Calzaghe-Hagler?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

I don't get your logic why would Hagler be able to break down a guy who gets stronger as the fight progresses? If anything Calzaghe is one of the few champions who would be WAY better if fights were still 15 rounds long.

---

I hear you, and it's a good point, but my reasoning is different. Against most fighters, you are right that Calzaghe would be an even better 15 round fighter. He's my thinking, but I could be wrong.

Both Hagler and Calzaghe get stronger as the fight goes on, but Hagler would be putting more punishment on Calzaghe than Calzaghe could put on Hagler. Calzaghe would be able to steal rounds, much like Leonard did, but the cumulative affect would take it's toll eventually. Leonard was a great 15 round fighter, too, but if the fight with Hagler had been 15, Hagler certainly would have stopped him. It was Calzaghe's EARLY lead that carried him through against Reid, and IMHO, if Hagler had hitting Calzaghe like Reid hit Calzaghe, Calzaghe might not have energy for a strong finish.

For the record, and old Joe Calzaghe beats an old Marvin Hagler. Joe aged much better than Marvin. The version of Hagler that fought Leonard and Mugabi would get outboxed by Joe C.

---

That's valid, I am not sure I would see a younger Hagler putting that type of punishment on Calzaghe though. I think Calzaghe is better now than in his physical prime because he has improved as a boxer, I am not sure Hagler would find it super easy to hit him, I mean both Hopkins and Roy are old, they are still very quick and still amazingly accurate, and even Bernard had some difficulties finding Calzaghe as the night progressed because Joe doesn't slow down.

And like Rozzysean said, I don't think prime Hagler would be so eager to just pressure Calzaghe, and I don't think he is fast enough to catch Calzaghe coming in, consistently. Kessler was able to because he was orthodox, and Bernard was able to because he is an amazing counter puncher, but both gradually landed less, and less punches as Calzaghe maintained or increased the tempo, and got more into a rhythm.

As for Leonard, he hadn't fought in three years, so you can't really use him being good before in 15 round fights as evidence for the Hagler fight, especially against a guy so much bigger (Hagler's head probably weighed as much as Ray). I am looking back at Hagler's record and I honestly see a punch of pylons for him to walk over Minter, Watts, Hamani . I think a lot of what people see of Hagler is him fighting guys WAY worse than him, and if you remember when Foreman came back he was able to dominate guys and outbox them because they were so much below him. The guys on Hagler's list don't rate highly to me, and him not being able to stop Leonard even in 12 rounds or Duran in 15 makes me think HAgler wouldn't be too much for Calzaghe.

---

I can't argue against the reality that Hagler got stuck fighting a lot of people that were far below him during his championship period. It wasn't the best era for MW's. What I can say in defense of Hagler's list is that he DEMOLISHED all the lesser fighters put before him, more so than many other great champions, that were forced to defend against less than world class opponents for stretches of their careers. Considering that both Duran and Leonard are ATG's and lower weight or not, better fighters than any non-Hopkins fighter Calzaghe has faced. I'm not too troubled that he didn't stop them.

The only point I really disagree with you on is that Hagler was great counterpuncher, perhaps equal to Hopkins, but certainly not too far behind him, and he had better killer instict. He was a different style than Hopkins, but his countering was no less effective. He would explode out of counter-mode and go into full attack mode, unlike many other superb counterpunchers, and he was an amazing finisher once he got him man in trouble. If Hagler put Calzaghe on his ass like Jones or Hopkins did, I'm fairly certain that he could have pressed his advantage better than Jones or Hopkins. Hagler definately ate some shots by going for the kill, but he had the chin to take it and in the end he got was he was after.

It's not like I see Hagler an overwhelming favorite in this mythical bout. You can certainly make a legit case for Calzaghe. In some ways, they both suffered from the same problem of having trouble getting the big fights in their prime and having relatively weak opposition in the division during their reigns. Late in his career, Hagler got big fights against great WW's and LWM's moving up, and Calzaghe got big fights against great older fighters. Hagler took a loss on paper, and Calzaghe got a gift on paper.

My judgement is based in large amount that Hagler beat his second rate opponents worse than Calzaghe beat his, and that Hagler, even though he fought some smaller fighters, fought these fights were against better opposition than Calzaghe. As much as I respect Kessler, he is no Tommy Hearns, no matter the weight class, and I can't imagine guys like Brewer, Salem, Reid, Ashira, or Jiminez going the distance with Hagler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Fair play but I for one know that Reid is very underrated and was unfortunate to come at the same time as Joe, Reid had power and a good chin but lacked the fire to beat up the lesser men:confused:

Reid was deffo good;)

Yep Hagler beat him but Hagler also had losses;)

As yet Joe is unbeaten;)

Happy new year, its only a boxing forum and unless there is a delorian kicking around any old versus new boxing mythical matches are open for debate so no one will win:o;D

---

While it's impressive that Calzaghe is undefeated and Hagler had losses, you have to consider the era, the protectedness of Calzaghe, and Hagler's difficulties getting good matchups. He wasn't nearly as protected as many of today's fighters.

Reid was no pushover, that's for sure. I actually think of him as a poor man's Marvin Hagler, except orthodox. If Reid had been around at the time of Hagler, he would have been one of Hagler's tougher defenses (behind Duran, Hearns, Mugabi, and Leonard), but at the end of the day, I'm not sure Reid is much better than Hamsho, Antufermo, or Fuli Obel. Reid is more fresh in our minds, but Mustafa, Vito, and Fulegencio were no joke during there time. They were certainly better than Caveman Lee :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

I hear you, and it's a good point, but my reasoning is different. Against most fighters, you are right that Calzaghe would be an even better 15 round fighter. He's my thinking, but I could be wrong.

Both Hagler and Calzaghe get stronger as the fight goes on, but Hagler would be putting more punishment on Calzaghe than Calzaghe could put on Hagler. Calzaghe would be able to steal rounds, much like Leonard did, but the cumulative affect would take it's toll eventually. Leonard was a great 15 round fighter, too, but if the fight with Hagler had been 15, Hagler certainly would have stopped him. It was Calzaghe's EARLY lead that carried him through against Reid, and IMHO, if Hagler had hitting Calzaghe like Reid hit Calzaghe, Calzaghe might not have energy for a strong finish.

For the record, and old Joe Calzaghe beats an old Marvin Hagler. Joe aged much better than Marvin. The version of Hagler that fought Leonard and Mugabi would get outboxed by Joe C.

