Marvelous Marvin Hagler appreciation thread

[dmt]

greatest middleweight ever :happy :happy :happy :happy :happy one of my favourite sporting idols

[Ted Spoon]

Appreciation for Marvin Hagler is suffice.

He is, and will always be more appreciated than his equally accomplished predecessor, Carlos Monzon for media, era and stylistic reasons.

[dmt]

who do you think was better between Monzon and Hagler Ted Spoon?

[Bill Butcher]

I liked hagler, he was right up there with duran as the ultimate intimidating badass of his time.

The way he went through hearns shocked me but I agreed with the verdict in the leonard fight.
Leonard was 1 of the most adaptable, smart & skillfull boxers of any era & marv pushed him to another level, that tells you everything about marv.

Great fighter.

[RoccoMarciano]

This deserves a bump :)

I've always considered Hagler a great boxer, and a great representative of the sport.

The fact that he knocked the "Hitman's" head off when he needed to only serves as icing on the cake!

[Asterion]

Appreciation for Marvin Hagler is suffice.

He is, and will always be more appreciated than his equally accomplished predecessor, Carlos Monzon for media, era and stylistic reasons.

Yes, which is a bit unfair, because Hagler didn't defend the Title so much times and did retire after beating his heir apparent.

[Robbi]

Hagler was without question one of the greatest middleweights ever. Arguably the greatest.

Forget about Monzon, Hopkins would have provided Hagler with a serious test.

Duran was defensively aware against Hagler, and done reasonably well on the outside. And Leonard beat Hagler, although controversially. The quickness, sharp punching, combined with movement gave Hagler trouble.

Hopkins has the perfect style to go one better and possibly beat Hagler. If Hagler fought Hopkins in the same manner he fought Duran, Hopkins would have beat him. He stands at 6' 1", and he's physically strong inside, something Duran lacked against Hagler was effectiveness at close quarters.

[redrooster]

Hagler's the greatest of all times. Hopkins only had one outstanding performance - against Tito. otherwise, he's forgettable.

[Luigi1985]

Hagler's the greatest of all times. Hopkins only had one outstanding performance - against Tito. otherwise, he's forgettable.


And that fight was against a blown up Welterweight, it´s sad to say that it´s his greatest performance, but it is, and that should show us how overrated he is, IMO he wouldn´t have against Hagler...

[brownpimp88]

And that fight was against a blown up Welterweight, it´s sad to say that it´s his greatest performance, but it is, and that should show us how overrated he is, IMO he wouldn´t have against Hagler...
Mickey Walker, Emile Griffith, Leonard and Robinson were all blown up welterweights.

[Luigi1985]

Mickey Walker, Emile Griffith, Leonard and Robinson were all blown up welterweights.


But they proved against great/ very good fighters at that weight, that they´re also great there, a thing, Trinidad never did...

[brownpimp88]

But they proved against great/ very good fighters at that weight, that they´re also great there, a thing, Trinidad never did...
Yeah but trinidad beat joppy at middleweight, who is arguably better than anyone hearns beat at 160, sad but true.

[Luigi1985]

Yeah but trinidad beat joppy at middleweight, who is arguably better than anyone hearns beat at 160, sad but true.

Why´re you coming with Hearns now?

[brownpimp88]

Why´re you coming with Hearns now?
Cuz he is considered hagler's best win and leonard only had 1 fight there.

[Luigi1985]

Cuz he is considered hagler's best win and leonard only had 1 fight there.


Considered by who? Mugabi, Antuofermo, etc. were much better wins for Marvin, you don´t need to defend Hopkins, look at his poor title reign, he doesn´t belong in the Top 10 MW ATG...

[brooklyn1550]

Marvin Hagler was one of the most complete fighters I have ever seen. Perhaps the greatest middleweight to ever lace 'em up - I have him at number 2.

I had the privilege of watching him train in Brockton - he trained like an animal. Young fighters should look up to him. He always kept himself in shape and always gave 110 percent in the gym.

[brooklyn1550]

Considered by who? Mugabi, Antuofermo, etc. were much better wins for Marvin, you don´t need to defend Hopkins, look at his poor title reign, he doesn´t belong in the Top 10 MW ATG...

Hopkins deserves top 10 recognition as well

[brownpimp88]

Considered by who? Mugabi, Antuofermo, etc. were much better wins for Marvin, you don´t need to defend Hopkins, look at his poor title reign, he doesn´t belong in the Top 10 MW ATG...
Please name ur top 10 middleweights, lol. Let me guess ur gonna put ketchel in ur top 10, even though he loaded his record on bums.

[Luigi1985]

Please name ur top 10 middleweights, lol. Let me guess ur gonna put ketchel in ur top 10, even though he loaded his record on bums.


Ketchel died with 24, even though he beat with the likes of O´Brien and Papke 2 much better fighters than Hopkins, so putting him in the Top 10 wouldn´t be that wrong...

[brownpimp88]

Ketchel died with 24, even though he beat with the likes of O´Brien and Papke 2 much better fighters than Hopkins, so putting him in the Top 10 wouldn´t be that wrong...
The fight with obrien wasnt at middleweight and the fact that you called papke a better fighter than hopkins just ruins ur credibility, come on name ur top 10, i would love to see it.

[Luigi1985]

The fight with obrien wasnt at middleweight and the fact that you called papke a better fighter than hopkins just ruins ur credibility, come on name ur top 10, i would love to see it.

Why are you so god damn- stupid? I meant with O´Brien and Papke, that this 2 wins are better than any of Hopkins wins. Read the next time the whole text 5 times, than perhaps even you understand it...

[brownpimp88]

Why are you so god damn- stupid? I meant with O´Brien and Papke, that this 2 wins are better than any of Hopkins wins. Read the next time the whole text 5 times, than perhaps even you understand it...
How am i an idiot, papke is not a great win like u make it out to be. The entire board usually disagrees with everything you say, not including b-hop in ur top 10 middleweights just shows how stupid you really are.

[Luigi1985]

How am i an idiot, papke is not a great win like u make it out to be. The entire board usually disagrees with everything you say, not including b-hop in ur top 10 middleweights just shows how stupid you really are.


No, only SOME black, childish, teenager- nut hugger like you and Clay II don´t agree with me actually...

[Luigi1985]

Add me to that list. Not including Hopkins in the top 10 seems pretty ridiculous to me indeed. I don't see many others agreeing with that either.


Your opinion. For me, I would spontaneous rank the likes of Monzon, Hagler, Walker, Bogash, LaMotta, Ketchel, Giardello, Darcy, Cerdan, etc. in front of "B-Hop"...

[Robbi]

Hagler's the greatest of all times. Hopkins only had one outstanding performance - against Tito. otherwise, he's forgettable.

Hagler only had one outstanding performance against Hearns. It was the signature win of his middleweight reign. I don't really believe what I said, but thought I'd just give you some of your own medicine back in return.

Hopkins defended his middleweight title 20 times successfully. And he never had a massive fight until he fought Trinidad, but he beat some very good middleweights. Echols, Joppy, etc.

