Printable View
you are the only one mentioning canelo here. i know marvin did most of his work coming up but he is frequently mentioned as part of the four kings, the other three all started at lower weights than marvin. his biggest threat around eighty five to eighty seven in my opinion was the bodysnatcher who also began at a lower weight than marvin but marvin bent the knee & took the money to fight an inactive guy instead
If you go back to the first line I wrote on this subject , you’ll know why I mentioned Canelo.Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
But you chose to ignore that.
this was your first lineQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraIf you go back to the first line I wrote on this subject , you’ll know why I mentioned Canelo.Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
But you chose to ignore that.
"If this is a way of justifying Canelo v Crawford you are way off."
you're making assumptions. i'm posting about marvin, nothing about canelo. you also assume i ignored it. i didn't, it just had nothing to do with what i am posting about. bud jumping three weights is completely different from what i'm posting about marvin
I can remember going to the video shop in 1988 to rent the Hagler Leonard fight. We also rented one my favourite movies in Young Guns. I was about 8 yrs old.
I just love the music to that film and the film itself. So anytime i think of Hagler I always think of childhood memories of young guns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNUy...FrbMZy&index=6
I am a huge fan of the Bodysnatcher but it is easy to say that after he had beaten the then undefeated, knocked out all his opponents Beast Mugabi. Most people would have said why take on the untested McCallum who still had not beaten Milton McCrory or Cobra Curry until a year later.Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
Marvin athletic peak were probably before he became champion, when he fought the hard Philly fighters as a skilful Southpaw. Marvin was robbed by judges and became champion later than he should have so he took on the best that were around at the time.
Marvellous avoided Herol Graham to take on Sugar Ray. No one is blaming him for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
I was wondering why this thread had gotten bumped (LOL).
This shit is priceless. You just can't make this shit up (hahaha).
Man..... you have GOT TO BE KIDDING with this ridiculous bullshit. But you know what? It just lends clear and unmistakable evidence that you are IN FACT a desperate Ginger groupie..... desperate to latch on to ANY shred of (albeit nonsensical) examples to try and prove a totally ridiculous point.
I get so happy when I see shit like this.
For one thing, you should wash your mouth out with soap for even daring to speak of the great Hagler in such disrespectful terms. While you're at it, you should seek professional help for even hinting at comparing a great warrior from the past with the biggest, most coddled and manufactured diva in the history of boxing.
But I appreciate your train of thought.
It's that of a groupie who refuses to give up.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Here we go! ;D So you make a comment about Hagler for no reason at all, and revive a thread that hasn’t seen the light of day for the best part of 4 years hey? I think I have very good reason to “Assume” that it was an indirect comparison to the Canelo / Crawford situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by TICthis was your first lineQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraIf you go back to the first line I wrote on this subject , you’ll know why I mentioned Canelo.Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
But you chose to ignore that.
"If this is a way of justifying Canelo v Crawford you are way off."
you're making assumptions. i'm posting about marvin, nothing about canelo. you also assume i ignored it. i didn't, it just had nothing to do with what i am posting about. bud jumping three weights is completely different from what i'm posting about marvin
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t, but you never answer with a straight “Yes” or “No”, so we have to make our own minds up.
You should be a bit braver and have the courage of your convictions rather than let everyone accuse you.
But hey, if you want to “say things without saying them” crack on.
canelo must live rent free in you & primo carnera's head. this discussion is about marvin, the fab four & some guys i would have like to see him fight that might have better challenges. disrespectful? i'm just asking about marvin fighting some smaller guys who he is mainly associated with. chill out titofan, if you have nothing to add to the discussion that's fine but you are the one derailing the discussion with your own comparisons & trying to make out i'm making that argument, that is called a strawmanQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanGinger groupie.....Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
For one thing, you should wash your mouth out with soap for even daring to speak of the great Hagler in such disrespectful terms.
i have my reasons for commenting about marvin, did you ask my reason? no you just assumed it had something to do with canelo. one of my reasons if you're interested is mike mccallum & was going to go into the rest of the fab four & them not fighting him, another reason was marvin bending the knee for the ray fightQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraHere we go! ;D So you make a comment about Hagler for no reason at all, and revive a thread that hasn’t seen the light of day for the best part of 4 years hey? I think I have very good reason to “Assume” that it was an indirect comparison to the Canelo / Crawford situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by TICthis was your first lineQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraIf you go back to the first line I wrote on this subject , you’ll know why I mentioned Canelo.Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
But you chose to ignore that.
"If this is a way of justifying Canelo v Crawford you are way off."
you're making assumptions. i'm posting about marvin, nothing about canelo. you also assume i ignored it. i didn't, it just had nothing to do with what i am posting about. bud jumping three weights is completely different from what i'm posting about marvin
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t, but you never answer with a straight “Yes” or “No”, so we have to make our own minds up.
You should be a bit braver and have the courage of your convictions rather than let everyone accuse you.