---

That's valid, I am not sure I would see a younger Hagler putting that type of punishment on Calzaghe though. I think Calzaghe is better now than in his physical prime because he has improved as a boxer, I am not sure Hagler would find it super easy to hit him, I mean both Hopkins and Roy are old, they are still very quick and still amazingly accurate, and even Bernard had some difficulties finding Calzaghe as the night progressed because Joe doesn't slow down.

And like Rozzysean said, I don't think prime Hagler would be so eager to just pressure Calzaghe, and I don't think he is fast enough to catch Calzaghe coming in, consistently. Kessler was able to because he was orthodox, and Bernard was able to because he is an amazing counter puncher, but both gradually landed less, and less punches as Calzaghe maintained or increased the tempo, and got more into a rhythm.

As for Leonard, he hadn't fought in three years, so you can't really use him being good before in 15 round fights as evidence for the Hagler fight, especially against a guy so much bigger (Hagler's head probably weighed as much as Ray). I am looking back at Hagler's record and I honestly see a punch of pylons for him to walk over Minter, Watts, Hamani . I think a lot of what people see of Hagler is him fighting guys WAY worse than him, and if you remember when Foreman came back he was able to dominate guys and outbox them because they were so much below him. The guys on Hagler's list don't rate highly to me, and him not being able to stop Leonard even in 12 rounds or Duran in 15 makes me think HAgler wouldn't be too much for Calzaghe.

---

I can't argue against the reality that Hagler got stuck fighting a lot of people that were far below him during his championship period. It wasn't the best era for MW's. What I can say in defense of Hagler's list is that he DEMOLISHED all the lesser fighters put before him, more so than many other great champions, that were forced to defend against less than world class opponents for stretches of their careers. Considering that both Duran and Leonard are ATG's and lower weight or not, better fighters than any non-Hopkins fighter Calzaghe has faced. I'm not too troubled that he didn't stop them.

The only point I really disagree with you on is that Hagler was great counterpuncher, perhaps equal to Hopkins, but certainly not too far behind him, and he had better killer instict. He was a different style than Hopkins, but his countering was no less effective. He would explode out of counter-mode and go into full attack mode, unlike many other superb counterpunchers, and he was an amazing finisher once he got him man in trouble. If Hagler put Calzaghe on his ass like Jones or Hopkins did, I'm fairly certain that he could have pressed his advantage better than Jones or Hopkins. Hagler definately ate some shots by going for the kill, but he had the chin to take it and in the end he got was he was after.

It's not like I see Hagler an overwhelming favorite in this mythical bout. You can certainly make a legit case for Calzaghe. In some ways, they both suffered from the same problem of having trouble getting the big fights in their prime and having relatively weak opposition in the division during their reigns. Late in his career, Hagler got big fights against great WW's and LWM's moving up, and Calzaghe got big fights against great older fighters. Hagler took a loss on paper, and Calzaghe got a gift on paper.

My judgement is based in large amount that Hagler beat his second rate opponents worse than Calzaghe beat his, and that Hagler, even though he fought some smaller fighters, fought these fights were against better opposition than Calzaghe. As much as I respect Kessler, he is no Tommy Hearns, no matter the weight class, and I can't imagine guys like Brewer, Salem, Reid, Ashira, or Jiminez going the distance with Hagler.

---

That's fair enough as long people respect that Joe is somewhere in Hagler's league. I think you broke it down very well. I have Joe winning, but I can see the arguement for the other side. I still don't agree with Hagler being the counter puncher or tactician Bernard is/was though ;P

I was always a big Hagler fan. Damn he deserved a rematch against Leonard. He earned it. :mad: And if he lost to Calzaghe the first time round, I'm damn sure he'd have something to say about it the second time around. If he had the chance.

I'd go Hagler by KO. I know Joe's got a solid chin but if Hagler floored him like Jones and Hopkins did he used to have great finishing skills and IMO wouldn't have given him chance to recover like Roy did especially.

the only way this fight would ever take place is if haglar came out of retirement right now............otherwise calzaghe would never fight him if he was at his peak, marvins now in his 50's which suits calzaghe down to a T............joe would turn down any chance of a prime fight with marvin telling us " marvins not in my league, there's no interest in the fight " he'd then go fight someone we've never heard of whos got 7 loss's on his record out of 26 fights

prime for prime i think haglar would win unless its the same judges who scored the haglar v sugar ray

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

That's valid, I am not sure I would see a younger Hagler putting that type of punishment on Calzaghe though. I think Calzaghe is better now than in his physical prime because he has improved as a boxer, I am not sure Hagler would find it super easy to hit him, I mean both Hopkins and Roy are old, they are still very quick and still amazingly accurate, and even Bernard had some difficulties finding Calzaghe as the night progressed because Joe doesn't slow down.

And like Rozzysean said, I don't think prime Hagler would be so eager to just pressure Calzaghe, and I don't think he is fast enough to catch Calzaghe coming in, consistently. Kessler was able to because he was orthodox, and Bernard was able to because he is an amazing counter puncher, but both gradually landed less, and less punches as Calzaghe maintained or increased the tempo, and got more into a rhythm.

As for Leonard, he hadn't fought in three years, so you can't really use him being good before in 15 round fights as evidence for the Hagler fight, especially against a guy so much bigger (Hagler's head probably weighed as much as Ray). I am looking back at Hagler's record and I honestly see a punch of pylons for him to walk over Minter, Watts, Hamani . I think a lot of what people see of Hagler is him fighting guys WAY worse than him, and if you remember when Foreman came back he was able to dominate guys and outbox them because they were so much below him. The guys on Hagler's list don't rate highly to me, and him not being able to stop Leonard even in 12 rounds or Duran in 15 makes me think HAgler wouldn't be too much for Calzaghe.

---

I can't argue against the reality that Hagler got stuck fighting a lot of people that were far below him during his championship period. It wasn't the best era for MW's. What I can say in defense of Hagler's list is that he DEMOLISHED all the lesser fighters put before him, more so than many other great champions, that were forced to defend against less than world class opponents for stretches of their careers. Considering that both Duran and Leonard are ATG's and lower weight or not, better fighters than any non-Hopkins fighter Calzaghe has faced. I'm not too troubled that he didn't stop them.

The only point I really disagree with you on is that Hagler was great counterpuncher, perhaps equal to Hopkins, but certainly not too far behind him, and he had better killer instict. He was a different style than Hopkins, but his countering was no less effective. He would explode out of counter-mode and go into full attack mode, unlike many other superb counterpunchers, and he was an amazing finisher once he got him man in trouble. If Hagler put Calzaghe on his ass like Jones or Hopkins did, I'm fairly certain that he could have pressed his advantage better than Jones or Hopkins. Hagler definately ate some shots by going for the kill, but he had the chin to take it and in the end he got was he was after.

