BoxRec

15 rounds: 8oz Gloves. No 3 Knockdown no Neautral corner bs.

If I had to guess, id say Fitz due to brute strength. Don't forget Hagler won't be running away.

BarryWashington wrote:Hagler by UD. My reason? Watching film of Fitz.

agreed, except i like hagler by stoppage.

Ah yes, b/c Bob Fitzimmons sucked, one can see from that great quality footage we have of him, he had his hands low, so he must have been unskilled . . in fact, he was less skilled than that Kangaroo Carnera sparred with . . .

As the English would say, bollocks. No man who crushed Maher, Choynski, Corbett, Sharkey, Dempsey and outpoints Gardner while an old man is getting stopped by Marvin Hagler.

With Marvin's steel chin and great conditioning and skills, I see this as an all-time classic fight. Fitz's hammer blow shots and perfect timing and delivery vs Marvin's angle changes and combination punching. Both great counter-punchers.

The big question mark would be how Hagler responds to Fitz's power, b/c Fitz is in another league power-wise to Hearns, Roldan, Hamsho, Mugabi etc.

Out of all his victories, the only person who lasted against Fitz in either a fight which wasn't scheduled for 6 rounds or less or which wasn't stopped by police was Jim Jefferies, a fighter who people would never even expect Hagler to have to compete against.

dempseyfire wrote:Ah yes, b/c Bob Fitzimmons sucked, one can see from that great quality footage we have of him, he had his hands low, so he must have been unskilled . . in fact, he was less skilled than that Kangaroo Carnera sparred with . . .

As the English would say, bollocks. No man who crushed Maher, Choynski, Corbett, Sharkey, Dempsey and outpoints Gardner while an old man is getting stopped by Marvin Hagler.

With Marvin's steel chin and great conditioning and skills, I see this as an all-time classic fight. Fitz's hammer blow shots and perfect timing and delivery vs Marvin's angle changes and combination punching. Both great counter-punchers.

The big question mark would be how Hagler responds to Fitz's power, b/c Fitz is in another league power-wise to Hearns, Roldan, Hamsho, Mugabi etc.

Out of all his victories, the only person who lasted against Fitz in either a fight which wasn't scheduled for 6 rounds or less or which wasn't stopped by police was Jim Jefferies, a fighter who people would never even expect Hagler to have to compete against.

no one is saying fitz sucks. he was one of the greatest fighters of his era but please forgive the people who actually look at footage to see how fighters might matchup vs one another. i know the conventional wisdom from most that post here is the older the fighter, the better but there's not much common sense in that.

bjermaine wrote:

BarryWashington wrote:Hagler by UD. My reason? Watching film of Fitz.

agreed, except i like hagler by stoppage.

You continue to be your own worst enemy on this forum. You are a laughing stock

dempseyfire wrote:Ah yes, b/c Bob Fitzimmons sucked, one can see from that great quality footage we have of him, he had his hands low, so he must have been unskilled . . in fact, he was less skilled than that Kangaroo Carnera sparred with . . .

As the English would say, bollocks. No man who crushed Maher, Choynski, Corbett, Sharkey, Dempsey and outpoints Gardner while an old man is getting stopped by Marvin Hagler.

With Marvin's steel chin and great conditioning and skills, I see this as an all-time classic fight. Fitz's hammer blow shots and perfect timing and delivery vs Marvin's angle changes and combination punching. Both great counter-punchers.

The big question mark would be how Hagler responds to Fitz's power, b/c Fitz is in another league power-wise to Hearns, Roldan, Hamsho, Mugabi etc.

Out of all his victories, the only person who lasted against Fitz in either a fight which wasn't scheduled for 6 rounds or less or which wasn't stopped by police was Jim Jefferies, a fighter who people would never even expect Hagler to have to compete against.

What about BJerm, who likes Hagler to decision Jeffries?

bjermaine wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Ah yes, b/c Bob Fitzimmons sucked, one can see from that great quality footage we have of him, he had his hands low, so he must have been unskilled . . in fact, he was less skilled than that Kangaroo Carnera sparred with . . .

As the English would say, bollocks. No man who crushed Maher, Choynski, Corbett, Sharkey, Dempsey and outpoints Gardner while an old man is getting stopped by Marvin Hagler.

With Marvin's steel chin and great conditioning and skills, I see this as an all-time classic fight. Fitz's hammer blow shots and perfect timing and delivery vs Marvin's angle changes and combination punching. Both great counter-punchers.

The big question mark would be how Hagler responds to Fitz's power, b/c Fitz is in another league power-wise to Hearns, Roldan, Hamsho, Mugabi etc.