But hey, if you want to “say things without saying them” crack on.
yes i used an old thread, there's nothing wrong with that is there? the only other thread i could find on marvin was called marvin haggler so i went with this one. i must have missed where it says you must start a new thread for a new discussion
you know what they say about assumptions
what question did you ask that i didn't answer? you came in with an assumption not related to what i'm discussing. you made up your mind based on your own assumption
i asked "does marvin get a pass for fighting smaller guys & cashing out towards the end of his career?"
"be a bit braver and have the courage of your convictions"
here we go then, i think marvin avoided tougher challenges to cash out against smaller guys towards the end of his career, there's nothing wrong with that but that's how i see it. i also think the rest of the fab four avoided the bodysnatcher. i also don't agree with the notion that marvin retired because he was disgusted by the decision against ray, i think he retired because he was embarrassed that he lost to a smaller guy who was coming of nearly three years of inactivity
now let's see if you can be brave & have the courage to admit your assumptions were wrong
for the record, since the canelo v bud fight has been mentioned, i don't like the fight & won't give canelo any credit for a win. i'd prefer to see him fight christian mbilli & then try for a shot at the artur v dmitry two winner & i'd like bud to make a run at jr middle, there are some fantastic match ups there
If you’re gonna throw indirect statements out there and refuse to opine , we’re (yes we, cos i’m clearly not the only one) gonna assume, that’s not unreasonable. Im not psychic and I shouldn’t have to weed out what exactly you mean or your point is .Quote:
Originally Posted by TICcanelo must live rent free in you & primo carnera's head. this discussion is about marvin, the fab four & some guys i would have like to see him fight that might have better challenges. disrespectful? i'm just asking about marvin fighting some smaller guys who he is mainly associated with. chill out titofan, if you have nothing to add to the discussion that's fine but you are the one derailing the discussion with your own comparisons & trying to make out i'm making that argument, that is called a strawmanQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanGinger groupie.....Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
For one thing, you should wash your mouth out with soap for even daring to speak of the great Hagler in such disrespectful terms.
i have my reasons for commenting about marvin, did you ask my reason? no you just assumed it had something to do with canelo. one of my reasons if you're interested is mike mccallum & was going to go into the rest of the fab four & them not fighting him, another reason was marvin bending the knee for the ray fightQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraHere we go! ;D So you make a comment about Hagler for no reason at all, and revive a thread that hasn’t seen the light of day for the best part of 4 years hey? I think I have very good reason to “Assume” that it was an indirect comparison to the Canelo / Crawford situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by TICthis was your first lineQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraIf you go back to the first line I wrote on this subject , you’ll know why I mentioned Canelo.Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
But you chose to ignore that.
"If this is a way of justifying Canelo v Crawford you are way off."
you're making assumptions. i'm posting about marvin, nothing about canelo. you also assume i ignored it. i didn't, it just had nothing to do with what i am posting about. bud jumping three weights is completely different from what i'm posting about marvin
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t, but you never answer with a straight “Yes” or “No”, so we have to make our own minds up.
You should be a bit braver and have the courage of your convictions rather than let everyone accuse you.
But hey, if you want to “say things without saying them” crack on.
yes i used an old thread, there's nothing wrong with that is there? the only other thread i could find on marvin was called marvin haggler so i went with this one. i must have missed where it says you must start a new thread for a new discussion
you know what they say about assumptions
what question did you ask that i didn't answer? you came in with an assumption not related to what i'm discussing. you made up your mind based on your own assumption
i asked "does marvin get a pass for fighting smaller guys & cashing out towards the end of his career?"
"be a bit braver and have the courage of your convictions"
here we go then, i think marvin avoided tougher challenges to cash out against smaller guys towards the end of his career, there's nothing wrong with that but that's how i see it. i also think the rest of the fab four avoided the bodysnatcher. i also don't agree with the notion that marvin retired because he was disgusted by the decision against ray, i think he retired because he was embarrassed that he lost to a smaller guy who was coming of nearly three years of inactivity
now let's see if you can be brave & have the courage to admit your assumptions were wrong
for the record, since the canelo v bud fight has been mentioned, i don't like the fight & won't give canelo any credit for a win. i'd prefer to see him fight christian mbilli & then try for a shot at the artur v dmitry two winner & i'd like bud to make a run at jr middle, there are some fantastic match ups there
You can dredge up an old Thread , no problem, but 4 years later…………most people only do that when there has been something in the news relevant to that.
You keep believing yourself , whatever floats your boat. 👍
My final post on this thread . To everyone, have a look who started this thread way back AND their comment.