It's not like I see Hagler an overwhelming favorite in this mythical bout. You can certainly make a legit case for Calzaghe. In some ways, they both suffered from the same problem of having trouble getting the big fights in their prime and having relatively weak opposition in the division during their reigns. Late in his career, Hagler got big fights against great WW's and LWM's moving up, and Calzaghe got big fights against great older fighters. Hagler took a loss on paper, and Calzaghe got a gift on paper.

My judgement is based in large amount that Hagler beat his second rate opponents worse than Calzaghe beat his, and that Hagler, even though he fought some smaller fighters, fought these fights were against better opposition than Calzaghe. As much as I respect Kessler, he is no Tommy Hearns, no matter the weight class, and I can't imagine guys like Brewer, Salem, Reid, Ashira, or Jiminez going the distance with Hagler.

---

That's fair enough as long people respect that Joe is somewhere in Hagler's league. I think you broke it down very well. I have Joe winning, but I can see the arguement for the other side. I still don't agree with Hagler being the counter puncher or tactician Bernard is/was though ;P

---

He wasn't the tactician that Bernard is/was, I agree 100%. It's almost like comparing apples and oranges to look at their counterpunching styles. Hopkins is the better counterpuncher in the pure sense of the word, but Hagler generated pressure and fury out of his counters in a way that Hopkins seldom showed because Bernard was/is such a disciplined tactician that he doesn't explode with the fury and abandon that Hagler usually put out.

Joe is absolutely in Hagler's league and it's a great discussion because they are both so great and provide interesting stylistic contrasts. You can make good cases for either fighter. I can see Joe's handspeed, angles, and movement frustrating Hagler and getting him off his gameplan, but I can also see Hagler cutting off the ring, pounding Joe in corners and against the ropes, switching between orthodox and southpaw effectively, and launching vicious counter combos.

My biggest pet peeve issue when discussing Hagler is many people (such as Ross) judge him based on the last few fights of his career and his mediocre performance against Duran. He gets painted as a one dimensional fighter. People forgot that he would start slow, box and wait on his openings before launching into full assault mode. At his best, he was a superb boxer AND an animal in the ring. Not too many fighter have had that combination.

I might like Hagler against Calzaghe more than Hagler against Hopkins. Even though he was known as a pressure fighter, he was at his best against fighters who brought the fight to him. Hopkins might have been a tougher matchup for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preme

Marvin had a great sun as middlweight champ, but i don't think he was a great skilled fighter... some what of a magarito type fighter - his chin allowed him to fight his fight and force the guy onto the back foot and break them down.

When he fought truly skilled fighter like Ray and duran, even though they were MUCH MUCH smaller than him, look at the trouble he had... i mean true great natural middleweight should not get beat by a normal sized Welter, no matter how skilled they are, let alone one who had been so inactive... and duran, best @ lightweight... almost beat marvin...

of course being such a "fan boy" i am going to pick Joe... early on it could be 50/50 if joe fought a bit silly... but even if that was the case, take the kessler fight, he knows how to adapt and fight right, he has always done it so i see no reason for him not to do it if this fictious fight happened...

marvin was pretty easy to work, two steps into every move, good fighters can see it coming and know what he was going, he didn't has a great array of punches either, it was just non stop pressure backed up by that rock solid chin of his.

---

Stick to Joe Calzaghe you haven't got a clue about Marvin Hagler, do you realize he used to be a skilled counter puncher who used movement ? and that only in the last few years of his career did he fight more aggressively coming forward . And please do not compare Antonio Margarito/Marvin Hagler that is a ridiculous comment. Marvin Hagler even when he was pressuring was a very skilled fighter, who jabbed his way in. Cut off the ring and used a good variety of punches. And Roberto Duran almost beat Marvin Hagler ? stop looking at boxrec and boxing articles and actually watch the fight, its one of the most overrated close fights in history. Marvin Hagler was a clear winner in that fight, and considering Roberto Duran managed to win the Middleweight title off the huge Iran Barkley, i would say he was still very good at Middleweight. And as for SRL he was not a natural Welterweight IMO, and size wise SRL and Marvin Hagler are almost the same size, regarding height and weight, Marvin Hagler was never over the Middleweight limit only a few times, that means he was a natural Middleweight and couldn't move up really any higher. Lastly SRL only took the fight with Marvin Hagler because Marvin Hagler was a shot fighter and he had slowed down alot especially in his brutal war, with John Mugabi. And SRL demanded the bigger ring, the gloves, the ring size, the rounds, as a matter of fact had that fight been 15 rounds like it was scheduled to be at first, until SRL got it changed. SRL would of been stopped 100 percent.

---

ICB what hell are you talking about? Leonard was about 15 pounds lighter than Hagler come fight night, he looked way smaller, height hardly means size. Also just because a fighter is effective above their natural weight doesn't mean that is their natural weightclass. You also assume we know nothing of Hagler, he was a good boxer, but no way would he have outboxed Calzaghe. They both are underrated in that category, but the speed and height advantage has to play in Calzaghe's favor. Also the Duran-Hagler fight I've seen it probably 10 times, and it was a close fight until the end when Duran gassed out, but he was an old man by then and they had a rough fight, maybe you should be the one to watch the fight, because it was a close fight that Hagler clearly won. Also Leonard hadn't fought in three years in a weightclass he had never been in, Hagler should have clearly won despite the advantages in Leonard's favor, and Hagler was hardly the wreck of a fighter you make him out to be near the end of his career, he was 31 still had most of his speed, its just his level of opposition increased dramatically closer to the end of his career which made him look probably more like the fighter he actually was a tough fighter, with good boxing skills, but first and foremost was a pressure fighter who could punch and take a punch.

---

Just because a fighter started at a lower weight class doesn't always tell the whole story. The fact is Marvin Hagler could of never have moved above the Middleweight limit, because as i said before he was always mostly just under the Middleweight limit rarely was he above it. He wasn't a big Middleweight at all.

Where as SRL fought Donny La Londe at 165 catchweight, i also seem to remember SRL fighting Thomas Hearns at Super Middleweight ? im not sure of the weights but i do know SRL fought at higher weightclasses than Marvin Hagler did. I really don't know why you keep arguing this point its stupid. SRL did start at a lower weightclass but it wasn't his natural weight.

And the fact that SRL moved up to a higher weightclass than Marvin Hagler speaks volumes. That there size difference wasn't that much at all, SRL also had the height advantage aswell but whatever. Secondly when the hell did i say i assume no one knows nothing about Marvin Hagler do you think im that ignorant ?

My comment was to Preme who obviously hasn't got a clue about Marvin Hagler, because he compared him to Antonio Margarito which tells me. He had only seen his last few fights of his career, and not his early fights where he boxed. And when did i say Marvin Hagler could outbox Joe Calzaghe ?

All i said was that Marvin Hagler had better boxing skills in his early career. I never said he could outbox Joe Calzaghe, but i for certain think he would be too tough/rough for Joe Calzaghe. I've seen Joe Calzaghe struggle in those kind of fights before and he loses concentration easily.

And Taeth why do you assume your always right ? i think your a good poster. But you always claim your opinions as fact, i think the Marvin Hagler vs Roberto Duran is one of the most overrated close fights. But thats my opinion just because you scored it different. Doesn't mean i have to watch it again because your opinion is as good as mine, and i've watched it enough times.

Lastly Marvin Hagler was for certain on the slide, he had alot of tough fights in a row. He had many overall tough fights, he had alot of fights. And SRL only took the Marvin Hagler fight after he see Marvin Hagler slow down alot in the John Mugabi fight, SRL said himself he see the chance because Marvin Hagler had slowed down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

He did move up though now didnt he you silly boy;D

On top of that he beat probably the Eighties best fighter, Ray leonard.

Durrrrr!!!;D;D;D;D;D

Hagler couldve moved up in weight but didnt, Joe could have and did, alot of fighters have and been very successfull, Marvin was happy enough taking on smaller fighters and then retired like a spoilt brat when one beat him;D

---

Super Middleweight division was made a proper division in 1984, now at that time. There was no big names at that weight class at all. So it would of been a waste of time moving up to that weight class, especially with all the big names at Middleweight. Lastly the only other move he could of made was move up to Light Heavyweight and he was clearly too small for that weight class, Ross you know nothing about boxing your an idiot.

---

Dont cry about it;D

Hagler wouldve eaten punches all night like Lacy did.

---

Don't cry about what ? i just gave you a fact and made you look like a tool, which you are. All you try and do is wind people up, you can't have a sensible debate.

And the only fighters you know about are Mike Tyson, Joe Calzaghe, your boxing knowledge is ridiculous. You even claimed Michael Watson was beating Mike McCallum. Do you honestly ready half the crap you come out with ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

Stick to Joe Calzaghe you haven't got a clue about Marvin Hagler, do you realize he used to be a skilled counter puncher who used movement ? and that only in the last few years of his career did he fight more aggressively coming forward . And please do not compare Antonio Margarito/Marvin Hagler that is a ridiculous comment. Marvin Hagler even when he was pressuring was a very skilled fighter, who jabbed his way in. Cut off the ring and used a good variety of punches. And Roberto Duran almost beat Marvin Hagler ? stop looking at boxrec and boxing articles and actually watch the fight, its one of the most overrated close fights in history. Marvin Hagler was a clear winner in that fight, and considering Roberto Duran managed to win the Middleweight title off the huge Iran Barkley, i would say he was still very good at Middleweight. And as for SRL he was not a natural Welterweight IMO, and size wise SRL and Marvin Hagler are almost the same size, regarding height and weight, Marvin Hagler was never over the Middleweight limit only a few times, that means he was a natural Middleweight and couldn't move up really any higher. Lastly SRL only took the fight with Marvin Hagler because Marvin Hagler was a shot fighter and he had slowed down alot especially in his brutal war, with John Mugabi. And SRL demanded the bigger ring, the gloves, the ring size, the rounds, as a matter of fact had that fight been 15 rounds like it was scheduled to be at first, until SRL got it changed. SRL would of been stopped 100 percent.

---

ICB what hell are you talking about? Leonard was about 15 pounds lighter than Hagler come fight night, he looked way smaller, height hardly means size. Also just because a fighter is effective above their natural weight doesn't mean that is their natural weightclass. You also assume we know nothing of Hagler, he was a good boxer, but no way would he have outboxed Calzaghe. They both are underrated in that category, but the speed and height advantage has to play in Calzaghe's favor. Also the Duran-Hagler fight I've seen it probably 10 times, and it was a close fight until the end when Duran gassed out, but he was an old man by then and they had a rough fight, maybe you should be the one to watch the fight, because it was a close fight that Hagler clearly won. Also Leonard hadn't fought in three years in a weightclass he had never been in, Hagler should have clearly won despite the advantages in Leonard's favor, and Hagler was hardly the wreck of a fighter you make him out to be near the end of his career, he was 31 still had most of his speed, its just his level of opposition increased dramatically closer to the end of his career which made him look probably more like the fighter he actually was a tough fighter, with good boxing skills, but first and foremost was a pressure fighter who could punch and take a punch.

---

Just because a fighter started at a lower weight class doesn't always tell the whole story. The fact is Marvin Hagler could of never have moved above the Middleweight limit, because as i said before he was always mostly just under the Middleweight limit rarely was he above it. He wasn't a big Middleweight at all.

Where as SRL fought Donny La Londe at 165 catchweight, i also seem to remember SRL fighting Thomas Hearns at Super Middleweight ? im not sure of the weights but i do know SRL fought at higher weightclasses than Marvin Hagler did. I really don't know why you keep arguing this point its stupid. SRL did start at a lower weightclass but it wasn't his natural weight.

And the fact that SRL moved up to a higher weightclass than Marvin Hagler speaks volumes. That there size difference wasn't that much at all, SRL also had the height advantage aswell but whatever. Secondly when the hell did i say i assume no one knows nothing about Marvin Hagler do you think im that ignorant ?

My comment was to Preme who obviously hasn't got a clue about Marvin Hagler, because he compared him to Antonio Margarito which tells me. He had only seen his last few fights of his career, and not his early fights where he boxed. And when did i say Marvin Hagler could outbox Joe Calzaghe ?

All i said was that Marvin Hagler had better boxing skills in his early career. I never said he could outbox Joe Calzaghe, but i for certain think he would be too tough/rough for Joe Calzaghe. I've seen Joe Calzaghe struggle in those kind of fights before and he loses concentration easily.

And Taeth why do you assume your always right ? i think your a good poster. But you always claim your opinions as fact, i think the Marvin Hagler vs Roberto Duran is one of the most overrated close fights. But thats my opinion just because you scored it different. Doesn't mean i have to watch it again because your opinion is as good as mine, and i've watched it enough times.

Lastly Marvin Hagler was for certain on the slide, he had alot of tough fights in a row. He had many overall tough fights, he had alot of fights. And SRL only took the Marvin Hagler fight after he see Marvin Hagler slow down alot in the John Mugabi fight, SRL said himself he see the chance because Marvin Hagler had slowed down.