Out of all his victories, the only person who lasted against Fitz in either a fight which wasn't scheduled for 6 rounds or less or which wasn't stopped by police was Jim Jefferies, a fighter who people would never even expect Hagler to have to compete against.

no one is saying fitz sucks. he was one of the greatest fighters of his era but please forgive the people who actually look at footage to see how fighters might matchup vs one another. i know the conventional wisdom from most that post here is the older the fighter, the better but there's not much common sense in that.

Makes sense to me. Is that why the younger, "new-gen" Calzaghe whipped on Jones? I mean, that wasn't even competitive --- musta been down to modern training, errr...or something

Goodnight, Irene wrote: You continue to be your own worst enemy on this forum. You are a laughing stock

as long as i get comments like this from you, i know i'm on the right track. common sense and irene do not get along.

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Makes sense to me. Is that why the younger, "new-gen" Calzaghe whipped on Jones? I mean, that wasn't even competitive --- musta been down to modern training, errr...or something

exactly, you know your boxing. next thing you'll be telling me how bad fitz would have whipped jones if they would have met. just like your worth in society, you add nothing to these discussions. dempseyfire, disagrees with me but at least he makes an argument trying to prove his point.

Hagler's versatility is too much for Fitz. I think eventually Marvin would be on his bike like the Briscoe fight and would box his way to a decision after some heated exchanges early.

10-5 or so for Marvin.

bjermaine wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: You continue to be your own worst enemy on this forum. You are a laughing stock

as long as i get comments like this from you, i know i'm on the right track. common sense and irene do not get along.

Bizarro world, where beer flows from waterfalls (Granberry would be a troll living under one), BJerm sticks little pins in his GI doll, & Marvin Hagler stops Bob Fitzsimmons 8)

bjermaine wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Makes sense to me. Is that why the younger, "new-gen" Calzaghe whipped on Jones? I mean, that wasn't even competitive --- musta been down to modern training, errr...or something

exactly, you know your boxing. next thing you'll be telling me how bad fitz would have whipped jones if they would have met. just like your worth in society, you add nothing to these discussions. dempseyfire, disagrees with me but at least he makes an argument trying to prove his point.

Must admit, Fitzsimmons is no municipal garbageman, run-of-the-mill postal worker, or school teacher, like some of the legends Jones fought. Sure, those guys aren't impressive on paper, but these were contemporary garbagemen, postal workers & school teachers Roy was fighting, & he whipped 'em but good. They were probably streets ahead of their fore-runners in the same occupation &, duly, Fitzsimmons himself.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Hagler's versatility is too much for Fitz. I think eventually Marvin would be on his bike like the Briscoe fight and would box his way to a decision after some heated exchanges early.

10-5 or so for Marvin.

Corbett was much better at sticking and moving than Hagler and a good deal bigger and he didn't make it vs Fitz. Don't see how the Briscoe fight is a good analogy . .Bennie, especially by the time he fought Marvin, was a slow plodder and not what you'd call highly skilled. Bob on the other hand was acknowledged as one of the greatest feinters and accurate hitters in the history of the sport and would not just be following Hagler around like Briscoe did, he would actually be forcing Marvin to do the leading, not his strength, and Hagler would get badly punished in the process.

I wasn't comparing Briscoe and Fitzsimmons. I was giving an example of how I think marvin would fight down the stretch.

And Corbett wasn't nearly as versatile as hagler. Not even in the same stratosphere. Hagler still had pop on his punches when he was moving. I'm not surprised you see Hagler getting punished. I'd be shocked if you saw it any other way. I totally disagree and give Fitzsimmons no more than a slim chance of winning.

Marvin was fine leading, but I don't see how Fitz is forcing him to do anything. If that's the case Hagler could just jab his face off. Bob would be pressing imo and he would get countered to death by the sharper, faster puncher.

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Must admit, Fitzsimmons is no municipal garbageman, run-of-the-mill postal worker, or school teacher, like some of the legends Jones fought. Sure, those guys aren't impressive on paper, but these were contemporary garbagemen, postal workers & school teachers Roy was fighting, & he whipped 'em but good. They were probably streets ahead of their fore-runners in the same occupation &, duly, Fitzsimmons himself.

irene has decided to attack jones to support his claim that hagler couldn't stop fitz. irene is also acting like fitz was never stopped in his career. of his 8 losses, 7 were by ko (and 1 DQ). i know that most of these were when he was fighting much larger men and when he was late in his career but he was also ko'ed in 4 rds by jim hall in 1890 at the middleweight limit. hall could ko fitz but hagler couldn't?? yes, my thoughts on this fight must be crazy.