Make your own “ASSUMPTIONS”. :rotflmao:
i didn't make any indirect statements, i asked a question & i never refused to give my opinion on my questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraIf you’re gonna throw indirect statements out there and refuse to opine , we’re (yes we, cos i’m clearly not the only one) gonna assume, that’s not unreasonable. Im not psychic and I shouldn’t have to weed out what exactly you mean or your point is .Quote:
Originally Posted by TICcanelo must live rent free in you & primo carnera's head. this discussion is about marvin, the fab four & some guys i would have like to see him fight that might have better challenges. disrespectful? i'm just asking about marvin fighting some smaller guys who he is mainly associated with. chill out titofan, if you have nothing to add to the discussion that's fine but you are the one derailing the discussion with your own comparisons & trying to make out i'm making that argument, that is called a strawmanQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanGinger groupie.....Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
For one thing, you should wash your mouth out with soap for even daring to speak of the great Hagler in such disrespectful terms.
i have my reasons for commenting about marvin, did you ask my reason? no you just assumed it had something to do with canelo. one of my reasons if you're interested is mike mccallum & was going to go into the rest of the fab four & them not fighting him, another reason was marvin bending the knee for the ray fightQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraHere we go! ;D So you make a comment about Hagler for no reason at all, and revive a thread that hasn’t seen the light of day for the best part of 4 years hey? I think I have very good reason to “Assume” that it was an indirect comparison to the Canelo / Crawford situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by TICthis was your first lineQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraIf you go back to the first line I wrote on this subject , you’ll know why I mentioned Canelo.Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
But you chose to ignore that.
"If this is a way of justifying Canelo v Crawford you are way off."
you're making assumptions. i'm posting about marvin, nothing about canelo. you also assume i ignored it. i didn't, it just had nothing to do with what i am posting about. bud jumping three weights is completely different from what i'm posting about marvin
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t, but you never answer with a straight “Yes” or “No”, so we have to make our own minds up.
You should be a bit braver and have the courage of your convictions rather than let everyone accuse you.
But hey, if you want to “say things without saying them” crack on.
yes i used an old thread, there's nothing wrong with that is there? the only other thread i could find on marvin was called marvin haggler so i went with this one. i must have missed where it says you must start a new thread for a new discussion
you know what they say about assumptions
what question did you ask that i didn't answer? you came in with an assumption not related to what i'm discussing. you made up your mind based on your own assumption
i asked "does marvin get a pass for fighting smaller guys & cashing out towards the end of his career?"
"be a bit braver and have the courage of your convictions"
here we go then, i think marvin avoided tougher challenges to cash out against smaller guys towards the end of his career, there's nothing wrong with that but that's how i see it. i also think the rest of the fab four avoided the bodysnatcher. i also don't agree with the notion that marvin retired because he was disgusted by the decision against ray, i think he retired because he was embarrassed that he lost to a smaller guy who was coming of nearly three years of inactivity
now let's see if you can be brave & have the courage to admit your assumptions were wrong
for the record, since the canelo v bud fight has been mentioned, i don't like the fight & won't give canelo any credit for a win. i'd prefer to see him fight christian mbilli & then try for a shot at the artur v dmitry two winner & i'd like bud to make a run at jr middle, there are some fantastic match ups there
You can dredge up an old Thread , no problem, but 4 years later…………most people only do that when there has been something in the news relevant to that.
You keep believing yourself , whatever floats your boat. 👍
it is not unreasonable to assume, i agree. no one has inferred that you are psychic but if you fail to comprehend a straight forward question then that is on you
so i can dredge up an old thread but it needs to be in a timeframe that suits you or have some relevant news? just because most people do something doesn't mean i have to
what floats my boat is noting that you weren't brave enough or had enough courage to admit your assumption was wrong
yes i started the thread & i still think marvin is a legend, one of the best middleweights ever, that doesn't mean i have to agree with every decision & statement that was made in someone's careerQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
Sorry, I haven't followed all the responses closely so this may have already been said:
Might there not be a chance that you dredged up the thread in a thinly veiled effort to defend all the criticism Canelo is getting toward the end of career? Seeking to draw a comparison between the two? (heresy)
Some say lost, some say royally screwed. Arguably one of the most debated decisions at the highest level over the last number of decades. And the smaller fighter competed with and held W's with the same greats who make up the same Fab four era we always celebrate and respect...plus some. And would go onto do it again post Hagler.Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
As much as I like McCallum, in hindsight I think some of the "boogeyman" and flat avoided talk with Duran, Hagler etc can get carried away. Many circumstances let alone basic timing. Hagler was not a bend the knee kinda man. He fought an established legend and fellow Fab 4 member in Leonard. McCallum was still very under the radar and winning a dropped belt on a Hagler undercard. He broke out a bit with Julian Jackson network KO still at 154, when Hagler was 3 months away from fighting Mugabi before it was originally postponed. Great fight McCallum but he literally had done nothing at middle. That was his move to make but he wasn't well established and did not make it. And as we found out when he finally walked into the division, he was thoroughly out boxed by Kalambay. Full respect Body Snatcher. Kalambay was very solid and Mike got him back a few years later. To the original question out of left field that bumped a condolence thread ;D, no Hagler doesn't get a pass as he never needed one in the first place.
does marvin get a pass for fighting smaller guys & cashing out towards the end of his career?Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
which smaller guys are you referring toQuote:
Originally Posted by TICdoes marvin get a pass for fighting smaller guys & cashing out towards the end of his career?Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
marvin bent the knee to twelve rounds, bigger gloves & ring size to get the ray fight didn't he?Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliSome say lost, some say royally screwed. Arguably one of the most debated decisions at the highest level over the last number of decades. And the smaller fighter competed with and held W's with the same greats who make up the same Fab four era we always celebrate and respect...plus some. And would go onto do it again post Hagler.Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
Hagler was not a bend the knee kinda man.