Hopkins' win against De La Hoya was much more impressive than Hagler's lacklusture showing against Duran. And a prime Hagler as well.

After he was defeated against Taylor, he moved up two divisions and gave Tarver a lesson over 12 rounds. And nobody expected Hopkins to win, with many having him down for the first knockout loss of his career.

Nobody has beat Wright as convincingly as Hopkins.

[Luigi1985]

Hagler only had one outstanding performance against Hearns. It was the signature win of his middleweight reign. I don't really believe what I said, but thought I'd just give you some of your own medicine back in return.

Hopkins defended his middleweight title 20 times successfully. And he never had a massive fight until he fought Trinidad, but he beat some very good middleweights. Echols, Joppy, etc.

Hopkins' win against De La Hoya was much more impressive than Hagler's lacklusture showing against Duran. And a prime Hagler as well.

After he was defeated against Taylor, he moved up two divisions and gave Tarver a lesson over 12 rounds. And nobody expected Hopkins to win, with many having him down for the first knockout loss of his career.

Nobody has beat Wright as convincingly as Hopkins.


Woah, how impressive, he beat a 35 years old former 154 lbs-man at LHW...

[brownpimp88]

Hagler only had one outstanding performance against Hearns. It was the signature win of his middleweight reign. I don't really believe what I said, but thought I'd just give you some of your own medicine back in return.

Hopkins defended his middleweight title 20 times successfully. And he never had a massive fight until he fought Trinidad, but he beat some very good middleweights. Echols, Joppy, etc.

Hopkins' win against De La Hoya was much more impressive than Hagler's lacklusture showing against Duran. And a prime Hagler as well.

After he was defeated against Taylor, he moved up two divisions and gave Tarver a lesson over 12 rounds. And nobody expected Hopkins to win, with many having him down for the first knockout loss of his career.

Nobody has beat Wright as convincingly as Hopkins.
Exactly and guys like cerdan and lamotta get ranked in the top 10 for having like 1 or 2 title defences, its hilarious.

[SgrRyLeonard]

Definitely one of the greatest Middleweights of all time, and a case can be made for saying he's THE Greatest. I always respected how Hagler was all about earning respect and about his legacy, fighting and beating the best out there to prove he's the man. Even after being champion for a while, he never got complacent or lost that fire in his belly. I've got the utmost respect for Hagler as a fighter.

[Luigi1985]

Exactly and guys like cerdan and lamotta get ranked in the top 10 for having like 1 or 2 title defences, its hilarious.



Beating SRR is better than all of Hopkins wins at 160 lbs together. Otherwise Gianfranco Rosi is one of the greatest LMW´s of all times...

[Robbi]

And that fight was against a blown up Welterweight, it´s sad to say that it´s his greatest performance, but it is, and that should show us how overrated he is, IMO he wouldn´t have against Hagler...

Trinidad was no more a blown up welterweight than Hearns. When Trinidad faced Hopkins he looked like a middleweight. Very broad shoulders, tall and rangey, and physically on par with Hopkins when they shared a ring.

Trinidad also blew away Joppy the fight before Hopkins, and KO'd him inside 5 rounds. Nobody had stopped Joppy before then.

Trinidad can't even make middleweight now. Trinidad was a welterweight who grew into a middleweight, very much like Hearns against Hagler.

[Luigi1985]

Trinidad was no more a blown up welterweight than Hearns. When Trinidad faced Hopkins he looked like a middleweight. Very broad shoulders, tall and rangey, and physically on par with Hopkins when they shared a ring.

Trinidad also blew away Joppy the fight before Hopkins, and KO'd him inside 5 rounds. Nobody had stopped Joppy before then.

Trinidad can't even make middleweight now. Trinidad was a welterweight who grew into a middleweight, very much like Hearns against Hagler.


You´re right, but beside Hearns Hagler beat also the likes of Mugabi, SRL, Antuofermo, etc...

[Robbi]

Woah, how impressive, he beat a 35 years old former 154 lbs-man at LHW...

Aww well, at least he came back after a defeat to prove something, unlike Hagler who walked away and cried for years after Leonard defeated him.

Couldn't care if Tarver was 45. Hopkins moved up two divisions and fought the best light-heavyweight on the planet, and gave him a lesson over 12 rounds. Nobody thought Hopkins had a chance against Tarver.

Ohhh soz Winky Wright, the unbeatable fighter with a bombproof defense who was 35. Hopkins was 42 lol.

[brownpimp88]

Beating SRR is better than all of Hopkins wins at 160 lbs together. Otherwise Gianfranco Rosi is one of the greatest LMW´s of all times...
He outweighed robinson by 17 fuckin pounds, i'm sure if hopkins weighed 160 and robinson was 143, b-hop would win. :lol:

[brownpimp88]

All you do is look at 1 fuckin win on a person's resume and then decide hes the better fighter, god its annoying. Hopkins beat more ranked fighters, he was more consistent.

[Luigi1985]

He outweighed robinson by 17 fuckin pounds, i'm sure if hopkins weighed 160 and robinson was 143, b-hop would win. :lol:


:patsch

That doesn´t care, Hopkins also came in much heavier against DLH, Wright, etc... important is, that he beat at 160 lbs the better names, that´s why I rank him higher...

[Robbi]

Hagler was taken the distance by a former lightweight, Duran. The only fighter anywhere near that who Hopkins fought was De La Hoya. Maybe not quite as good as Duran, but Hopkins KO'd him. And Hopkins was fighting in 3rd gear throughout the fight. He could have had De La Hoya outta there inside 4 rounds if he fought more aggressive, but treated it like a sparring session.

[Luigi1985]

I don´t discuss with nut huggers...


no, I don´t use that as an excuse because I can´t beat you in a debate, but I´m tired, out of your frustation you compare Duran at 160 lbs with DLH, Oscar needed the judges to beat the chinny bum Sturm, Duran beat a good fighter in Barkley at 160 lbs... I´m out of here, this nut hugging is too much for me...

[brownpimp88]

Well back on topic, i consider hagler as the 3rd best middleweight of all times. This is my all time middleweight list.

1. greb
2. monzon
3. hagler
4. robinson
5. hopkins
6. dick tiger
7. jake lamotta
8. bob fitzsimmons
9. james toney
10. michael nunn

[Robbi]

I don´t discuss with nut huggers...


no, I don´t use that as an excuse because I can´t beat you in a debate, but I´m tired, out of your frustation you compare Duran at 160 lbs with DLH, Oscar needed the judges to beat the chinny bum Sturm, Duran beat a good fighter in Barkley at 160 lbs... I´m out of here, this nut hugging is too much for me...

I'm no nuthugger. Trust me, I'm a fan of Hopkins and Hagler. And I'm not biased in anyway shape or form.

I'd give Hagler the nod over Hopkins as an ATG at middleweight, but to rank Hopkins outside the top 10 is ridiculous.

And anyone who thinks Hagler would easily beat Hopkins H2H needs a serious look in the mirror. Look at how Duran's cute defensive stratgey made Hagler look, pretty damn ordinary. And don't give me the if and buts. If Hagler done this, and if he fought this way blah blah.

The style Hopkins employs is the exact style to give Hagler problems. Good lateral movement, height and reach advantages, swift sharp counters from either hand, a solid jab, accuracy, and the ability to match Hagler's strength inside.

Another thing. Hagler had decent power, but he's got as much chance of knocking Hopkins out as Hopkins has of knocking him out. Only one chance, no chance.

[redrooster]

Hagler only had one outstanding performance against Hearns. It was the signature win of his middleweight reign. I don't really believe what I said, but thought I'd just give you some of your own medicine back in return.

Hopkins defended his middleweight title 20 times successfully. And he never had a massive fight until he fought Trinidad, but he beat some very good middleweights. Echols, Joppy, etc.

Hopkins' win against De La Hoya was much more impressive than Hagler's lacklusture showing against Duran. And a prime Hagler as well.

After he was defeated against Taylor, he moved up two divisions and gave Tarver a lesson over 12 rounds. And nobody expected Hopkins to win, with many having him down for the first knockout loss of his career.

Nobody has beat Wright as convincingly as Hopkins.

no. I saw Hagler's sinature wins(s) long before the hearns fight starting with Minter, then Hamsho, followed shortly after by the Lee blowout, then Obel. Hagler never ceased to amaze me with his perfection, his intensity. Hopkins was like a dim red sun in comparison to the all mighty quasar half a universe away. The Hamsho and Scypion fights proved right then and there that Marvin was the perfect creation, the best thing that ever lived.

At the very least, he was on par with the original Sugar Ray of the middleweight division before he declined.

As for Hopkins, he was good but I really don't see how anyone can even think he'd give Hagler a fight. To borrow a line from Ron Standers' wife, "it's like putting a volkswagon in the Indy 500".

Hopkins could get a lot more respect from me if he whipped Roy but he didn't. I'll go along with everyone though and call him one of the greats. He'd give Giardello, and Joey Archer a good fight.

[istmeno]

no. I saw Hagler's sinature wins(s) long before the hearns fight starting with Minter, then Hamsho, followed shortly after by the Lee blowout, then Obel. Hagler never ceased to amaze me with his perfection, his intensity. Hopkins was like a dim red sun in comparison to the all mighty quasar half a universe away. The Hamsho and Scypion fights proved right then and there that Marvin was the perfect creation, the best thing that ever lived.

At the very least, he was on par with the original Sugar Ray of the middleweight division before he declined.

As for Hopkins, he was good but I really don't see how anyone can even think he'd give Hagler a fight. To borrow a line from Ron Standers' wife, "it's like putting a volkswagon in the Indy 500".

Hopkins could get a lot more respect from me if he whipped Roy but he didn't. I'll go along with everyone though and call him one of the greats. He'd give Giardello, and Joey Archer a good fight.

you forgot to add that the great majority of haglers defenses were against the top ranked contender. none of these b.s. optional soft defenses. he was THE champion not a belt holder like bhop was for most of his defenses. marvelous was the cock of the walk. he went through hell to get a title shot. he was the definition of an avoided fighter. but once he got the titles, he ducked noone. he beat the man in front of him and the next fight was against the next in line.

and to the youngsters. do a little homework because if you truly believe that hearns was his signature win, you have a lot of studying to do before you can talk about hagler.

[Robbi]

Hopkins could get a lot more respect from me if he whipped Roy but he didn't.

Pretty astonishing to say the least. Baffling.

Read my previous post.

[mcvey]

Considered by who? Mugabi, Antuofermo, etc. were much better wins for Marvin, you don´t need to defend Hopkins, look at his poor title reign, he doesn´t belong in the Top 10 MW ATG...
Abig fish in a little pond.

[Robbi]

you forgot to add that the great majority of haglers defenses were against the top ranked contender. none of these b.s. optional soft defenses. he was THE champion not a belt holder like bhop was for most of his defenses. marvelous was the cock of the walk. he went through hell to get a title shot. he was the definition of an avoided fighter. but once he got the titles, he ducked noone. he beat the man in front of him and the next fight was against the next in line.

and to the youngsters. do a little homework because if you truly believe that hearns was his signature win, you have a lot of studying to do before you can talk about hagler.

I'm no teenager, and if you read what I wrote after I said Hearns was Hagler's signature win, then you'll maybe realise you have the homework to do.

[istmeno]

I'm no teenager, and if you read what I wrote after I said Hearns was Hagler's signature win, then you'll maybe realise you have the homework to do.

my bad. i did not see the second part.

but to compare the bhop dlh fight to the hagler duran fight is comparing apples and garbage. one was arguably two of the best fighters ever, the other was dlh giving his new partner a payday. i still believe that dlh laid down in that fight. all comparisons between cholo and dlh stop at they were both boxers

[Luigi1985]

Abig fish in a little pond.


That´s a good description (when I understand what this mean in my language), Hopkins is/ was a very talented, very good fighter with a cool old-school-style, but to have him "surely" in a Top10 MW- ATG´s list, or to compare the DLH-win (Oscar never defeated someone at MW) to Hagler´s Duran-win (who beat later the champ Barkley) is just biased IMO...

I never said Hopkins is so bad or that he doesn´t deserve a high ranking, but the bias towards some fighters is just to much for me (Brownpimp88 has Nunn for example at 10th or so, Toney at 6th ca., etc.)

My question is, why a fighter like Bogash (I take him as an example, because he´s almost unknown here today) who beat great fighters like Tiger Flowers, Tommy Loughran, Mickey Walker, Mike McTigue, Panama Joe Gans, etc. isn´t even mentioned and a fighter like Nunn in a Top10 in a deep era like the MW´s? :think

[Nemesis]

Why does Hagler need an 'appreciation thread', when he is the most overrated, best supported fighters on this board. Bearing in mind, he was basically a good all-rounder. But nothing particularly strong (neither a great boxer, nor a great pressure fighter) in any style.

There isnt a day goes by when there isnt a thread regarding Hagler


edit: One more thing, how did he get on against the best fighter he fought?

[Drew101]

Hagler was an excellent middleweight champion, and, at minimum, a Top 3 atg middleweight. Hopkins is, at absolute minimum, a Top 10 atg middleweight who had the misfortune of fighting in a weaker era, but still would likely have been a champion in just about any middleweight era.

That should be the end of the dicussion...but, it probably won't.

[redrooster]

you forgot to add that the great majority of haglers defenses were against the top ranked contender. none of these b.s. optional soft defenses. he was THE champion not a belt holder like bhop was for most of his defenses. marvelous was the cock of the walk. he went through hell to get a title shot. he was the definition of an avoided fighter. but once he got the titles, he ducked noone. he beat the man in front of him and the next fight was against the next in line.

and to the youngsters. do a little homework because if you truly believe that hearns was his signature win, you have a lot of studying to do before you can talk about hagler.