If anyone gets stopped, it would be Fitzsimmons. But a distance fight is more likely.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I wasn't comparing Briscoe and Fitzsimmons. I was giving an example of how I think marvin would fight down the stretch.

And Corbett wasn't nearly as versatile as hagler. Not even in the same stratosphere. Hagler still had pop on his punches when he was moving. I'm not surprised you see Hagler getting punished. I'd be shocked if you saw it any other way. I totally disagree and give Fitzsimmons no more than a slim chance of winning.

Marvin was fine leading, but I don't see how Fitz is forcing him to do anything. If that's the case Hagler could just jab his face off. Bob would be pressing imo and he would get countered to death by the sharper, faster puncher.

Corbett not as versatile? Based on what?

Hagler the 'sharper' puncher? Again, based on what? Fitz could hurt and knock out men from middle all the way up through HW and was reknown for being a deadly accurate and jolting hitter, but Hagler the sharper puncher?

The shorter and smaller Hagler is going to jab Bob's face off and cut him up when Fitz comes in? You are making statements that aren't backed up by the historical fact. Fitz was never a simple pressure guy so there is no reason he's just going to come forward and get countered by Marvin.

I believe Hagler could win this fight b/c I do believe he was more versatile than Fitzimmons himself and had the quicker feet, but the scenario you are painting simply does not make any sense . . .

bjermaine wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Must admit, Fitzsimmons is no municipal garbageman, run-of-the-mill postal worker, or school teacher, like some of the legends Jones fought. Sure, those guys aren't impressive on paper, but these were contemporary garbagemen, postal workers & school teachers Roy was fighting, & he whipped 'em but good. They were probably streets ahead of their fore-runners in the same occupation &, duly, Fitzsimmons himself.

irene has decided to attack jones to support his claim that hagler couldn't stop fitz. irene is also acting like fitz was never stopped in his career. of his 8 losses, 7 were by ko (and 1 DQ). i know that most of these were when he was fighting much larger men and when he was late in his career but he was also ko'ed in 4 rds by jim hall in 1890 at the middleweight limit. hall could ko fitz but hagler couldn't?? yes, my thoughts on this fight must be crazy.

Hall was an excellent fighter with wins over Tommy Ryan, Joe Choynski, Paddy Slavin and a draw with Maher. And would Hagler have gone without a KO defeat in an era of 4 ounce horseshoe gloves and sometimes fighting 4 times PER MONTH as Fitz did when he lost to Hall or fighting hard hitting light heavies and heavyweights? I think the chances of Hagler surviving without KO defeats in that era dip a great deal, as durable as he was . .

bjermaine wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Must admit, Fitzsimmons is no municipal garbageman, run-of-the-mill postal worker, or school teacher, like some of the legends Jones fought. Sure, those guys aren't impressive on paper, but these were contemporary garbagemen, postal workers & school teachers Roy was fighting, & he whipped 'em but good. They were probably streets ahead of their fore-runners in the same occupation &, duly, Fitzsimmons himself.

irene has decided to attack jones to support his claim that hagler couldn't stop fitz. irene is also acting like fitz was never stopped in his career. of his 8 losses, 7 were by ko (and 1 DQ). i know that most of these were when he was fighting much larger men and when he was late in his career but he was also ko'ed in 4 rds by jim hall in 1890 at the middleweight limit. hall could ko fitz but hagler couldn't?? yes, my thoughts on this fight must be crazy.

Fitz claimed that he took a dive in the Hall fight. There is newspaper evidence from his era that indicates he could have been telling the truth. Regardless, Fitz cleaned his clock in '93.

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I wasn't comparing Briscoe and Fitzsimmons. I was giving an example of how I think marvin would fight down the stretch.

And Corbett wasn't nearly as versatile as hagler. Not even in the same stratosphere. Hagler still had pop on his punches when he was moving. I'm not surprised you see Hagler getting punished. I'd be shocked if you saw it any other way. I totally disagree and give Fitzsimmons no more than a slim chance of winning.

Marvin was fine leading, but I don't see how Fitz is forcing him to do anything. If that's the case Hagler could just jab his face off. Bob would be pressing imo and he would get countered to death by the sharper, faster puncher.

Corbett not as versatile? Based on what?

Hagler the 'sharper' puncher? Again, based on what? Fitz could hurt and knock out men from middle all the way up through HW and was reknown for being a deadly accurate and jolting hitter, but Hagler the sharper puncher?