---

ICB, I thought you were directing that comment towards everyone favoring Calzaghe. We will agree to disagree about the Duran fight, or that Hagler wasn't around his prime. I think he needed to change his style to fight smaller, faster guys, but that it wasn't a huge change, he still used head movement, caution, tactical precision(except in the Hearns fight). I thought he totally outboxed Mugabi personally, and it didn't see it as that much of a war because of that. In the Mugabi fight he did a lot of counterpunching and used a lot of defensive skills, same with against Duran, its just he wasn't the better, faster boxer. He was a great package overall, but when he tried to box with the best he wasn't successful. He definitely was a little slower by the time he got to Leonard, but not remarkably so, he was still fast enough to land, it was his defensive skills I call into question in that fight. Bernard Hopkins wasn't as fast as Calzaghe and had slowed down considerably, but he still made Joe miss like crazy. IMO you have to be able to do that to keep guys like Calzaghe honest. If Joe can hit you then he will go buck wild, and despite his unorthodox punches he had good power in his prime.

As for the size, Leonard had dazzling speed, we've seen the success speed has when it moves up north. JOnes went up to heavyweight, Floyd to jr. MW, Pacquiao to WW. A guy like HAgler who gets hit more, is in more trouble than guys like Leonard would be against a bigger guy like Michael Spinks. All that being said I think Hagler could have moved up, and probably would have if Duran, Leonard, and Hearns weren't around at MW. He would have done very well at LHW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

All you try and do is wind people up

---

Does it hurt that much to admit Hagler would lose to Calzaghe?

Calzaghe is a good fighter for the "modern" times (12 round championships). In fact... I love the guy and root for him always. However, I don't see him in the same ring as the Marvelous Marvin of the late seventies or even the mid eighties. Marvin fought many "big" middleweights in his carreer and obviously handled them well. JC would have needed to come down to 160. There was no negotiations from the Petronelli's to that end and they would have made JC dry out for a same day weigh in. In my opinion Tommy Hearns (at 168) would have gotten to Mr. Joe in eight, nine or ten rounds Roy Jones in his prime just before moving up to light heavy weight would have made him look silly for 12 rounds.
Just my opinion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanley Steemer

Calzaghe is a good fighter for the "modern" times (12 round championships). In fact... I love the guy and root for him always. However, I don't see him in the same ring as the Marvelous Marvin of the late seventies or even the mid eighties. Marvin fought many "big" middleweights in his carreer and obviously handled them well. JC would have needed to come down to 160. There was no negotiations from the Petronelli's to that end and they would have made JC dry out for a same day weigh in. In my opinion Tommy Hearns (at 168) would have gotten to Mr. Joe in eight, nine or ten rounds Roy Jones in his prime just before moving up to light heavy weight would have made him look silly for 12 rounds.
Just my opinion...

---

Joe is a great fighter of any time.


Its not easy to stay undefeated for so long.

All fighters slip up now and then,Hagler,Hearnes,Duran all lost fights they were favorates in.


I think Calzaghe is going to be a bit like Lennox Lewis in that a lot of people will realise how good he is when he is gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

All you try and do is wind people up

---

Does it hurt that much to admit Hagler would lose to Calzaghe?

---

So you have a time machine that can put Joe Calzaghe back to the 80s, go yourself and actually watched at ringside Joe Calzaghe defeat Marvin Hagler ?

;)

Hagler could easily have fought as a Super Middleweight - he was always well above the Middleweight limit when he entered the ring on fightnight.

He would beat Joe though I do see it as a distance fight. Haglers competition is above Joes who lets be honest only stepped it up at the twighlight of his career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob

Hagler could easily have fought as a Super Middleweight - he was always well above the Middleweight limit when he entered the ring on fightnight.

He would beat Joe though I do see it as a distance fight. Haglers competition is above Joes who lets be honest only stepped it up at the twighlight of his career.

---

That sig is fukking badass!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob

Hagler could easily have fought as a Super Middleweight - he was always well above the Middleweight limit when he entered the ring on fightnight.

He would beat Joe though I do see it as a distance fight. Haglers competition is above Joes who lets be honest only stepped it up at the twighlight of his career.

---

Hagler only fought really good fighters at the end of his career, somebody already said it, their careers very much parallel eachother. Except Joe fought older guys, and Hagler fought smaller guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob

Hagler could easily have fought as a Super Middleweight - he was always well above the Middleweight limit when he entered the ring on fightnight.

He would beat Joe though I do see it as a distance fight. Haglers competition is above Joes who lets be honest only stepped it up at the twighlight of his career.

---

Well Rob you are certainly unbiased , you do not let the fact that Calzaghe is a fellow Welshman . cloud your excellent knowledge of boxing past and present.
Marvin wins this fight for me also .
Respect for one of the best posters on here.:appl:

For me it all boils down to this,

Hagler couldnt overcome Leonard and im sure everyone will agree that Calzaghe would pose a hell of a lot more problems;)

Hes taller, stronger, works harder and probably has more power, he deffinitly did before his hands played up, you dont pout Eubank down in the first if you dont have power.

Also, I dont reckon Hagler would be powerfull enough to keep Joe off him, Hes taken flush shots off some big punchers and not budged and those that did hurt him were well beaten in return, Hopkins was forced to crawl around on the floor for refuge, Mitchell was stopped in the same round, Jones was just embarrassed, kessler was completely beffuddled and outworked.

Joe hasnt looked close to losing yet, to some big strong and good fighters, I dont see someone as small as Hagler doing it.

Eubank said after their match he was very surprised with Calzaghes power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

For me it all boils down to this,

Hagler couldnt overcome Leonard and im sure everyone will agree that Calzaghe would pose a hell of a lot more problems;)

Hes taller, stronger, works harder and probably has more power, he deffinitly did before his hands played up, you dont pout Eubank down in the first if you dont have power.

Also, I dont reckon Hagler would be powerfull enough to keep Joe off him, Hes taken flush shots off some big punchers and not budged and those that did hurt him were well beaten in return, Hopkins was forced to crawl around on the floor for refuge, Mitchell was stopped in the same round, Jones was just embarrassed, kessler was completely beffuddled and outworked.

Joe hasnt looked close to losing yet, to some big strong and good fighters, I dont see someone as small as Hagler doing it.

Eubank said after their match he was very surprised with Calzaghes power.

---

Why do you keep bringing up the SRL fight ? Marvin Hagler was past his prime then, and he could of actually got the decision thats why its the most debated decision in history. And had it been 15 rounds like it would of been had SRL not got it changed, Marvin Hagler would of stopped SRL.

