i've already said i find this conclusion stupid... but dumb comments have a place here too..if only to stir things up. i may have even made a few myself, though that seems as unlikely as finding life on saturn...
Has their ever been life in Uranus?
As the saying goes, "if you find rings around Uranus ... try wiping next time! Bwahahahaha..."

Seriously, I think our friend Jaclem has some, um, "personal beef" with Uranus...

Posted: 06 Jul 2004, 16:34
by The Keed
Eric the Viking wrote:Too bad Hagler retired after Leonard wouldn't rematch him - we might've gotten to see Hagler/McCallum. *THAT* would've been a fight. McCallum was avoided by many of the top middleweights, and robbed in at last one of his 2 middleweight bouts vs. a prime James Toney, possibly in both - and McCallum was 35 when he and Toney first faced off.

Nice description of the first 2 McCallum/Toney fights by Doghouseboxing's Matt Sanderson - probably a bit pro-McCallum-biased, but it's nice that the Body Snatcher is getting his due after all these years:
Following his reign [at jr. middleweight] as the most avoided champion on the planet, McCallum entered the middleweight division looking for fresh challenges. He would go on to handle the best 160-pound fighters of his generation, only to be cheated by politics and incompetent judging with sickening regularity. But McCallum knew that he was the master between the ropes, and consistently produced some of the finest pure boxing of the 1990's.

After moving up to middleweight, McCallum secured a fight with WBA champion Sumbu Kalambay. McCallum had never seen the skilled Italian from Uganda fight before, and wasn't quite ready for him tactically. In his only legitimate loss for the next seven years, McCallum dropped a close decision. Without a title it was more difficult to secure a big fight, and he had to wait a year for his next meaningful contest.

Politics - which would eventually hurt McCallum's career - were in fact responsible for his next opportunity. Kalambay decided to unify with the IBF champion Michael Nunn, but was stripped of his title for failing to meet his mandatory. McCallum travelled to England and fought Herol Graham for the vacant WBA belt. Graham was even trickier than Kalambay, but McCallum adapted well to the tricky southpaw, winning a close decision.

McCallum defended his title three times on the road in 1990. He outclassed the rugged Irishman Steve Collins in Boston; and then travelled to London to stop the Englishman Michael Watson in one of the finest performances by a foreign fighter on British soil. Defence number three came against nemesis Sumbu Kalambay in Monte Carlo and McCallum boxed beautifully to erase his only defeat.

In 1991 McCallum secured a unification match with IBF champion James Toney. Toney was the hottest thing in boxing at the time, having stopped unbeaten IBF champion Michael Nunn in a thrilling contest. He was a superb craftsman even then, an expert counter puncher with two-fisted power. 'Lights Out' had defended his title twice, and was considered one of the three best fighters, pound-for-pound, in the world.

It was a fiercely contested battle. The 35-year-old McCallum used his superior footwork to stay out of trouble and keep Toney out of range. He kept busy all night with his thudding left jab, outworking the younger man throughout. McCallum dictated the pace, built a big lead, and took away Toney's danger punch - the left hook - by slamming sharp right hooks into his left side.

Toney had his best success when he fired stinging rights over McCallum's jab. But he could only do this when McCallum left his punches out too long. Mike's defence was so tight and his punching so precise that Toney could only capitalise occasionally.

Although Toney rattled McCallum in the fourth, sixth and eighth rounds, Mike would simply resume control with the jab and box calmly on the move. It was a commanding performance, and from the seventh through the ninth he went back to 'Body Snatcher' mode, hurting his man on the ropes and grinding him down to the midsection.

By the twelfth round both men were exhausted. McCallum seemed to be comfortably ahead. Sensing that he needed a knockout to win, Toney went hell for leather, throwing astonishing salvos and hurting McCallum in the first minute. Toney was totally punched out, however, and Mike went back to the body. In the final ten seconds, Toney launched another hurtful assault, but McCallum's chin - seemingly made from iron - held up. By the final bell few could dispute who had won.

It was a great fight and McCallum had produced one of his best ever performances. When the decision was announced, however, he was in for a shock. The bout was declared a draw, and McCallum - who should have been the partially unified champion - was left without a title. It has often been referred to as a "dodgy decision", and Mike was back in the wilderness.

McCallum waited eight months for a rematch, and implemented a foolproof strategy. Toney's success in the first fight depended on timing his right over McCallum's incessant jab. So McCallum cancelled him out. He threw enough thudding jabs to keep Toney at bay, but not enough for Toney to counter. When Toney did throw the right, McCallum would intercept it with short left hooks that put his man out of range, before landing sharp counters of his own.

It was a spare, cagey performance, a masterpiece of economy. McCallum made every punch and every move count. Toney appeared bewildered by these tactics, and was outworked by the older man. In a battle between tacticians, McCallum was superior. At this stage in his career Mike preferred to be called 'The Professor,' and he earned the nickname with this marvellous thinking man's approach.

It was Hall of Fame material, but the judges didn't see it that way. One judge scored it a draw, which was bad enough, but the other two cards of 117-110 in favour of Toney was a disgrace. "That was a shocker," one commentator remarked, and the decision was met angrily by the crowd. McCallum was peerless between the ropes, but had been robbed for the second time.

"He's the best I've ever fought," admitted Toney, now a three weight champion and leading heavyweight contender. "He made you do things you didn't want to do."
That article is a bit biased towards McCallum IMO (for example, I thought Kalambay beat him CLEARLY the first time, and I had no problem with the first Toney fight turning out to be a draw)... but that account of the 2nd Toney fight is DEAD ON. Blatant robbery, through and through. And the commentator (I forget his name) was indeed shocked, and many people in the crowd were indeed upset.

Re: Was Marvin Hagler really so marvellous?

Posted: 08 Jul 2004, 14:53
by Marciano Frazier
tonyevs wrote:Looking through his record is and it ain`t fantastic.
He made his name, from what I see from fighting smaller weight fighters, and they gave him hell also.
Sure there is the odd dangerous middle in there, but I do not see him as `Marvellous`.
Fighting smaller fighters, in my eyes does not add prestige; true greats gained their greatness fighting bigger opponents.
I would list many middles since who I would fancy against Marvin, and I would rate him no higher than Carlos Monzon.
If he wanted to prove his prowess he could have fought Spinks who was about the same time, but no he called out welter’s and lightweights.


Convince me…
"I would list many middles since who I would fancy against Marvin, and I would rate him no higher than Carlos Monzon."
Well, Monzon was the greatest middleweight of all time, so I don't think that really says anything about Hagler... :lol: