Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hench
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hench
Spinks would have been too classy for Hagler. He would have used his height and reach advantage and boxed his way to a UD.
Even mentioning the fights he had with Holmes and Tyson is just stupid.
why is it?? i was making a point with the few spinks fights ive seen he didnt like people that were aggressive holmes for example changed his tactics and spinks should of lost the fight plus spinks was complaining in his corner mostly every round and tyson fight tyson come right at him and he lasted 88 seconds so i dont see how that is stupid
Because there is a massive difference between losing to Marvin Hagler who is a middleweight and having 2 very close fights with Larry Holmes who was a Heavyweight.
I thought that was obvious.
i was on about aggressive side of it and how spinks hated it not the weight difference no one knows what hagler would be like at lightheavyweight anyway
Hagler was 5'9. Holmes was 6'3.
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hench
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hench
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hench
Spinks would have been too classy for Hagler. He would have used his height and reach advantage and boxed his way to a UD.
Even mentioning the fights he had with Holmes and Tyson is just stupid.
why is it?? i was making a point with the few spinks fights ive seen he didnt like people that were aggressive holmes for example changed his tactics and spinks should of lost the fight plus spinks was complaining in his corner mostly every round and tyson fight tyson come right at him and he lasted 88 seconds so i dont see how that is stupid
Because there is a massive difference between losing to Marvin Hagler who is a middleweight and having 2 very close fights with Larry Holmes who was a Heavyweight.
I thought that was obvious.
i was on about aggressive side of it and how spinks hated it not the weight difference no one knows what hagler would be like at lightheavyweight anyway
Hagler was 5'9. Holmes was 6'3.
tyson was 5 10 :)
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
Mike Tyson was 223 also. Spinks would outweight Hagler by alot at light heavyweight... the only guys I could see beating Spinks moving up from middleweight were Roy Jones Jr., and Bernard Hopkins.
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hench
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hench
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hench
Spinks would have been too classy for Hagler. He would have used his height and reach advantage and boxed his way to a UD.
Even mentioning the fights he had with Holmes and Tyson is just stupid.
why is it?? i was making a point with the few spinks fights ive seen he didnt like people that were aggressive holmes for example changed his tactics and spinks should of lost the fight plus spinks was complaining in his corner mostly every round and tyson fight tyson come right at him and he lasted 88 seconds so i dont see how that is stupid
Because there is a massive difference between losing to Marvin Hagler who is a middleweight and having 2 very close fights with Larry Holmes who was a Heavyweight.
I thought that was obvious.
i was on about aggressive side of it and how spinks hated it not the weight difference no one knows what hagler would be like at lightheavyweight anyway
Hagler was 5'9. Holmes was 6'3.
tyson was 5 10 :)
So we've gone from comparing Holmes to Hagler, to Tyson to Hagler ?
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
ur not getting it what im trying to say is that holmes and tyson both fought aggressive fight vs spinks and spinks couldnt really handle it forgetting size and ect and hagler is very aggressive guy with iron chin so i think he could take spinks
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
A very silly thread. Spinks would use distance and pick his shots. Hagler would have a tough time getting in close....
Spinks would win with yarns to spare...
Again a very stupid thread...
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hench
Spinks would have been too classy for Hagler. He would have used his height and reach advantage and boxed his way to a UD.
Even mentioning the fights he had with Holmes and Tyson is just stupid.
why is it?? i was making a point with the few spinks fights ive seen he didnt like people that were aggressive holmes for example changed his tactics and spinks should of lost the fight plus spinks was complaining in his corner mostly every round and tyson fight tyson come right at him and he lasted 88 seconds so i dont see how that is stupid
Yeah but those fights were at heavyweight where he could be outmuscled. Not at light heavyweight where he was natural
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
ur not getting it what im trying to say is that holmes and tyson both fought aggressive fight vs spinks and spinks couldnt really handle it forgetting size and ect and hagler is very aggressive guy with iron chin so i think he could take spinks
Tyson was more skilled, faster, and way stronger than Hagler, Holmes had a great jab was 6'4, and was one of the best heavyweight ever... thats 25 pounds up from light heavyweight... FOr this reason Spinks wasn't as a big of a puncher p4p at that weight, and both of those guys could likely take way more punishment than Hagler.
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
I don't think he gets it.
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Mike Tyson was 223 also. Spinks would outweight Hagler by alot at light heavyweight... the only guys I could see beating Spinks moving up from middleweight were Roy Jones Jr., and Bernard Hopkins.
No way Taeth - Hagler was a better fighter in every department than Hopkins.
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
Really good question!! never thought about this one... I didn't ever really like Spinks but i think Haggler was one dimensional as well. Haggler was well skilled and used power to dominate so his advantages would be lessened as he moved up in weight. Spunks used an unorthodox style to frustrate opponent's and was quite fast,picking good counter punching opportunities. Haggler had trouble with Leonard due to his skills, so make him taller and stronger and more frustrating and i see Spinks as the winner by decision. Haggler's chance is by ko but since Holmes couldn't get to him with a traditional and sound style with a great jab i don't see Haggler doing it.
One other comment if i may to the more knowledgable and experienced posters, I think it is unwise to criticize other peoples opinion with comments such as "stupid" or "idiot" it is unnecessary and discourages involvement in the forum. It wont be much fun talking to yourself. I encourage criticism or shall we say counter viewpoints esp when they are supported by evidence. Thanx to all.
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
I think if you compare the Spinks who fought at heavyweight to the Spinks who would fight Marvin Hagler, that is a much different Spinks. If he fought Marvin, Michael Spinks would have a size advantage which he did not have at heavyweight, especially in weight. Michael would not be moving back with Hagler.. Hagler would probably see things he never saw before in that he would not be able to bully Spinks around like he did the guys he fought at middleweight. The thing I give Hagler which would maybe work for him is the southpaw stance and his speed. He was faster than most people give him credit for, although when he got a little older he stood more and started to slug like he did with Mugabi and Leonard. With Hearns, Hagler fought that way because he knew he had to for the win. This is why I think he might not have fought Spinks. With Hearns he put up the fight of his life and fought a certain way knowing he would not win with boxing. So he would know Spinks would have the same advantages as Hearns, although Hearns was faster than Spinks.. But for Hearns,Mugabi and Leonard Hagler slugged, and he did well with that style since he could punch hard and he had a great chin. Hagler was not one dimensional at all. in his younger years he was a technical fighter who was overwhelming. But if Hagler moved up to Spinks division. I would see Spinks land the jinx and Marvin trying to push the fight with activity, but the weight difference would be the key. I just do not know if Hagler at 5-9 could have moved up and fought effectively.Hagler was such a great middleweight, but the dominance I think was made for 160. I wonder if the Spinks Jinx would hurt Marvin. .
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
I think Spinks would have been a comfortable(ish) winner had they fought in 1985/6.
Hagler had lost a lot of speed by then & that would have beem his only advantage against the bigger stronger Spinks.
Re: Marvin Hagler vs. Michael Spinks 1985
Quote:
Originally Posted by raleigh
Spinks had a huge advanatage in sheer size didn't he? Not really weight but just the structure of his body was much bigger I thought
yeah..but Hagler brought the hammer!!!! and Spinks didn't like the pressure brought on him...I think Hagler would do what B-HOP did......I am in no way saying Tarver is anywhere near Spinks....