Exactly. the 3 rd. knockout was just the latest in a long line of accomplishments. #1 fighter of the 80's

[bill poster]

was Hagler small for a middleweight? Its just that he looked much the same frame size as Duran.

[Robbi]

Exactly. the 3 rd. knockout was just the latest in a long line of accomplishments. #1 fighter of the 80's

Agreed to an extent. Hagler was brilliant versatile fighting machine, and was without question of the best of the 80's. Its up for arguement that he was the best fighter of that decade.

Many people tend to go with Leonard, based on the factual evidence that he beat Hearns, Duran, and Hagler. Especially since he had one fight in five years before before sharing a ring with Hagler. Nobody thought Leonard would last 12 rounds, never mind winning a controversial decision. All the Hagler fans would have been licking their lips before the first bell rang, expecting an easy nights work. The excuses poured out after Leonard won.

Hagler's status as a true middleweight great was always in question until he beat Hearns. Minter, Obel, Hamsho, Sibson, Roldan, etc. All very good middleweights, nothing more. The Duran performance was hardly convincing, especially as Duran was a natural lightweight. Not the perfomance of a middleweight legend, far from it.

[redrooster]

was Hagler small for a middleweight? Its just that he looked much the same frame size as Duran.

i saw him up close once in sparring. he is kind of small in person. maybe 5-8

[Luigi1985]

Agreed to an extent. Hagler was brilliant versatile fighting machine, and was without question of the best of the 80's. Its up for arguement that he was the best fighter of that decade.

Many people tend to go with Leonard, based on the factual evidence that he beat Hearns, Duran, and Hagler. Especially since he had one fight in five years before before sharing a ring with Hagler. Nobody thought Leonard would last 12 rounds, never mind winning a controversial decision. All the Hagler fans would have been licking their lips before the first bell rang, expecting an easy nights work. The excuses poured out after Leonard won.

Hagler's status as a true middleweight great was always in question until he beat Hearns. Minter, Obel, Hamsho, Sibson, Roldan, etc. All very good middleweights, nothing more. The Duran performance was hardly convincing, especially as Duran was a natural lightweight. Not the perfomance of a middleweight legend, far from it.


Perhaps the reson therefore is, that you underrate Duran at 160 lbs.? For me personally, Hagler could have fought a bit more aggressive, but he fought smart, he knew how good Duran even at 160 lbs was...

[Robbi]

Perhaps the reson therefore is, that you underrate Duran at 160 lbs.? For me personally, Hagler could have fought a bit more aggressive, but he fought smart, he knew how good Duran even at 160 lbs was...

Hagler knew how good Duran was even at 160lbs?.

Duran prior to facing Hagler had never fought at 160lbs. His punch resistance was untested at the weight, as was his chin. And Duran moved up for money not because he was struggling to make 154lbs, hence the reason he moved back down after Hagler defeated him. Also, nobody expected Duran to fight cautiously and so defensively.
The press, Hagler, and everyone in the fight game expected Duran to press the action. For you to say Hagler KNEW how good Duran was even at 160lbs is something you have said in hindsight, after the fight has taken place. 24 years later.

Before they stepped into the ring, Hagler never knew how good Duran was at 160lbs. To make matters worse Duran started off at lightweight, thus making your ridiculous statement look laughable.

[Luigi1985]

Hagler knew how good Duran was even at 160lbs?.

Duran prior to facing Hagler had never fought at 160lbs. His punch resistance was untested at the weight, and Duran moved up for money not because he was struggling to make 154lbs. Also, nobody expected Duran to fight cautiously and so defensively.

The press, Hagler, and everyone in the fight game expected Duran to press the action. For you to say Hagler KNEW how good Duran was even at 160lbs is something you have said in hindsight, after the fight has taken place. 24 years later.

Before they stepped into the ring, Hagler never knew how good Duran was at 160lbs. To make matters worse Duran started off at lightweight, thus making your ridiculous statement look laughable.


You´re the one who has a Hagler-avatar, but who is in reality a Hopkins-fanboy. IMO that´s laughable and ridiculous. Hagler´s these that Duran is even at 160 lbs a hell of a fighter was getting confermed later when Duran beat Barkley, a good fighter who has just beaten Hearns there and who was a big MW...

[Robbi]

You´re the one who has a Hagler-avatar, but who is in reality a Hopkins-fanboy. IMO that´s laughable and ridiculous. Hagler´s these that Duran is even at 160 lbs a hell of a fighter was getting confermed later when Duran beat Barkley, a good fighter who has just beaten Hearns there and who was a big MW...

Hagler in my avatar should have nothing to do with your response. I happen to be a Hagler fan, but it doesn't mean I should gloat and overblow his achivements just because pictures appear of him at the left handside. Thats what you call being biased, not me I'm afriad.

Sugar Ray Leonard I personally don't like. However, that doesn't mean I should scrutinize and downplay his career.

You happend to previously quote my post by saying "Hagler knew how good Duran was even at 160lbs". Thats not true, and its factually incorrect. Thats like me saying "I'm going on holiday to Spain tommorow and I will know the weather will be sunny and over 80 degrees". Wrong, I wouldn't actually know how good the weather was until I arrived.

Hagler never knew how good Duran was at 160lbs, and for any person on the planet to say otherwise is a fool.

He certainly knew how good Duran was after he won a lacklusture 15 round decision, and was made to look ordinary under the lights at Ceasars Palace. Duran performed well against Hagler, considering it was his first fight at the weight. He was untested against a middleweight, as was his ability to take a punch from one, and his own power was questioned as well before he squared off against Hagler. As is any fighter moving up who previously never fought at a higher weight.

Yes after all that you have corrected yourself, it was further established how good Duran was at middleweight when he fought Barkley six years after Hagler.

[brownpimp88]

Whats wrong with putting michael nunn in a top 10 middleweight ranking? He beat tate, roldan and barkley at 160, 3 very good fighters. He knocked out kalambay in 1 fuckin round and he beat the two best welterweights of the era, starling and curry. Even before his title run began, he beat about 4-5 ranked middleweights. He accomplished more at 160 then fighters like nino benvenuti and even stanley ketchel for that matter. Ketchel's top win is against jack o brien and that was NOT at middleweight. Rodrigo Valdez is another guy that is usually top10-15 at 160 and Nunn has the better title run too.

Lou Bogash never beat mctigue, his win over flowers was at 175 and he lost 3 times to him. Walker and Loughran were green when he beat them, its not like he fought the prime versions.

[Luigi1985]

Hagler in my avatar should have nothing to do with your response. I happen to be a Hagler fan, but it doesn't mean I should gloat and overblow his achivements just because pictures appear of him at the left handside. Thats what you call being biased, not me I'm afriad.

Sugar Ray Leonard I personally don't like. However, that doesn't mean I should scrutinize and downplay his career.

You happend to previously quote my post by saying "Hagler knew how good Duran was even at 160lbs". Thats not true, and its factually incorrect. Thats like me saying "I'm going on holiday to Spain tommorow and I will know the weather will be sunny and over 80 degrees". Wrong, I wouldn't actually know how good the weather was until I arrived.

Hagler never knew how good Duran was at 160lbs, and for any person on the planet to say otherwise is a fool.

He certainly knew how good Duran was after he won a lacklusture 15 round decision, and was made to look ordinary under the lights at Ceasars Palace. Duran performed well against Hagler, considering it was his first fight at the weight. He was untested against a middleweight, as was his ability to take a punch from one, and his own power was questioned as well before he squared off against Hagler. As is any fighter moving up who previously never fought at a higher weight.

Yes after all that you have corrected yourself, it was further established how good Duran was at middleweight when he fought Barkley six years after Hagler.


I don´t know what you want, I said in my last post, that Hagler with his chin and power should have fought more aggressive and all that, but right now, when we look back and see what Duran later did to Barkley, we knew Hagler´s win isn´t as disappointing as we first thaught, you know what I mean?

[PowerPuncher]

Nobody has beat Wright as convincingly as Hopkins.

Vasquez knocked him down 5 or 7 times

[Robbi]

I don´t know what you want, I said in my last post, that Hagler with his chin and power should have fought more aggressive and all that, but right now, when we look back and see what Duran later did to Barkley, we knew Hagler´s win isn´t as disappointing as we first thaught, you know what I mean?

I don't want anything. You happened to say "Hagler knew Duran was good at 160lbs". That was your reponse after my post about Hagler's lacklusture display against a former lightweight. You said Hagler fought cautiously and should have forced the fight more, but he knew Duran was good at 160lbs.

My question to you. How did Hagler know Duran was good at 160lbs, when he previously never fought at the weight?.

Nobody knew how De La Hoya would perform against Sturm, and nobody knew how Mayweather would perform against De La Hoya. Nobody knew how Leonard would perform against Hagler.

The Barkley fight happened years after the Hagler fight, so did Hagler look into the future?

[JohnThomas1]

Why does Hagler need an 'appreciation thread', when he is the most overrated, best supported fighters on this board. Bearing in mind, he was basically a good all-rounder. But nothing particularly strong (neither a great boxer, nor a great pressure fighter) in any style.

There isnt a day goes by when there isnt a thread regarding Hagler


edit: One more thing, how did he get on against the best fighter he fought?

:good

[Luigi1985]

I don't want anything. You happened to say "Hagler knew Duran was good at 160lbs". That was your reponse after my post about Hagler's lacklusture display against a former lightweight. You said Hagler fought cautiously and should have forced the fight more, but he knew Duran was good at 160lbs.

My question to you. How did Hagler know Duran was good at 160lbs, when he previously never fought at the weight?.

Nobody knew how De La Hoya would perform against Sturm, and nobody knew how Mayweather would perform against De La Hoya. Nobody knew how Leonard would perform against Hagler.

The Barkley fight happened years after the Hagler fight, so did Hagler look into the future?



I simply meant, that now in 2007, when we look back on boxing history and how competive Duran could have been at 160 lbs even at a high age, we know that Hagler did everything right, and his win is a good one. That´s why I said to you you can´t compare Hopkins win over DLH (who lost normally against Sturm, who is worse than Barkley) with Hagler´s win over Duran...

[Luigi1985]

Whats wrong with putting michael nunn in a top 10 middleweight ranking? He beat tate, roldan and barkley at 160, 3 very good fighters. He knocked out kalambay in 1 fuckin round and he beat the two best welterweights of the era, starling and curry. Even before his title run began, he beat about 4-5 ranked middleweights. He accomplished more at 160 then fighters like nino benvenuti and even stanley ketchel for that matter. Ketchel's top win is against jack o brien and that was NOT at middleweight. Rodrigo Valdez is another guy that is usually top10-15 at 160 and Nunn has the better title run too.

Lou Bogash never beat mctigue, his win over flowers was at 175 and he lost 3 times to him. Walker and Loughran were green when he beat them, its not like he fought the prime versions.


Informate completely before you post. You know why he fought Tiger Flowers that often? Becaue after his win against him, he was robbed (he floored him 2 or 3 times also), that´s why he got another chance. In their 3rd fight he was completely shot, I have fight reports from some of their fights, and after the 2nd Bogash was really completely shot, Loughran and Walker were both near peak, both had over 30 fights at that point, that´s not green. Bogash was at least three times better than a protected fighter than Nunn. Fighters like Yarosz, Gorilla Jones, Thil, Cerdan, Benvenuti, O´Dowd, etc. were also much better than Nunn, sorry to say that, but you seem to be very biased. And you criticize me because I probably don´t have Hopkins in my Top 10 ATG at MW, don´t forget, at 160 lbs there´s a deep and talented- rich era...

[brownpimp88]

Informate completely before you post. You know why he fought Tiger Flowers that often? Becaue after his win against him, he was robbed (he floored him 2 or 3 times also), that´s why he got another chance. In their 3rd fight he was completely shot, I have fight reports from some of their fights, and after the 2nd Bogash was really completely shot, Loughran and Walker were both near peak, both had over 30 fights at that point, that´s not green. Bogash was at least three times better than a protected fighter than Nunn. Fighters like Yarosz, Gorilla Jones, Thil, Cerdan, Benvenuti, O´Dowd, etc. were also much better than Nunn, sorry to say that, but you seem to be very biased. And you criticize me because I probably don´t have Hopkins in my Top 10 ATG at MW, don´t forget, at 160 lbs there´s a deep and talented- rich era... Who did walker and loughran beat prior to fighting bogash, o yeah nobody. Nunn was far more talented than all of those fighters you just listed, old school nuthuggery at its finest. Nunn accomplished more at middleweight than benvenuti did, god stop showing bias towards italian fighters. Not only is nunn more talented than nino, hes much bigger and faster, he would have kicked his ass with relative ease.

[dmille]

Cuz he is considered hagler's best win and leonard only had 1 fight there.

It might be considered his best fight, but his best win?

Ever see Hagler's late stoppages of Monroe and Colbert? Or his crushing of Seales, Watts and Minter?

Middleweights have always defended against moving up welters, so that criticism doesn't fly against anyone.

Reasons to appreciate Hagler?

Hagler became the legit number one contender in 1977. He was being throughly out boxed by the unbeaten Mike Colbert, until he landed the bomb that broke his jaw.

It took him two years to get his shot. Valdez should have been losing his belt to Marvleous in early 78.

Corro, Minter and Antuofermo should have only been challengers who lost and the number of defense would have been closer to 18 instead of 12.

You can forget the revisionist history surrounding that draw with Antuofermo. Marvin was flat out robbed. 10-5 was being generous to Vito. Then he had to wait almost another year.

Many are talking about the Hearns fight. Let's not forget that Hagler's face was ripped to shreds. Tommy opened up 60+ fights worth of scar tissue in less than 3 minutes. The ref had already called up the doctor to take a look. Marvin was minutes from being stopped himself when he landed those three monster shots.

