BoxRec

The commentator on Sky said it was Hearns v Hagler did you see it like that, those first 3 rounds?

I thought it was good action, but it didn't stand out to me as being great.

Incidentally, I think Hagler-Hearns is one of the most overrated fights there is. I had heard so much about a great, back and forth war, but when I finally watched it I saw Hagler deliver a fairly one-sided beatdown to Hearns.

nah, GGG was stalking and brook was fighting scared

I thought it was great but i admit the drama,stage and crowd played the biggest part

handsofstone wrote:I thought it was great but i admit the drama,stage and crowd played the biggest part

yeah the event itself was a belter

I thought it was better than pretty much every PPV that sky have had over the last couple of years.

More action there than in the whole of fury v wlad.

A problem is that it was sandwiched between Easter/Commey and Gonzalez/Cuadras...and Kamegai/JSK II wasn't bad...so whilst it was a decent fight it sort of feels like the 4th best of the weekend

It was nice. They produce big drama show

Hagler Hearns is a stretch but it was certainly what you want from a main event: excitement, back and forth action, pure violence, bravery, recklessness, real drama and a stoppage.

We have had some shite fights this year and that was certainly not shite. Thoroughly enjoyed that.

If I have a gripe it was the lack of a decent co-main event. Boxing cards don't need to start at 5 with Smith brothers against bin men etc. You don't need all that. There was nothing of interest to me on the undercard at all. Even Joshua's last fight had Murray-Groves.

Would have turned into a classic if brook could have taking golvokins attacks better. Great clash of styles.

Couldnt really ask for more than what they gave us for 4 rounds tbh. Just wish brook was a career middleweight. Would have won that fight.

If he was a career-MW maybe GGG would've paid him more respect and given more mind to defense, as he has against better punchers. I'm also not sure if being a career MW would've prevented his eye from busting.

GGG just keeping that belt warm until Eubank batters him!

clopixolacuphase wrote:Hagler Hearns is a stretch but it was certainly what you want from a main event: excitement, back and forth action, pure violence, bravery, recklessness, real drama and a stoppage.

I'd add skills to that too. For a ding dong battle there was no shortage of talent and technique on display.

crusader wrote:I thought it was good action, but it didn't stand out to me as being great.

Incidentally, I think Hagler-Hearns is one of the most overrated fights there is. I had heard so much about a great, back and forth war, but when I finally watched it I saw Hagler deliver a fairly one-sided beatdown to Hearns.

When you know the result, yes, but watching it live ( on German TV alas ) ,..wow, there was nothing like it...a 2 year build up, opinion split on who was gonna win, p4p #1 on the line, and the pure all or nothing out n out savagery was a near death experience for most boxing fans.

After the first round, you knew who was gonna win, but boy WHAT a first round.

bbjc wrote: Just wish brook was a career middleweight. Would have won that fight.

crusader wrote:If he was a career-MW maybe GGG would've paid him more respect and given more mind to defense, as he has against better punchers. I'm also not sure if being a career MW would've prevented his eye from busting.

GGG just keeping that belt warm until Eubank batters him!

That was nothing to do with not respecting brooks power. Golvokins a great fighter but people are kidding themselves on a bit. Brook would have outboxed him if he sat back although people rave on about golvokins boxings...its his offensive boxing that takes all the plaudits its not his defensive fighting. Brooks is a good boxer. A bigger brooks would have outboxed golvokin if he was sitting back off him. Golvokin took the best approach to the fight...stick it on him. Dont give him time to box knowing he was the bigger man. A middleweight brooks would have took them shots better. Could have tied him up etc. Leaned on him. Your on to a loser doing that with the bigger man. More power behind his own shots. Golvokin busted him up but he threw too many full bloodied shots doing it. Brooks was good at taking the sting out of a lot of them punches with the ingle movement. Left golvokin struggling for breath. I ll go as far to say a bigger stronger brook takes him apart as early as the 7th or 8th round.

Okay then man

I ll speak to you again in a year or two time...we ll see if what i m saying about golovkin comes true my man.

A lot of your claims relate to what would happen if these fights were to happen now.....things could change if GGG declines over the next 2-3 years, although feel free to bump the thread and so 'told you so'

mimmy123 wrote:The commentator on Sky said it was Hearns v Hagler did you see it like that, those first 3 rounds?

I didn't find the fight to be very exciting. GGG looked a lot bigger and stronger and Brook stood off and fired quick punches that had little effect. As soon as GGG stepped it up it was over. Fight will be forgotten in a week or two.

Thought it was a great fight. Had a Tyson v Bruno 1 feel to it.

When Brook was rocked badly in the first then came roaring back I was going mental. In the moment you forget that the punches are not having an effect, but it was great drama.

brook would have got stopped no matter what in my opinion, but I`d have loved to have seen him fight on without that broken eye socket. No matter what people say, that is a horrible injury to fight with.

There was a point where they were swapping blows in round 2 and Brook stood his ground I thought for a split second "Brook can trade with him, he can win it". I guess it shows what most people think of GGG when just trading with the bloke is seen as a massive deal and reason to cheer.

I loved the fight and though I was gutted at the time, the stoppage was correct. He was gone, the eye was a liability and he would have been left cold on the mat had it gone on much longer.

crusader wrote:I thought it was good action, but it didn't stand out to me as being great.

Incidentally, I think Hagler-Hearns is one of the most overrated fights there is. I had heard so much about a great, back and forth war, but when I finally watched it I saw Hagler deliver a fairly one-sided beatdown to Hearns.

One sided my a**.

It certainly wasn't Hagler-Hearns type action, but it was fun and Brook stood his ground and trading enough to make it fun.

magwitch wrote:

crusader wrote:I thought it was good action, but it didn't stand out to me as being great.

Incidentally, I think Hagler-Hearns is one of the most overrated fights there is. I had heard so much about a great, back and forth war, but when I finally watched it I saw Hagler deliver a fairly one-sided beatdown to Hearns.

One sided my a**.

Hearns had some notable success at the very start, but then he already starts getting ragged and bullied around the ring. I was really surprised by how quickly his legs seemed to desert him, and for the most part he was busted by a much sturdier opponent who was better-suited to that type of fight.

clopixolacuphase wrote:Hagler Hearns is a stretch but it was certainly what you want from a main event: excitement, back and forth action, pure violence, bravery, recklessness, real drama and a stoppage.

We have had some shite fights this year and that was certainly not shite. Thoroughly enjoyed that.

If I have a gripe it was the lack of a decent co-main event. Boxing cards don't need to start at 5 with Smith brothers against bin men etc. You don't need all that. There was nothing of interest to me on the undercard at all. Even Joshua's last fight had Murray-Groves.

True. Hall/Haskins was entertaining but lacking in quality for chief support. One of my casual fan friends was fvcking shocked that fight was for a 'world' title!