McCallum was still very under the radar
Great fight McCallum but he literally had done nothing at middle.
when he finally walked into the division, he was thoroughly out boxed by Kalambay. Full respect Body Snatcher. Kalambay was very solid and Mike got him back a few years later.
To the original question, no Hagler doesn't get a pass as he never needed one in the first place.
mike was still under the radar, i think i originally posted eighty five to eighty seven but i think towards the end of eighty six or instead of the ray fight in april eighty seven, mike would have been catching marvin at the right time
respectfully, john, tommy & ray had done nothing at middle
yeah sumbu got mike, that was in eighty eighty, sumbu could be very difficult at his best
i disagree, i give marvin a pass as he did most of his work earlier
i wasn't present at the time but what was the feeling & thoughts on the marvin v ray fight? with ray's inactivity & moving up was it seen as competitive going in? i guess the wbc were good with sanctioning it even with ray being out for three years with their hands out as usual. different times, has anyone got a shot at a title in recent times after that long out?
mainly the other three of the fab four, especially rayQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanwhich smaller guys are you referring toQuote:
Originally Posted by TICdoes marvin get a pass for fighting smaller guys & cashing out towards the end of his career?Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by TICmainly the other three of the fab four, especially rayQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanwhich smaller guys are you referring toQuote:
Originally Posted by TICdoes marvin get a pass for fighting smaller guys & cashing out towards the end of his career?Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
right. all-world, all-time hearns, leonard, duran. what do you mean by cashing out?
yes all time greats but how would you rate them at middle all time? by cashing out i mean marvin took money over better challenges, especially in ray's case. as master said herol graham who had fought three times in eighty six or for me the bodysnatcher who had fought four times in eighty six, would have, on paper been seen as better challenges than an almost three year inactive ray. he also bowed down to ray's requests for twelve rounds, bigger gloves & ring size to get the fight. i wasn't around at the time so i was asking spicoli what the feeling was surrounding the marvin v ray fight. was it seen as a gimmick? i just can't get my head around it, taking nothing away from ray, an all time great but with large gaps in his activity, i just can't see the public thinking it was a competitive match up. ray had only fought once in five years. i couldn't see the boxing fans of today accepting a dominant champion facing an almost three years inactive challenger, who's last fight was a division below (almost two) & only having fought once in five years as a competitive challenger, no matter how good that fighter was. i guess vitali did something similar against sam peter but they were the same weight & vitali had emetrius status & sam peter was no marvin, ray had never fought at middleweight i think, i guess the wbc just took their envelope
Hagler-Leonard was a fight I never understood, to be fair. I also felt that wasn't the same Hagler in there that fought Hearns. But the fight before Leonard was against John "The Beast" Mugabi. A dangerous, undefeated, avoided fighter who was 25-0, all by knockout at the time of the fight. It was a brutal war. So toward the end of his career, he took on a dangerous opponent who people thought had a legitimate chance to get Hagler out of there.
Hagler-Hearns was a classic, widely regarded as one of the best 3-round fights in history. Though Hearns came up from super welter, he was 6 foot 1, and his body was better suited for the higher weights, where he ended up fighting.
Prior to that it was Mustafa Hamsho and Juan Domingo Roldan, two very rugged middleweights.
If anything, Hagler ended his career in a manner befitting his great, HOF career. Again... the Leonard fight was strange to me. Both the matchup, the fight, and the outcome.
But none of this lessens Hagler's legacy, nor IMO requires anyone giving him "a pass."
yeah that ray fight sure is a cash out to me. those that say mike mccallum hadn't done anything at middleweight overlook the fact that john mugabi, roberto duran, tommy hearns & ray leonard hadn't done anything of note at the weight either. nothing wrong with that, bernard hopkins probably made his biggest purses against tito & oscar. no one is trying to lessen marvins legacy. one should be able to critique parts of a fighters career without being critical of the whole body of workQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by TICyeah that ray fight sure is a cash out to me. those that say mike mccallum hadn't done anything at middleweight overlook the fact that john mugabi, roberto duran, tommy hearns & ray leonard hadn't done anything of note at the weight either. nothing wrong with that, bernard hopkins probably made his biggest purses against tito & oscar. no one is trying to lessen marvins legacy. one should be able to critique parts of a fighters career without being critical of the whole body of workQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
You're totally right about being able to critique parts of a fighter's career without being critical of the whole body of work.