[Luigi1985]

Who did walker and loughran beat prior to fighting bogash, o yeah nobody. Nunn was far more talented than all of those fighters you just listed, old school nuthuggery at its finest. Nunn accomplished more at middleweight than benvenuti did, god stop showing bias towards italian fighters. Not only is nunn more talented than nino, hes much bigger and faster, he would have kicked his ass with relative ease.


What´s that for a shit? Shall I say Nunn is better than Benvenuti legacy-wise (and head-to-head) although it isn´t so, only because I´m Italian? I could also say you just say Nunn is better because you´re black...


nothing new on this forum, when somebody doesn´t know anymore how he can answer, he use this tactic ("You´re a hater!" or "You just say that because you´re from that country!", etc.), find something better, kiddie...

[brownpimp88]

What´s that for a shit? Shall I say Nunn is better than Benvenuti legacy-wise (and head-to-head) although it isn´t so, only because I´m Italian? I could also say you just say Nunn is better because you´re black...


nothing new on this forum, when somebody doesn´t know anymore how he can answer, he use this tactic ("You´re a hater!" or "You just say that because you´re from that country!", etc.), find something better, kiddie...
I'm not black and legacy wise nunn beat the better fighters too. All of ninos top wins are blown up welterweights, he never beat a legit middleweight like kalambay, barkely or tate, not even close. Nunn has more skill, hes bigger and hes taller, only way nino would win is by ko and stopping nunn isnt exactly that easy to do. Nunn would box his ears off and put a paintjob on him.

[Luigi1985]

I'm not black and legacy wise nunn beat the better fighters too. All of ninos top wins are blown up welterweights, he never beat a legit middleweight like kalambay, barkely or tate, not even close. Nunn has more skill, hes bigger and hes taller, only way nino would win is by ko and stopping nunn isnt exactly that easy to do. Nunn would box his ears off and put a paintjob on him.



:lol:


Benvenuti beat fighters like Mazzinghi, Griffith, Rodriguez, etc....


create a thread and ask who wins, some posters like you, Clay II, Groove, etc. pick perhaps Nunn, but the good posters will pick Nino...

[brownpimp88]

:lol:


Benvenuti beat fighters like Mazzinghi, Griffith, Rodriguez, etc....


create a thread and ask who wins, some posters like you, Clay II, Groove, etc. pick perhaps Nunn, but the good posters will pick Nino...
2 blown up welterweights and a junior middleweight. Tell me, how would nino win this fight, hes the less talented fighter, hes the smaller fighter, hes the slower fighter.

[Luigi1985]

2 blown up welterweights and a junior middleweight. Tell me, how would nino win this fight, hes the less talented fighter, hes the smaller fighter, hes the slower fighter.


But Griffith for example won more at 160 lbs than Nunn ever, that alone should answer your stupid question...

[brownpimp88]

But Griffith for example won more at 160 lbs than Nunn ever, that alone should answer your stupid question...
How the fuck is it a stupid question you moron. Tate, Roldan, Kalambay, Barkley, Curry, Starling. That is a much better title run that beating griffith, bums like scott and bethea, rodriguez and don fullmer. Like i said before, tell me how the fuck nino would win the fight?

[redrooster]

Agreed to an extent. Hagler was brilliant versatile fighting machine, and was without question of the best of the 80's. Its up for arguement that he was the best fighter of that decade.

Many people tend to go with Leonard, based on the factual evidence that he beat Hearns, Duran, and Hagler. Especially since he had one fight in five years before before sharing a ring with Hagler. Nobody thought Leonard would last 12 rounds, never mind winning a controversial decision. All the Hagler fans would have been licking their lips before the first bell rang, expecting an easy nights work. The excuses poured out after Leonard won.

Hagler's status as a true middleweight great was always in question until he beat Hearns. Minter, Obel, Hamsho, Sibson, Roldan, etc. All very good middleweights, nothing more. The Duran performance was hardly convincing, especially as Duran was a natural lightweight. Not the perfomance of a middleweight legend, far from it.

Correction Robbi. That doesn't apply to me. I saw Hagler in sparring which I told you in the PM earlier. In the sparring he showed no life and something looked drastically wrong with him. He was matched up with the Weaver tripplets, three guys I never heard of wo were used to prepare Hagler for the speedy opponent. and Hagler couldn't cope with the speed of the tripplets so what does that tell you? Is it any wonder why leonard did as well as he did? And since I am wise to what happend, I hesitate to put leonard at the top as so many people want me to do-which I won't.

[dmille]

How the fuck is it a stupid question you moron. Tate, Roldan, Kalambay, Barkley, Curry, Starling. That is a much better title run that beating griffith, bums like scott and bethea, rodriguez and don fullmer. Like i said before, tell me how the fuck nino would win the fight?

Are you really calling former world welterweight champion Luis Rodriguez, a bum?

[brownpimp88]

Are you really calling former world welterweight champion Luis Rodriguez, a bum?
no i called scott and betha bums. Nunn has a better resume than benventui anyways. When nunn was champ, he was top 5 p4p. Nino was never at any point in his career given that type of praise becuase he was never that great and he isnt an ATG.

[dmille]

no i called scott and betha bums. Nunn has a better resume than benventui anyways. When nunn was champ, he was top 5 p4p. Nino was never at any point in his career given that type of praise because he was never that great and he isn't an ATG.

You are making two separate points here.

One is that IYO Nino Benvenuti was not an ATG. I agree.

The other is that IYO Michael Nunn is one of the top 10 middleweights of all-time. I disagree. IMO Nunn is not even one of the top 25.

Ability is only part of the quotient. Heart and chin count too.

Nunn fought one proven great fighter. He was knocked out.

[The Whaler]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

TZHIo5ylQA8

One of the best highlight videos ever.

[Street Lethal]

Cuz he is considered hagler's best win and leonard only had 1 fight there.
Leonard had several fights at middleweight.

[brownpimp88]

You are making two separate points here.

One is that IYO Nino Benvenuti was not an ATG. I agree.

The other is that IYO Michael Nunn is one of the top 10 middleweights of all-time. I disagree. IMO Nunn is not even one of the top 25.

Ability is only part of the quotient. Heart and chin count too.

Nunn fought one proven great fighter. He was knocked out.
Sumbu Kalambay and Iran barkely are not proven fighters?

[My dinner with Conteh]

When nunn was champ, he was top 5 p4p. Nino was never at any point in his career given that type of praise becuase he was never that great and he isnt an ATG.


Saying that Nino wasn't rated in or around the TOP 5 pound-for-pound was he was in his pomp shows how much (or little) you know. :good

[RockyJim]

Met Marvin several time being from Massachusetts. Class guy....hard worker ..
trained like an old school fighter....I'd put 'em in the ring against any of 'em..
Robinson...Zale...LaMotta...Graziano...Monzon...Walker....Cerdan.....

[Mantequilla]

You are making two separate points here.

One is that IYO Nino Benvenuti was not an ATG. I agree.