The shorter and smaller Hagler is going to jab Bob's face off and cut him up when Fitz comes in? You are making statements that aren't backed up by the historical fact. Fitz was never a simple pressure guy so there is no reason he's just going to come forward and get countered by Marvin.

I believe Hagler could win this fight b/c I do believe he was more versatile than Fitzimmons himself and had the quicker feet, but the scenario you are painting simply does not make any sense . . .

Corbett not as versatile based on his lack of power, much better in fighter, able to fight effecitively from two stances. For my money, Marvin was one of the most versatile fighters to ever step between the ropes.

As for my scenario not making sense to you. I'll have to try and sleep tonight anyway. Hagler was the better and faster boxer imo. It isn't rocket science. Hagler getting punished by Fitz makes no sense to me either. What historical basis to you have that Fitzsimmons would MAKE Hagler come to him? Was he going to play Leonard mind games? Intimidate him like Duran?

I must have missed where it became impossible for a shorter man to outjab a taller one. Can you point me to where that became a law?

I think hagler was the best Middleweight who ever walked the earth, you'll have to forgive me for my opinion and I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you.

It's actually comical that you find them engaging inside early on even terms and Hagler switching to boxing to take a decision as nonsensical. No historical basis? They are a century apart. How many granite chinned african american boxer/puncher southpaws did Fitzsimmons handle?

Going by newspaper accountd and eyewitness reports, and also the little footage we do have, Fitzimmons was not a come forward pressure fighter. He was known for being VERY patient, waiting and feinting for long durations in order to strike in his knockout punch. So that is why I find your Hagler-Briscoe correlation nonsensical.

Could he outjab Fitz? Maybe . . but the certainty with which you stated that left me puzzled. Was he faster? Maybe . . we certaintly can't tell via the hand-cranked footage we have.

Are you claiming Hagler is a harder hitter than Corbett? B/c I think that's a fairly 'out-there' statement. And I think Corbett showed enough in-fighting ability in 60+ rounds vs Jackson. And if you're going to bring up the switch-hitting angle, come on, then Hagler is suddenly more versatile than any other boxer in history.

I know Hagler was past-it and I even had him winning a narrow decision, but if a coming off a 4 year layoff Leonard can dance and flurry to a decision vs Hagler, was is the much larger, much harder punching, very fast and superbly conditioned James Corbett going to do? Run out of the ring when he finds out Hagler can switch stances??

Again, I think a Hagler victory here is a definite possibility, but with Bob Fitzimmons you are talking about one of the lb for lb greatest fighters who ever lived (top 10). I guess you rate Hagler as high . . .I do not.

dempseyfire wrote: Hall was an excellent fighter with wins over Tommy Ryan, Joe Choynski, Paddy Slavin and a draw with Maher. And would Hagler have gone without a KO defeat in an era of 4 ounce horseshoe gloves and sometimes fighting 4 times PER MONTH as Fitz did when he lost to Hall or fighting hard hitting light heavies and heavyweights? I think the chances of Hagler surviving without KO defeats in that era dip a great deal, as durable as he was . .

i agree.

raylawpc wrote: Fitz claimed that he took a dive in the Hall fight. There is newspaper evidence from his era that indicates he could have been telling the truth. Regardless, Fitz cleaned his clock in '93.

this may be the case. taking a dive in the old days is looked at differently than today. guys like pep and lamotta took dives and they are still considered ATG's by most but imagine if someone like mayweather took a dive today. he would be banned for life and probably be locked out of the hall. different times i guess.

raylawpc wrote:

bjermaine wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: Must admit, Fitzsimmons is no municipal garbageman, run-of-the-mill postal worker, or school teacher, like some of the legends Jones fought. Sure, those guys aren't impressive on paper, but these were contemporary garbagemen, postal workers & school teachers Roy was fighting, & he whipped 'em but good. They were probably streets ahead of their fore-runners in the same occupation &, duly, Fitzsimmons himself.

irene has decided to attack jones to support his claim that hagler couldn't stop fitz. irene is also acting like fitz was never stopped in his career. of his 8 losses, 7 were by ko (and 1 DQ). i know that most of these were when he was fighting much larger men and when he was late in his career but he was also ko'ed in 4 rds by jim hall in 1890 at the middleweight limit. hall could ko fitz but hagler couldn't?? yes, my thoughts on this fight must be crazy.

Fitz claimed that he took a dive in the Hall fight. There is newspaper evidence from his era that indicates he could have been telling the truth. Regardless, Fitz cleaned his clock in '93.

You are wasting your breath --- but then, so am I, aren't I?