Of those you mentioned, I'll talk about Hagler and Hopkins. Hagler was known during his entire career as a warrior. He always took the tough fights. Even those you mentioned (SRL, Hearns, Duran) brought more than enough to the table. Of Hearns in particular, the following must be said. We shouldn't focus on the fact that Hearns was coming up from 154. Fact is he was always too tall for his weight (meaning he had the frame to able to carry more weight). At 160, he looked fit and strong. He even went higher in weight later in his career. The Hearns-Hagler fight was an instant classic... and no one knew beforehand how Hagler would respond from getting hit by those right hands from Hearns. In other words, Hagler took a significant risk.
Hopkins. Yes, he fought both Trinidad and DLH at middle, when neither of them was a true middle. But in Trinidad's case, he had just knocked out a bonafide MW champion in William Joppy. This was part of a MW Championship Series put together by Don King, so yes... Hopkins ended up fighting Trinidad. Plus the public was clamoring for the fight, since Felix had seemingly made the jump to middle with ease. On the other hand, the DLH fight I can't defend. That one I'll put in the category of Hagler-Leonard. DLH didn't belong at middle... and much less in the ring with Hopkins.
But none of this diminishes the career of either Hagler or Hopkins. Both were warriors, and neither looked for the easy way out most of the time (save those two fights). I don't recall either one of them seeking advantages in their big fights... ducking obvious opponents... playing weight games constantly to their favor... protecting their "0"s... or being blatantly favored by judges every time they fought. But yes... we can definitely critique those parts of their careers, without being critical of the whole body of work.
In other cases, one can critique both the end of a fighter's career, and... the whole body of work.
Real life bs stepped in and took my mind out of it for a bit but interesting discussion. I wasn't following close to boxing in 87 so the general big picture attitude leading up to Hagler v Leonard escapes me. Found the original HBO lead up to it and sounds like some thought both Hagler and Ray were passed it and Clancy thought it was just Ray. One thing I had no idea about was that the fight was talked about as early as 81 and it was Ray coming back solely to face Hagler. They were negotiating even before the Kevin Howard fight and it all went mute when Ray suffered the eye injury and was forced into retirement. Had no idea it was basically in the works for 4 years. Also never realized that Hearns didn't just leap a division, he actually fought a few fights at middle and was ranked there prior to fighting Hagler. Duran always felt like more about the entirety of the fab-four and massive attraction between two super stars going in. The lineage of how each Hagler foe did against one another. Found another top-notch doc on Hagler too, lots of details fight to fight.
https://youtu.be/eTnRHEBWI-8
https://youtu.be/byFu7YKiCA4
"Even those you mentioned (SRL, Hearns, Duran) brought more than enough to the table"Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by TICyeah that ray fight sure is a cash out to me. those that say mike mccallum hadn't done anything at middleweight overlook the fact that john mugabi, roberto duran, tommy hearns & ray leonard hadn't done anything of note at the weight either. nothing wrong with that, bernard hopkins probably made his biggest purses against tito & oscar. no one is trying to lessen marvins legacy. one should be able to critique parts of a fighters career without being critical of the whole body of workQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
You're totally right about being able to critique parts of a fighter's career without being critical of the whole body of work.
Of those you mentioned, I'll talk about Hagler and Hopkins. Hagler was known during his entire career as a warrior. He always took the tough fights. Even those you mentioned (SRL, Hearns, Duran) brought more than enough to the table. Of Hearns in particular, the following must be said. We shouldn't focus on the fact that Hearns was coming up from 154. Fact is he was always too tall for his weight (meaning he had the frame to able to carry more weight). At 160, he looked fit and strong. He even went higher in weight later in his career. The Hearns-Hagler fight was an instant classic... and no one knew beforehand how Hagler would respond from getting hit by those right hands from Hearns. In other words, Hagler took a significant risk.
Hopkins. Yes, he fought both Trinidad and DLH at middle, when neither of them was a true middle. But in Trinidad's case, he had just knocked out a bonafide MW champion in William Joppy. This was part of a MW Championship Series put together by Don King, so yes... Hopkins ended up fighting Trinidad. Plus the public was clamoring for the fight, since Felix had seemingly made the jump to middle with ease. On the other hand, the DLH fight I can't defend. That one I'll put in the category of Hagler-Leonard. DLH didn't belong at middle... and much less in the ring with Hopkins.
But none of this diminishes the career of either Hagler or Hopkins. Both were warriors, and neither looked for the easy way out most of the time (save those two fights). I don't recall either one of them seeking advantages in their big fights... ducking obvious opponents... playing weight games constantly to their favor... protecting their "0"s... or being blatantly favored by judges every time they fought. But yes... we can definitely critique those parts of their careers, without being critical of the whole body of work.