The other is that IYO Michael Nunn is one of the top 10 middleweights of all-time. I disagree. IMO Nunn is not even one of the top 25.

Ability is only part of the quotient. Heart and chin count too.

Nunn fought one proven great fighter. He was knocked out.

I agree with you about Nunn, but i think Kalambay was at the very least as good as Toney at middleweight

Of course that first round ko was a much of an anomaly result as is possible in boxing.

[roxyboxy]

One of my all-time greatest memories was going to see a PPV of the fight with my dad, my cousin, and my uncle. I was a kid. We were in a huge facility watching it on a bigscreen.

There was pot in the air and everyone was hyped. We suffered through the undercard....and BAM! The fight was over so fast.

[dmille]

Sumbu Kalambay and Iran barkely are not proven fighters?

I am trying to discuss these issues in a manner befitting the classic forum. Maybe you need to work on your reading skills. Maybe you need to not selectively edit someone's post when you quote them.

In either case, let me help you out here.

Nunn fought one proven GREAT fighter. He was knocked out.

Is that better? Does that word stand out enough now that you won't miss it this time?

[dmille]

I agree with you about Nunn, but i think Kalambay was at the very least as good as Toney at middleweight

I said that Toney was a proven GREAT. Maybe you can point out to me the proof that Kalambay was GREAT.

[brownpimp88]

I said that Toney was a proven GREAT. Maybe you can point out to me that proof that Kalambay was GREAT.
Kalambay at 160 was about as good if not better than emile griffith, emile's overall record at 160 is nothing to brag about really. Nino lost to most of the top guys he fought anyways.

[dmille]

Kalambay at 160 was about as good if not better than emile griffith, emile's overall record at 160 is nothing to brag about really. Nino lost to most of the top guys he fought anyways.

WTF does Griffith have to do with Kalambay?

[redrooster]

I said that Toney was a proven GREAT. Maybe you can point out to me the proof that Kalambay was GREAT.

dmille, you make a lot of sense but my question is how do you prove if someone has it or not.

[dmille]

dmille, you make a lot of sense but my question is how do you prove if someone has it or not.

IMO greatness is a hierarchy

A fighter can prove themselves as (merely) great in any one of three ways:

1 Have a great record, proves consistency over the course of a career
2 Defeat great fighters, proves ability to win at the top level
3 Win great fights, proves ability to overcome adversity

An all-time great must prove themselves in two more ways:

4 Total dominance. IMO the most dominant fighter is the undisputed champion who defenses his title against the legitimate (not alphabet) number one contender once a year. Many would cite longevity, but I say that longevity must be combined with dominance.

5 Pound-for-pound. IMO for the all-time great weight shouldn't matter (within reason, of course). A fighter can prove himself p4p in two ways. The smaller fighter can prove himself by successfully moving up in weight. The larger fighter can prove himself by stopping the smaller fighter from successfully moving up. And IMO every heavyweight title fight is a pound-for-pound matchup due to the unlimited nature of the division.

[redrooster]

IMO greatness is a hierarchy

A fighter can prove themselves as (merely) great in any one of three ways:

1 Have a great record, proves consistency over the course of a career
2 Defeat great fighters, proves ability to win at the top level
3 Win great fights, proves ability to overcome adversity

An all-time great must prove themselves in two more ways:

4 Total dominance. IMO the most dominant fighter is the undisputed champion who defenses his title against the legitimate (not alphabet) number one contender once a year. Many would cite longevity, but I say that longevity must be combined with dominance.

5 Pound-for-pound. IMO for the all-time great weight shouldn't matter (within reason, of course). A fighter can prove himself p4p in two ways. The smaller fighter can prove himself by successfully moving up in weight. The larger fighter can prove himself by stopping the smaller fighter from successfully moving up. And IMO every heavyweight title fight is a pound-for-pound matchup due to the unlimited nature of the division.

That's pretty good Dmille, not to mention original. You actually have a system. I never saw anyone with their own rules that go with a heirarchy. That explains why you have Hagler ranked so high in reference to some of the things you said about him. Still, I have a few doubts about Toney and I really think someone like Kalambay was a tough nut to crack which Nunn obviously did when he found that opening through his guard.

In the end though, you have more persuasive proof with Toney standing and Nunn lying flat on the canvas. And as I've said, the victor gets all the bragging rights.

[brownpimp88]

WTF does Griffith have to do with Kalambay?
Kalambay arguably accomplished more than nino benvenuti, so i can make a claim that nunn kod someone thats even better than nino.

[cardstars]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

TZHIo5ylQA8

One of the best highlight videos ever.

That highlight video gave me the shivers.....he is indeed "the marvelous one"

[My dinner with Conteh]

He was great. One of the best. I rate him 2nd behind Monzon and ahead of the Sugarman at 160.

[TBooze]

A great fighter and one of the finest Middleweights ever, also a self made superstar.

Hagler got nothing easy, and when he had everything, he still trained with that hunger that got him to the top, something even his few peers could not always do.

[My dinner with Conteh]

A great fighter and one of the finest Middleweights ever, also a self made superstar.

Hagler got nothing easy, and when he had everything, he still trained with that hunger that got him to the top, something even his few peers could not always do.



I agree. One of the (many) things you have to credit Marv for is his ability to be 'up' for every fight. Let's face it, it must have been dismaying for him when he found out he had to fight Hamsho and Obel in rematches, when he dusted them so convincingly first time out. Still, he got on with business in his usual manner.

[dmt]

he was also highly feared and avoided. Amazing chin, all round game.

[dmille]

Kalambay arguably accomplished more than nino benvenuti, so i can make a claim that nunn kod someone thats even better than nino.

The opinion in question is your opinion that Michael Nunn is an all-time great middleweight. That has nothing to do with Nino or Griffith. His rating as an all-time great is independent of any other fighter's achievements. It is based on his achievements (or lack of them) alone.

[Mantequilla]

I said that Toney was a proven GREAT. Maybe you can point out to me the proof that Kalambay was GREAT.

A proven great to you.Not imo and i was simply pointing out i actually think the kalambay nunn beat was superior to the toney that beat nunn(or any Toney i ever saw for that matter), not disagreeing with your point on Nunn.

[dmille]

That's pretty good Dmille, not to mention original. You actually have a system. I never saw anyone with their own rules that go with a hierarchy. That explains why you have Hagler ranked so high in reference to some of the things you said about him. Still, I have a few doubts about Toney and I really think someone like Kalambay was a tough nut to crack which Nunn obviously did when he found that opening through his guard.

In the end though, you have more persuasive proof with Toney standing and Nunn lying flat on the canvas. And as I've said, the victor gets all the bragging rights.

My hierarchy is a pyramid. It has three general levels:

1 All-time greats
2 Legends
3 Greats

Within the all-time level, I have four sub-levels

1
2-10
11-80
81-100

At the top is one fighter, the greatest fighter of all-time pound-for-pound.

The next level down is the top ten fighters of all-time pound-for-pound (including that top fighter).