Secondly you haven't ever seen Joe Calzaghe hurt or look close to losing ? well i remember Joe Calzaghe getting dropped like a sack against a non puncher like Kabary Salem. And i also thought Joe Calzaghe lost to Robin Reid/Bernard Hopkins. When did Marvin Hagler ever look hurt again fighters the class of Kabary Salem ? and when did Marvin Hagler ever get a gift decision ?

Lastly RJJ was embarrassed yes and old shot one whos last good performance was in 2002, do you honestly think had that been a prime RJJ that Joe Calzaghe would of won ? and mostly everyone knew RJJ was a shot fighter thats why everyone called the fight a farce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

[you haven't ever seen Joe Calzaghe hurt or look close to losing ?

do you honestly think had that been a prime RJJ that Joe Calzaghe would of won ?

---

Ive seen him knocked down but someone whos hurt does not get it back together that quick and out hustle or outbox their opponent imediately after?

Being close to losing is getting a draw, not a split decision win.

Yes I reckon Joe would would have done marginally less better against a younger Jones but dont forget Joe was a better fighter years ago as well, he had power then and hed always give Joes problems with his workrate and will.

Ray fought Hagler after 3 years out, he would have lost a step, imagine if hed been active;D It may have looked like Calzaghe Lacy;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

[you haven't ever seen Joe Calzaghe hurt or look close to losing ?

do you honestly think had that been a prime RJJ that Joe Calzaghe would of won ?

---

Ive seen him knocked down but someone whos hurt does not get it back together that quick and out hustle or outbox their opponent imediately after?

Being close to losing is getting a draw, not a split decision win.

Yes I reckon Joe would would have done marginally less better against a younger Jones but dont forget Joe was a better fighter years ago as well, he had power then and hed always give Joes problems with his workrate and will.

Ray fought Hagler after 3 years out, he would have lost a step, imagine if hed been active;D It may have looked like Calzaghe Lacy;D

---

Joe Calzaghe was hurt throughout the entire round against Kabary Salem, secondly winning a split decision isn't close to losing what the hell ? i don't get that logic at all can you explain that one for me ?

SRL was smart he only fought Marvin Hagler after he see John Mugabi vs Marvin Hagler. He'd seen Marvin Hagler had slowed down quite alot, and he saw a great chance, he also got everything he wanted the gloves, ring size, rounds, ETC.

Im not even going to reply to the last comment because thats a wind up comment, but your other comment was ridiculous. "Marginally less better" against a prime RJJ are you frigging kidding me ?

Go watch a prime RJJ then go watch the RJJ of the last few years, its like its two different fighters. Lastly Joe Calzaghe did have better speed/power when he was younger, but he didn't have no where near the smart boxing brain he has had in the last few years.

After reading a few but not all of the posts on this thread one thing is very clear.


A lot of posters have only watched one or two of Haglers fights.I am guessing the Hearns fight,SRL fight and maybe the Minter fight coz thats when he won the title.

If you watch Haglers many other fights you will realise that Hagler is not a devestating 1 punch fighter.

He wore his opponents down with lots of good well placed hard shots and kept his power in to the latter rounds.

At times he was also happy to outbox opponents rather than try to stop them


Because of the way he won over Hearns I think some people think he is like a middleweight Tyson.

A split decision win isnt as close to losing as a draw because a draw is a draw not a win, a split decision win is a win, more judges thought that Joe wan, a draw could go either way, therefore if Joe ever drew his opponent would be the only person to have done as much as he did to get the same result, we will have to wait and see if there is anyone capable of doing more than Joe to get the win:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

A split decision win isnt as close to losing as a draw because a draw is a draw not a win, a split decision win is a win, more judges thought that Joe wan, a draw could go either way, therefore if Joe ever drew his opponent would be the only person to have done as much as he did to get the same result, we will have to wait and see if there is anyone capable of doing more than Joe to get the win:rolleyes:

---

Just because a fight is a draw doesn't mean its closer, take Pernell Whitaker vs Julio Cesar Chavez was that closer just because it was a draw ? thats stupid logic it depends on the situation of a certain fight. Bernard Hopkins/Robin Reid fights were very close and Joe Calzaghe did almost lose both, and IMO he did lose both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porkypara

After reading a few but not all of the posts on this thread one thing is very clear.


A lot of posters have only watched one or two of Haglers fights.I am guessing the Hearns fight,SRL fight and maybe the Minter fight coz thats when he won the title.

If you watch Haglers many other fights you will realise that Hagler is not a devestating 1 punch fighter.

He wore his opponents down with lots of good well placed hard shots and kept his power in to the latter rounds.

At times he was also happy to outbox opponents rather than try to stop them


Because of the way he won over Hearns I think some people think he is like a middleweight Tyson.

---

Marvin only went the distance with Duran , then when alot slower and past his best , Leonard.He koed all his other challengers.
Marvin did have good boxing skills , also he could eat punches and chase a fighter down , something Calzaghe could never do , even againest poor oponants.
Calzaghe is a good fighter for sure , but im sorry i do not accept he could have beaten Marvin , based on the fact he beat a shot Jones , 43 Hopkins , and Kessler.

For the record i have nearly all Marvin Hagler's fights.

How many have you seen where Hagler fights a 12 stone fighter that can throw over a 100 punches a round with ease?

Hagler actually performed better against larger men and fighter who came at him.

Of course we've been over this, but Hagler was way past his best in the Leonard fight. Also, Leonard presents an entirely different set of challenges than Calzaghe. Like I said before, Hagler was great against guys who would come at him. Also, Hagler lost the Leonard fight just as much as Leonard won it by starting out slow and playing around with him. He gave away the first three rounds completely and it cost him the fight. But I digress.

As far as Hagler's size, he's about the same size as Robin Reid. And Calzaghe came pretty close to that fight. Say what you want, but when he was champion, he DESTROYED guys on Reids level, people like Minter, Anterfuermo, Hamsho, and Fuli Obel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porkypara

After reading a few but not all of the posts on this thread one thing is very clear.


A lot of posters have only watched one or two of Haglers fights.I am guessing the Hearns fight,SRL fight and maybe the Minter fight coz thats when he won the title.

If you watch Haglers many other fights you will realise that Hagler is not a devestating 1 punch fighter.

He wore his opponents down with lots of good well placed hard shots and kept his power in to the latter rounds.

At times he was also happy to outbox opponents rather than try to stop them


Because of the way he won over Hearns I think some people think he is like a middleweight Tyson.