In other cases, one can critique both the end of a fighter's career, and... the whole body of work.
i agree with you on tommy, ray & roberto not so much
i also agree that oscar shouldn't have been at middle. i thought he lost to felix sturm. i was on the tito train from when he moved to fifty four, although young i remember being so excited for the fernando vargas & bernard fights, i remember big watch parties for those at my folks house. i was sure tito was winning that tournament & had mixed emotions at the result. i was bummed (no diddy) tito lost but in awe of bernards performance
"But none of this diminishes the career of either Hagler or Hopkins"
again, no one is trying to diminish anyone's career, both were warriors. i actually think with his age & moving up to light heavy bernard finished his career very impressively & very tough
nice finds. hope all is good in the real world. i know it can be seen as blasphemy by some to question past greats but my intention is to get an understanding of certain fights & how they were perceived at the time. titofan seems to think marvin wasn't the same going into the ray fight. a marvin v ray fight before the eye injury would have been very interesting, even in eighty four, by eighty seven i think they were both cashing up. tommy had a couple of fights above jr middle & had defended his wbc jr middle belt prior to facing marvinQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
The short answer is no, Hagler fought legends which enhanced his legacy by taking on Duran, Hearns and Leonard.
Duran was the first fight for Hagler where he received huge money and mainstream attention. Roberto went on to become champion when he beat Blade Barkley.
The Hearns fight was built for ages and Tommy went on to higher weights to become champion. It also provided the greatest 3 rounds ever.
Whilst he may have lost to Leonard he had the last laugh when he stayed retired to the frustration of Ray. Leonard went on and got embarrassed by Norris and Macho Man.
"Hagler fought legends which enhanced his legacy by taking on Duran, Hearns and Leonard."Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
yes he fought legends that enhanced his legacy, i'll give you tommy but roberto & ray were cash grabs rather than real challenges
"Duran was the first fight for Hagler where he received huge money and mainstream attention. Roberto went on to become champion when he beat Blade Barkley."
huge money & mainstream attention yes but not the biggest challenges & that was a great night for roberto against the blade
tommy was a beast at welter & jr middle & i think he naturally fit into middleweight
marvin lost to an almost three year inactive ray who had only fought once in the last five years & was basically moving up from welter. it's a pity marvin had to ben the knee to get the ray fight, giving up to twelve rounds, glove size & ring size. if that fight was over fifteen rounds marvin stops ray in my opinion. did ray get embarrassed or was he just spent by those fights?
i think by the time of the roberto fight marvin had cleaned out all the challenges at middle & was looking for big money against the guys below him. nothing wrong with that. we'd all take easier assignments for bigger pay. so yes i give marvin a pass for that. i remember tommy getting injured & causing the fight to be delayed at one stage. imagine if after the tommy fight if marvin instead chose to move up, looking for the biggest challenge & went in against michael spinks
No body knows what would happen when Hagler faced the legends in boxing.
Just as you say it would be good to have seen Hagler against Spinks at light heavy, it was historic to see Hagler v Hearns/Duran/Leonard.
For some reason Duran gave Hagler quite a challenge and Leonard beat him in a disputed decision. The 12 rounds as to having 15 did cost Hagler, also starting in an orthodox stance for the early part of the fight. Leonard trained hard in secret for the years he was out perfecting his fight against Marvin. Ray was a crafty manipulator who essentially stole the fight.
Every boxer’s career could be critiqued but Hagler’s is less so as I think he did everything he possibly could in the time he was champion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
THAT... to me is what separates the true great fighters from the manufactured ones. Nobody knew what would happen when Hagler faced Hearns. Nobody knew what would happen when Hagler faced Mugabi.
The same applies to the other great ones. Nobody knew what would happen when Leonard faced Hearns... each time. Absolutely NOBODY knew what would happen when Leonard faced Duran... each time.
You can go on and on and on. The truly great ones went into fights not knowing what would happen... and neither did the fans.
I miss those days.
by the legends are you still talking roberto, tommy & ray? roberto had to be a big underdog, a great lightweight, his place as an all time welterweight great needs discussion. on his night he would be tough for any welter in history, just not a lot of work there compared to the divisions history. marvin was a dominant middlweight champion. tommy i think would have been seen as much more of a threat with his power but his chin had already let him down at welter. ray was inactive for almost three years & moving up, i think he would have been a big underdog as well. i would guess marvin was seen as a solid favourite in all three of those fightsQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
a marvin v michael spinks fight would have been seen as a massive challenge & risk for marvin. it may have been historic to see marvin v tommy, roberto & ray but marvin was the favourite going into all of those fights. marvin took the easier fights for better money
my understanding is that john was seen as untested & unproven. marvin was the favourite in that fightQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Just because Marvin was favourite in his fights does not mean they were not impressive wins. He cleared his old challengers and started taking on the new and therefore untested contenders.
