minus MARVIN HAGLER ?

funso banjo baby · Post by **funso banjo baby** » 03 Oct 2005, 10:15

if Hagler hadnt been around which of his victims could have ruled the roost at middleweight------ HAMSHO ? Sibson ? Roldan ? OBEL ?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 03 Oct 2005, 10:30

Great topic again Funso.

I think we'd have seen a succession of title holders rather than undisputed champs. Hamsho would have been a title holder, Duran too (obviously earlier), later on Graham, Mugabi... We would have seen Mugabi-Hearns, Mugabi-McCallum, Hearns-McCallum...

Leonard probably would not have retired so early.

Gordon · Post by **Gordon** » 03 Oct 2005, 11:17

Wow this is a good one.

I agree on Hamsho.

The Duran/Leonard/Hearns/Benitez saga may have continued into the Middleweights.

Mugabi and MacCallum would also have been in there, possibly Julian Jackson.

Whether or not one would have taken the title and held it for a prolonged length of time is debatable.

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 03 Oct 2005, 11:53

Since Hamsho fought his way through the top ten twice, for the privilege of getting beat up by Hagler, I'd have to say he was the best of that group

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 03 Oct 2005, 11:58

maybe minter would have made a few defences before losing it.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 03 Oct 2005, 13:35

Just think if their were no Marvin Hagler, you might have had James Hard Rock Green fighting Dwight Davidson for the title.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 03 Oct 2005, 13:53

Good question Funso.

Minter may well have squeezed in an easy defence untill Mustafa Hamsho gets his shot. I always felt Hamsho was the second best Middleweight in the world from 81 to about 83/84 and he may well have defended the title a few times against the likes of Frank Fletcher, Caveman Lee, Fulgencio Obelmejias, Curtis Parker and Wilfred Benitez etc.

Then he would likely loose to either Hearns or Duran. Who would defend against each other and the likes of Wilford Scypion, Tony Sibson and Juan Domingo Roldan.

Then Mike McCallum moves up in weight and very possibly takes over and defends against some of the above and John Mugabi and Julian Jackson, and maybe some up and comers like Frank Tate.

If the titles became split during Minters reign then a lot of the comtenders like Fletcher, Roldan, Mugabi and Sibson may well have passed the titles around like The Heavyweights were at the same time.

A lot of it's and but but that's how i imagine it would have shaped out.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 03 Oct 2005, 14:04

I would concur that Hamsho was the other force of nature at the time.

Steve M · Post by **Steve M** » 03 Oct 2005, 14:46

I think Minter was better than Hamsho.He looked flat and downright disinterested in losing a very close decision to Hamsho, having lost the title and already had a long, hard career.

If Hamsho had got a fight against a focused Minter that held the titles i don't think he would have won.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 03 Oct 2005, 23:58

I agree, Steve. Hamsho wasn't any better than most of the other contenders Hagler dispatched.

I'd say a motivated Sibson would have been a good chance against most of them also.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 04 Oct 2005, 02:40

I for the life of me can not see why all you guys think Hamsho was any good. He was another lefty. A novelty in boxing, an Arab. Who did he ever beat? When he finally got his shot Hagler cut him to ribbons and beat his ass good, twice. Mike McCallum, Mugabi, James "Hard Rock" Green, or Frank "The Animal" Fletcher or some of the other MW of the time all had better chances of being the MW king than Hamsho.

I am no southpaw Hagler fan as we all know here, but Hamsho? He stunk..

Donny Lalonde out boxed him for Chirst's sake.

funso banjo baby · Post by **funso banjo baby** » 04 Oct 2005, 04:31

Hamsho was my boy. he took no.1 from Minter....then returned to the top by beating up Czyz who was 20-0....and outboxing the legendary Benitez who had only lost to Leonard and Hearns. i think hamsho wud have reigned from 81 to 86. His workrate and physical style was so awkward and no one else would have had the tools to dent his iron jaw.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 04 Oct 2005, 06:57

My opinion is based on the many times I saw him fight. He seemed to get the job done and I always looked forward to a card with him on it. Maybe my nostalgia is getting to me but I'm stickin with my recollections on the subject. Everone sort of faded when Hagler finally peaked, and it took him a while to get his shot, but once he did he clearly dominated. A cut above.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 04 Oct 2005, 13:29

As for Hamsho, he wasn't a great fighter but he was pretty decent. He could have picked up a belt, but it's doubtful he would had many successful defenses.

There were a lot of guys that were pretty even, so I agree with some of you guys who don't think there would have been a dominant champion. Hearns was probably the best, but he probably wouldn't have been champ for long before getting ko'd or moving up in weight.

Roco · Post by **Roco** » 26 Jan 2012, 03:47

Minter would have kept the belt for a few more defenses and lost it to Sibson at some point.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 26 Jan 2012, 05:27

Minter-Hamsho was a disputed decision by many.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 26 Jan 2012, 08:56

Minter looked worse at the end, but I had him winning.

minus MARVIN HAGLER ?

minus MARVIN HAGLER ?

hamsho

Re: minus MARVIN HAGLER ?

Re: minus MARVIN HAGLER ?

Re: minus MARVIN HAGLER ?