---

Marvin only went the distance with Duran , then when alot slower and past his best , Leonard.He koed all his other challengers.
Marvin did have good boxing skills , also he could eat punches and chase a fighter down , something Calzaghe could never do , even againest poor oponants.
Calzaghe is a good fighter for sure , but im sorry i do not accept he could have beaten Marvin , based on the fact he beat a shot Jones , 43 Hopkins , and Kessler.

For the record i have nearly all Marvin Hagler's fights.

---

If you asked me who has acomplished more in there carrer and is the better all round fighter I would say Hagler.

But as the saying goes " styles make fights" and Calzaghe has the style and skills to beat Hagler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porkypara

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porkypara

After reading a few but not all of the posts on this thread one thing is very clear.


A lot of posters have only watched one or two of Haglers fights.I am guessing the Hearns fight,SRL fight and maybe the Minter fight coz thats when he won the title.

If you watch Haglers many other fights you will realise that Hagler is not a devestating 1 punch fighter.

He wore his opponents down with lots of good well placed hard shots and kept his power in to the latter rounds.

At times he was also happy to outbox opponents rather than try to stop them


Because of the way he won over Hearns I think some people think he is like a middleweight Tyson.

---

Marvin only went the distance with Duran , then when alot slower and past his best , Leonard.He koed all his other challengers.
Marvin did have good boxing skills , also he could eat punches and chase a fighter down , something Calzaghe could never do , even againest poor oponants.
Calzaghe is a good fighter for sure , but im sorry i do not accept he could have beaten Marvin , based on the fact he beat a shot Jones , 43 Hopkins , and Kessler.

For the record i have nearly all Marvin Hagler's fights.

---

If you asked me who has acomplished more in there carrer and is the better all round fighter I would say Hagler.

But as the saying goes " styles make fights" and Calzaghe has the style and skills to beat Hagler.

---

Hey Porkmiester , i respect your opinion , but i feel that if a guy like Reid can pressure and almost beat a prime Calzaghe , and Byron Mitchell can knock down a prime Calzaghe , i feel a prime Hagler would walk through him.
But hey its all about opinions.
;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porkypara

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Marvin only went the distance with Duran , then when alot slower and past his best , Leonard.He koed all his other challengers.
Marvin did have good boxing skills , also he could eat punches and chase a fighter down , something Calzaghe could never do , even againest poor oponants.
Calzaghe is a good fighter for sure , but im sorry i do not accept he could have beaten Marvin , based on the fact he beat a shot Jones , 43 Hopkins , and Kessler.

For the record i have nearly all Marvin Hagler's fights.

---

If you asked me who has acomplished more in there carrer and is the better all round fighter I would say Hagler.

But as the saying goes " styles make fights" and Calzaghe has the style and skills to beat Hagler.

---

Hey Porkmiester , i respect your opinion , but i feel that if a guy like Reid can pressure and almost beat a prime Calzaghe , and Byron Mitchell can knock down a prime Calzaghe , i feel a prime Hagler would walk through him.
But hey its all about opinions.

;D

---

All fighter get knocked down from time to time and have hard fights against lower level fighters.

Calzaghe has all the things that you need to beat Hagler.

1-Speed of hand and foot.

2-Great boxing skills and able to control a fight

3-Great chin


But like you said its all down to opinons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porkypara

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porkypara

After reading a few but not all of the posts on this thread one thing is very clear.


A lot of posters have only watched one or two of Haglers fights.I am guessing the Hearns fight,SRL fight and maybe the Minter fight coz thats when he won the title.

If you watch Haglers many other fights you will realise that Hagler is not a devestating 1 punch fighter.

He wore his opponents down with lots of good well placed hard shots and kept his power in to the latter rounds.

At times he was also happy to outbox opponents rather than try to stop them


Because of the way he won over Hearns I think some people think he is like a middleweight Tyson.

---

Marvin only went the distance with Duran , then when alot slower and past his best , Leonard.He koed all his other challengers.
Marvin did have good boxing skills , also he could eat punches and chase a fighter down , something Calzaghe could never do , even againest poor oponants.
Calzaghe is a good fighter for sure , but im sorry i do not accept he could have beaten Marvin , based on the fact he beat a shot Jones , 43 Hopkins , and Kessler.

For the record i have nearly all Marvin Hagler's fights.

---

If you asked me who has acomplished more in there carrer and is the better all round fighter I would say Hagler.

But as the saying goes " styles make fights" and Calzaghe has the style and skills to beat Hagler.

---

Actually I disagree, and I think you're perception of this comes from the Lacy fight and thinking that Hagler is somehow a Lacy-style fighter. He wasn't. Lacy didn't have a quarter of the boxing and countering skill of Hagler. He just bullrushed guys. Even Peter Manfredo was outboxing him for 4 rounds.

Hagler has the style to beat Calzaghe. Hagler had the chin to accept whatever Calzaghe could dish out and all those punches Calzaghe throws are more chances for Hagler to counter. When people think counterpuncher now, they think James Toney, Mayweather, or Chris Byrd, fighter would counter and potshot. Hagler would box until he saw his open counter, and continue forward with aggressive pressure. He was also great at cutting off the ring. Can you imagine what Hagler would do Calzaghe in the corners? If Calzaghe got rocked like he did against Jones or Salem, Marvin would have been able to press the advantage effectively. He was a master of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porkypara

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Marvin only went the distance with Duran , then when alot slower and past his best , Leonard.He koed all his other challengers.
Marvin did have good boxing skills , also he could eat punches and chase a fighter down , something Calzaghe could never do , even againest poor oponants.
Calzaghe is a good fighter for sure , but im sorry i do not accept he could have beaten Marvin , based on the fact he beat a shot Jones , 43 Hopkins , and Kessler.

For the record i have nearly all Marvin Hagler's fights.

---

If you asked me who has acomplished more in there carrer and is the better all round fighter I would say Hagler.

But as the saying goes " styles make fights" and Calzaghe has the style and skills to beat Hagler.

---

Actually I disagree, and I think you're perception of this comes from the Lacy fight and thinking that Hagler is somehow a Lacy-style fighter. He wasn't. Lacy didn't have a quarter of the boxing and countering skill of Hagler. He just bullrushed guys. Even Peter Manfredo was outboxing him for 4 rounds.

Hagler has the style to beat Calzaghe. Hagler had the chin to accept whatever Calzaghe could dish out and all those punches Calzaghe throws are more chances for Hagler to counter. When people think counterpuncher now, they think James Toney, Mayweather, or Chris Byrd, fighter would counter and potshot. Hagler would box until he saw his open counter, and continue forward with aggressive pressure. He was also great at cutting off the ring. Can you imagine what Hagler would do Calzaghe in the corners? If Calzaghe got rocked like he did against Jones or Salem, Marvin would have been able to press the advantage effectively. He was a master of that.