Marvin's record stands to good scrutiny and impressive by most standards.
wins v challenges. you are talking wins (he lost to ray) i am talking challenges. you said yourself he avoided herol graham & i think michael spinks would have been a bigger challenge than anyone marvin fought from roberto duran onwards. as i've also pointed out mike mccallum would have also been seen as a challenge heading into eighty seven over an almost three year inactive smaller guyQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
marvin is a legend & his record holds a lot of good work but the more i look at the ray leonard fight the worse it looks. even back then the public must have been questioning how legitimate of a challenge it was. if a dominant champion today decided to defend against a smaller fighter coming of an almost three year layoff, he'd be crucified
Quote:
Originally Posted by TICwins v challenges. you are talking wins (he lost to ray) i am talking challenges. you said yourself he avoided herol graham & i think michael spinks would have been a bigger challenge than anyone marvin fought from roberto duran onwards. as i've also pointed out mike mccallum would have also been seen as a challenge heading into eighty seven over an almost three year inactive smaller guyQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
marvin is a legend & his record holds a lot of good work but the more i look at the ray leonard fight the worse it looks. even back then the public must have been questioning how legitimate of a challenge it was. if a dominant champion today decided to defend against a smaller fighter coming of an almost three year layoff, he'd be crucified
You say he "avoided Herol Graham", and it's true that he was stripped of his WBA title for choosing to fight Leonard instead.
But let's talk real here. "Avoided" carries the implication that Hagler was somehow scared of Graham. WHEN? When was Hagler ever accused of ducking or avoiding anybody because he was scared? Your depiction of Hagler's mentality at that time leaves a lot to be desired. Excuse me for bringing up Canelo again. But it doesn't escape me that the timing of your accusations of Hagler coincides pretty much with the ton of criticism Canelo is receiving for picking MUCH SMALLER fighters, while ignoring the white elephant in his own division (doesn't matter if Benavidez moved on... he sat at 168 waiting enough time for Canelo to make a move).
Then you bring up Michael Spinks. Damn... Reaching for straws has never been so obvious. Hagler was strictly a middleweight for practically his entire career. Why the hell would he venture going up to light heavy to fight Spinks? That one just falls under its own weight.
All of this to paint a picture of Hagler that will make Canelo look better by comparison. It's so freaking obvious...
I've already agreed that the Leonard fight was strange, and IMO did nothing to help Hagler's legacy. But at the same time I'm objective enough to know that Hagler was nothing if not a warrior. He had no "0" to protect, as he had suffered two losses earlier in his career. Hagler was a guy who fought whoever they put in front of him. None of the stupid shenanigans Canelo has played throughout most of his career. Putting Hagler and Canelo in the same sentence (if that's what you intend to do), is ludicrous.
You'll answer that this isn't at all about Canelo. Really? :rolleyes:
Hagler's been dead now, what... almost four years? And we have to sit here and debate whether he was a ducker late in his career? Why? Because Canelo is getting all sorts of deserved heat?
Hey listen... I've been a boxing fan most of my life. Yes, there are plenty of people more knowledgeable about boxing than me. But what I DO know, I'm pretty certain about.
Hagler's last five fights were: Roldan, Hamsho, Hearns, Mugabi, Leonard.
Three tough, rugged, and dangerous middleweights... an up-and-coming super welter whose body and physique were MUCH better suited for 160 and above (and who was EXTREMELY dangerous as a knockout puncher)... and for some reason... Leonard.
In at least three of those last five fights, he could've easily been the victim of a knockout loss himself. Translation: He... took... risks.
Something my (cough) "favorite" fighter is genetically adverse of doing.
When Hagler challenged Alan Minter for the world middleweight title Minter said..,,,,,.I quote...... "Ain't no blk boy taken my title"
But as Larry Holmes said to Gerry Cooney "You can't call the police when we're in the ring" see white people (or in fact non black people coz non blk ppl like Arabs, Asian amd Latinos are just as anti black as white people) rely on their police or their military to checkmate blk ppl, and they do that globally, but in the ring ? It's just man on man and we saw what happened when Hagler forught Minter
"You say he "avoided Herol Graham", and it's true that he was stripped of his WBA title for choosing to fight Leonard instead."
so it's true marvin fought ray over herol? nothing wrong with that, ray was a big money fight but i don't think ray was seen as the biggest challenge. the ibf also refused to sanction the fight i think. why am i not surprised it was the wbc who did?
"Avoided" carries the implication that Hagler was somehow scared of Graham. WHEN? When was Hagler ever accused of ducking or avoiding anybody because he was scared?"
no one here (correct me if i'm wrong) has made the argument that marvin avoided or ducked anyone because he was scared. that is a strawman argument you have created
"Your depiction of Hagler's mentality at that time leaves a lot to be desired."
i said "i think michael spinks would have been a bigger challenge than anyone marvin fought from roberto duran onwards" do you disagree?
"Excuse me for bringing up Canelo again"
you can't help yourself
"Then you bring up Michael Spinks"
yes, because marvin had basically cleaned out middleweight before the roberto fight & michael spinks would have been a massive challenge around eighty three, eighty four for marvin.