The next level down is the top ten fighters of all time from each of the eight traditional weight divisions (which includes the top ten pound for-pound).

IMO every all-time rating is also a pound-for-pound all-time rating. For example, the greatest welterweight of all-time is also the greatest welterweight of all-time pound-for-pound.

Eight of the top ten all-time pound-for-pound greats are the number one fighters of all-time from each of the eight traditional weight classes. I rate fighters in one division only, their natural/prime weight division. I constantly cross-compared the eight top tens with ten top eights to balance dominance with my pound-for-pound criteria.

After that those eighty, I round out my top 100 with those fighters who fall just outside the top ten for each weight division.

Many use the terms legend and all-time great as though they were interchangable. IMO legend is short for legend-in-their-own-time. All-time great transcend their own eras and could compete at the top level during any decade.

There are probably somewhere between 200 and 400 fighters who fall into that legend category. And there are around another 500 fighters who are (merely) greats.

Great is a term I use very loosely. Because as I said previously a fighter can prove himself great in any one of three ways.

1 Have a great record
2 Defeat great fighters
3 Win great fights

Example, Buster Douglas proved himself to be a great fighter by defeating Mike Tyson. Now he was great for only one fight, but that is the shame of it - what could have been.

Guys like Ward and Gatti proved themselves to be great fighters based on their trilogy of FOTY-level wars.

Even a fighter like Buck Smith, who fought mostly tomato cans, is great if only for his outrageous 178-19-2 (118 KOs) record.

Now come full circle and go back to Michael Nunn. His 58-4 record is an achievement he can be proud of; same with his 9 title defenses (5 at 160, 4 at 168). That's the first citeria.

Number two. His victories over A-level opposition Tate, Kalambay and Barkely are his most significant, followed by Starling, Curry and Cordova. You can throw in his pre-title wins over Alex Ramos and Curtis Parker as well.

But the only fighter he faced that comes close to hitting all five of my standards knocked him out. And Toney's meeting the dominance criteria is questionable due to so many controversial wins (Sosa, Johnson, McCallum, Tiberi). And Sosa was JT's only meaningful bout before getting the shot at Nunn.

Third criteria? Nunn never won a fight that I would call a war let alone a FOTY level battle. His crushing of Kalambay was more a great victory than a great fight.

Dominance? IMO he was the WORLD champion after that win, but he should have been facing McCallum, Benn and Jackson, rather than Curry or Starling.

P4P? Fugadabodit...

IMO he is not one of the top 20 middleweights of all-time nor one of the top 100 of all-time pound-for-pound.

[dmille]

A proven great to you. Not imo and i was simply pointing out i actually think the kalambay nunn beat was superior to the toney that beat nunn (or any Toney i ever saw for that matter), not disagreeing with your point on Nunn.

Well then point out anything significant that proved to you that Kalambay was better than simply world class.

His splitting two with McCallum? His pair of nods over Graham? Wins over Barkely and Collins?

Superior to any Toney you ever saw? And he proved it by getting taken out in the first round? Yeah much more impressive than JT's brawl with Jirov, his thrashing of Holy and his embarassingly easy out-boxing of Ruiz

[brownpimp88]

Well then point out anything significant that proved to you that Kalambay was better than simply world class.

His splitting two with McCallum? His pair of nods over Graham? Wins over Barkely and Collins?

Superior to any Toney you ever saw? And he proved it by getting taken out in the first round? Yeah much more impressive than JT's brawl with Jirov, his thrashing of Holy and his embarassingly easy out-boxing of Ruiz
Please give me ur 20 middleweights that accomplished more? I guarantee you will put either marcel cerdan, valdez or zale on that list, what did they do that was so significant. You will probably put stanley ketchel on you list too even though his best wins are over jack o brien at 175 and fuckin billy papke of all people.

[dmille]

Please give me your 20 middleweights that accomplished more? I guarantee you will put either Marcel Cerdan, Valdez or Zale on that list, what did they do that was so significant? You will probably put Stanley Ketchel on your list too even though his best wins are over Jack O' Brien at 175 and fuckin' Billy Papke of all people.

More than Kalambay or Nunn?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "fuckin' Billy Papke of all people" world middleweight champion?

[brownpimp88]

More than Kalambay or Nunn?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "fuckin' Billy Papke of all people" world middleweight champion?
A world champ in the baby stages of boxing and in a weak era. Billy Papke is his signature win and ketchel gets regarded as a top 5-7 middleweight of all times.

[dmille]

A world champ in the baby stages of boxing and in a weak era. Billy Papke is his signature win and ketchel gets regarded as a top 5-7 middleweight of all times.

And all this time I thought the baby stages of boxing were before the establishment of the London Prize Ring rules (1743)...

Is fighting still fighting? Is tough still tough? Is fast still fast? Is ten seconds still a knockout?

You think you could have whipped his [Papke's] @ss?

[SeanDoc]

Best beard in boxing

[The Whaler]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Hagler dispensing fatherly advice.

[cardstars]

It might be considered his best fight, but his best win?

Ever see Hagler's late stoppages of Monroe and Colbert? Or his crushing of Seales, Watts and Minter?

Middleweights have always defended against moving up welters, so that criticism doesn't fly against anyone.

Reasons to appreciate Hagler?

Hagler became the legit number one contender in 1977. He was being throughly out boxed by the unbeaten Mike Colbert, until he landed the bomb that broke his jaw.

It took him two years to get his shot. Valdez should have been losing his belt to Marvleous in early 78.

Corro, Minter and Antuofermo should have only been challengers who lost and the number of defense would have been closer to 18 instead of 12.

You can forget the revisionist history surrounding that draw with Antuofermo. Marvin was flat out robbed. 10-5 was being generous to Vito. Then he had to wait almost another year.

Many are talking about the Hearns fight. Let's not forget that Hagler's face was ripped to shreds. Tommy opened up 60+ fights worth of scar tissue in less than 3 minutes. The ref had already called up the doctor to take a look. Marvin was minutes from being stopped himself when he landed those three monster shots.

Where do you rank Hagler on your all-time heirarchy list? Is he tier 2? And if so, which number do you have him at? (Just out of curiousity). And who is your #1? SRR?

[dmille]

Where do you rank Hagler on your all-time heirarchy list? Is he tier 2? And if so, which number do you have him at? (Just out of curiousity). And who is your #1? SRR?

I rate Marvin Hagler as the number 2 middleweight of all-time. I rate him in my all-time P4P at 15.

I rate fighters in one weight division only. I rate Robinson as the number one welterweight of all-time and as the number two fighter of all-time P4P.

[cardstars]

I rate Marvin Hagler as the number 2 middleweight of all-time. I rate him in my all-time P4P at 15.

I rate fighters in one weight division only. I rate Robinson as the number one welterweight of all-time and as the number two fighter of all-time P4P.

So who do you have at #1 p4p all time?

[dmille]

If not Robinson, it should be Greb, but something tells me he's one of them who puts Armstrong up there, a bit unjustly in my book.

Unjustly?