---

Mate,to compair Hagler with Lacy is a discrace.:rolleyes:

Yeah, Lacy actually wan a world title above middleweight and got beat by the best supermiddle and not a welter;D;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porkypara

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porkypara

If you asked me who has acomplished more in there carrer and is the better all round fighter I would say Hagler.

But as the saying goes " styles make fights" and Calzaghe has the style and skills to beat Hagler.

---

Actually I disagree, and I think you're perception of this comes from the Lacy fight and thinking that Hagler is somehow a Lacy-style fighter. He wasn't. Lacy didn't have a quarter of the boxing and countering skill of Hagler. He just bullrushed guys. Even Peter Manfredo was outboxing him for 4 rounds.

Hagler has the style to beat Calzaghe. Hagler had the chin to accept whatever Calzaghe could dish out and all those punches Calzaghe throws are more chances for Hagler to counter. When people think counterpuncher now, they think James Toney, Mayweather, or Chris Byrd, fighter would counter and potshot. Hagler would box until he saw his open counter, and continue forward with aggressive pressure. He was also great at cutting off the ring. Can you imagine what Hagler would do Calzaghe in the corners? If Calzaghe got rocked like he did against Jones or Salem, Marvin would have been able to press the advantage effectively. He was a master of that.

---

Mate,to compair Hagler with Lacy is a discrace.:rolleyes:

---

If you aren't using the Lacy fight as a bases for your statement that Calzaghe has the "style" to beat Hagler, you must be thinking about the Leonard fight? Who has Calzaghe fought that is close to Hagler's style? Calzaghe has proved that he as the style to beat guys who come forward without a plan (Lacy) or with only one plan (Kessler), and guys throw one punch at a time (Hopkins and Jones).

I only brought up Lacy because I assuming you had that fight in mind when considering the two styles, but you must be thinking that Calzaghe would fight him like Leonard did.

Question, do you thing Calzaghe would be able to pitty-pat and run like Leonard did? That's the only style the "beat" Hagler, and it only worked on an old Marvin. Does Calzaghe have the footspeed of Ray Leonard? I'm not sure Calzaghe has the legs run like Leonard for 12 rounds. Calzaghe is going to engage, and that provides Hagler with opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

guys throw one punch at a time (Hopkins and Jones).

---

Joe stopped them from working they were to intimidated to throw because they Knew Joe would be all over em like a rash, neither has ever looked as bad as they did against Joe, Hopkins was certainly throwing more than one punch at a time when he beat the supposed threat to Joe;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by porkypara

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

Actually I disagree, and I think you're perception of this comes from the Lacy fight and thinking that Hagler is somehow a Lacy-style fighter. He wasn't. Lacy didn't have a quarter of the boxing and countering skill of Hagler. He just bullrushed guys. Even Peter Manfredo was outboxing him for 4 rounds.

Hagler has the style to beat Calzaghe. Hagler had the chin to accept whatever Calzaghe could dish out and all those punches Calzaghe throws are more chances for Hagler to counter. When people think counterpuncher now, they think James Toney, Mayweather, or Chris Byrd, fighter would counter and potshot. Hagler would box until he saw his open counter, and continue forward with aggressive pressure. He was also great at cutting off the ring. Can you imagine what Hagler would do Calzaghe in the corners? If Calzaghe got rocked like he did against Jones or Salem, Marvin would have been able to press the advantage effectively. He was a master of that.

---

Mate,to compair Hagler with Lacy is a discrace.:rolleyes:

---

If you aren't using the Lacy fight as a bases for your statement that Calzaghe has the "style" to beat Hagler, you must be thinking about the Leonard fight? Who has Calzaghe fought that is close to Hagler's style? Calzaghe has proved that he as the style to beat guys who come forward without a plan (Lacy) or with only one plan (Kessler), and guys throw one punch at a time (Hopkins and Jones).

I only brought up Lacy because I assuming you had that fight in mind when considering the two styles, but you must be thinking that Calzaghe would fight him like Leonard did.

Question, do you thing Calzaghe would be able to pitty-pat and run like Leonard did? That's the only style the "beat" Hagler, and it only worked on an old Marvin. Does Calzaghe have the footspeed of Ray Leonard? I'm not sure Calzaghe has the legs run like Leonard for 12 rounds. Calzaghe is going to engage, and that provides Hagler with opportunity.

---

At middleweight SRL had no punch power.His corner even told him not to load up on his shots.

Everybody says that Hagler was past his best when he boxed SRL which is true,but dont forget SRL was past his best as well and also fighting at a new weight for the first time in 4 years.

YES I think Calzaghe could move and box Hagler over 12 rounds.I think he could beat Hagler to the punch then move or just change the angle a bit.
Calzaghe would not risk going toe to toe with Hagler unless he could feel him wilting which is unlightly.

I am not saying it would be an easy fight for Joe but on his night he could beat MMH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

guys throw one punch at a time (Hopkins and Jones).

---

Joe stopped them from working they were to intimidated to throw because they Knew Joe would be all over em like a rash, neither has ever looked as bad as they did against Joe, Hopkins was certainly throwing more than one punch at a time when he beat the supposed threat to Joe;D

---

I respect your opinion but im afraid Hagler beats Cazlaghe , and in my opinion it isnt even a close contest , i think Tommy Hearns was a better Puncher and better boxer than JC , everybody keeps saying how JC would box , well when Marvin was in his prime he wouldnt allow him to box , pressure pressure pressure , and Calzaghe gets stopped , for my money .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RozzySean

guys throw one punch at a time (Hopkins and Jones).

---

Joe stopped them from working they were to intimidated to throw because they Knew Joe would be all over em like a rash, neither has ever looked as bad as they did against Joe, Hopkins was certainly throwing more than one punch at a time when he beat the supposed threat to Joe;D

---

I respect your opinion but im afraid Hagler beats Cazlaghe , and in my opinion it isnt even a close contest , i think Tommy Hearns was a better Puncher and better boxer than JC , everybody keeps saying how JC would box , well when Marvin was in his prime he wouldnt allow him to box , pressure pressure pressure , and Calzaghe gets stopped , for my money .

---

To say that you think Hagler would win is fair enough because it would be a close fight IMO but to say that Calzaghe would be stopped is totaly off the mark.
Calzaghe has never been close to being stopped and he can fight 12 rounds at a fast pace with ease.