"Hagler was strictly a middleweight for practically his entire career. Why the hell would he venture going up to light heavy to fight Spinks?"
that was marvin's choice to remain at middleweight. many other fighters have moved up, i guess marvin didn't fancy it. if you're asking me why marvin should have ventured up, then my answer is because he had nothing left to do at middle & michael spinks was a bigger challenge than anyone at middle or below
"All of this to paint a picture of Hagler that will make Canelo look better by comparison"
again, you're the only one bringing up canelo when the discussion is about another fighter
"I've already agreed that the Leonard fight was strange, and IMO did nothing to help Hagler's legacy"
you & i agree on this
"Hagler was nothing if not a warrior. He had no "0" to protect, as he had suffered two losses earlier in his career. Hagler was a guy who fought whoever they put in front of him."
marvin was definitely a warrior. he had suffered two losses earlier in his career & he was a guy who fought whoever they put in front of him. that doesn't mean he sought out the biggest challenges starting from the roberto fight
"Putting Hagler and Canelo in the same sentence (if that's what you intend to do), is ludicrous."
have i done that? no i'm trying to discuss marvin. you keep bringing up canelo & creating strawman arguments that i'm not making
"You'll answer that this isn't at all about Canelo. Really?"
you're the one who keeps bringing canelo up, not me
"Hagler's been dead now, what... almost four years? And we have to sit here and debate whether he was a ducker late in his career?"
i guess it's been about that long. no one is forcing you to read my posts or to respond. that is your choice whether you do or don't. i'm just discussing if marvin gets a pass for the later part of his career for taking lesser challenges. i haven't called him a ducker, that's another strawman you've created. i've said i think there were potentially bigger challenges but there is nothing wrong with taking bigger money for an easier assignment, i'd do the same. that's why i give marvin a pass
"Hagler's last five fights were: Roldan, Hamsho, Hearns, Mugabi, Leonard."
michael spinks was a bigger challenge than all of them. okay you want to leave off roberto. juan was tough, i think he got the fight of the frank fletcher win. did we really need the mustafa rematch? the tommy fight was a classic. john was seen as untested & unproven. then ray. out of his last six, three were smaller guys moving up & one of them almost three years inactive, one was an unnecessary rematch, an untested & unproven fighter & a tough rugged contender. nothing wrong with that as marvin was taking the bigger or similar money for lesser challenges, that's why i give him a pass because he did most of his work earlier
the police & the military are the last people i'll rely onQuote:
Originally Posted by Denilson3.0
Hagler was at the end of his career when he fought Leonard, indeed it was his last ever fight. The contest between Marvin and Ray had been ongoing for many years and was the biggest boxing event in years when it happened. Ray was a huge underdog and the fact that he did so well with his flurries made at least one judge give him the decision by a wide margin. The fight had to be made and made sense in every way.
Mugabi was a more dangerous challenger than McCallum at that time. That was a great fight.
Hagler moving up to light heavyweight is a fantasy fight. Marvin was a small middleweight, the jump up in weight was too big and Spinks far too dangerous. Marvin worked hard to win the title and he was going to maximise his earnings when he held the titles.
the negotiations had been going on for years & it was a big boxing event when it happenedQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
if ray was a huge underdog as you say then it wasn't really a challenge, more a cash in fight?
the fight didn't have to be made, two sanctioning bodies were against it. it only made sense financially not competitively
i agree that john may have been seen as a more dangerous challenger than mike at the time, as i mentioned to spicoli i revised my timeframe to late eighty six or early eighty seven instead of a ray fight. herol & mike should have been seen as bigger challenges than fighting ray
marvin moving up to light heavyweight is only fantasy because he never did it. it is not a fantasy that other fighters throughout the sports history have moved from middle to light heavyweight
saying marvin was a small middleweight sounds like an excuse. the jump up in weight wasn't too big for others. & saying that michael spinks was far too dangerous confirms my thoughts that marvin took lesser challengers for similar or better money
marvin did work hard for his title & i see nothing wrong with him maximizing his earnings but it also confirms he chose earnings over tougher challenges
Well all I know is you look up best middleweights of all time... and Hagler makes most lists, if not all. Some have him as top 5... most have him at least top 10.
He was the quintessential warrior... antithetical to some of what we see nowadays (no need for specifics from me).
He never feared anyone... he never ducked anyone for fear of losing or getting knocked out.
If he cashed out in the last fight of his career by facing possible TBE Ray Leonard... hey... all the more power to him.
Back then there was no Facebook... no Instagram... and less unwarranted hype to puff up a fighter's following or cash value.
Back then there were no coddled divas.
I just think that if Hagler had fought that last fight with the fury and intensity he fought Hearns... it would've been a hell of a different fight.
it wasn't just the last fight of his career, from mid eighty three marvin had cleaned out middleweight, instead of looking for the biggest challenge up above he chose to wait on bigger money. nothing wrong with that, marvin had done all he needed to do at middleweight by then, that's why i give him a pass for the last five years of his career. there were bigger challenges out there though. ray might not even be the best of the fab four let alone tbeQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Last 5 years of Hagler's career was not bad. There is no pass required for him.
Only his last ever fight was for the cash than facing more dangerous younger challengers.