Re: Is Marvin Hagler vs Thomas Hearns Slightly Overrated ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez
I know it was massive fight and etc, but i see a lot of people calling this one of the greatest fights of all time. But i want to know why people think this ?? yes 1st round was incredible but after the 1st round it was one sided fight, i just think people tend to overrate this fight and forget about other classics that are better fights like, Ramirez vs Rosario 2, Chacon vs Edwards 2, etc. But whats your opinions ??
I actually dont like this fight. Ive said it here before. Hearns gets clocked and smiles like a goof and then gets put to sleep. Just all seems a bit premeture. I wouldnt call it a dramatic finish, more like an anti-climax if im honest :-\
Re: Is Marvin Hagler vs Thomas Hearns Slightly Overrated ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo "Finito" Lopez
I know it was massive fight and etc, but i see a lot of people calling this one of the greatest fights of all time. But i want to know why people think this ?? yes 1st round was incredible but after the 1st round it was one sided fight, i just think people tend to overrate this fight and forget about other classics that are better fights like, Ramirez vs Rosario 2, Chacon vs Edwards 2, etc. But whats your opinions ??
The fight wasn't one-sided at all. The commentators (which included Ray Leonard punk a**) kind of made it seem that way. But it wasn't. The first was back and forth. But in the second Hearns boxed and moved pretty good. Hagler just landed the harder blows. But it was Hearns jabbing in the second that really opened up Haglers cut. And he was still throwing his right which by that time was already broken. The third was obviously the end. Hearns-Hagler to me will always be one of the greatest fight I ever saw
Hearns legs wern't there after 1st round, Hagler won 2nd round comfortably even though Hearns had his moment's. I think that cut helped Hagler in a way because he went out there knowing he had only 1 or 2 more rounds otherwise the fight would be stopped and he just demolished Hearns.
Re: Is Marvin Hagler vs Thomas Hearns Slightly Overrated ??
thats a very good question. the first round alone was probably the single greatest 3 minutes of action Ive ever seen. I think what makes the fight great though was the hype surrounding it and that hearns was coming off his 2 round destruction of duran. I agree though there have been better fights. I read recently that hearns had actually broken his hand but didnt want to use it as an excuse against Hagler
Re: Is Marvin Hagler vs Thomas Hearns Slightly Overrated ??
It is definately one of the best ever high profile fights. A classic War that I saw Live on TV and it got me hooked on Boxing.
Re: Is Marvin Hagler vs Thomas Hearns Slightly Overrated ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
It is definately one of the best ever high profile fights. A classic War that I saw Live on TV and it got me hooked on Boxing.
I guess that tells you how great it was. For me personally,as I didn't see it live,I think it was an amazing fight but not the greatest,maybe because,as has been mentioned, I was not around for all the hype etc. Similarly,in 30 years time,people may wonder about the fights,we,as in this generation,consider great in the same way.
Re: Is Marvin Hagler vs Thomas Hearns Slightly Overrated ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
It is definately one of the best ever high profile fights. A classic War that I saw Live on TV and it got me hooked on Boxing.
I guess that tells you how great it was. For me personally,as I didn't see it live,I think it was an amazing fight but not the greatest,maybe because,as has been mentioned, I was not around for all the hype etc. Similarly,in 30 years time,people may wonder about the fights,we,as in this generation,consider great in the same way.
I think that might be what ICB is getting at though. Obviously being around for the hype and all makes a fight that much more intriuging... But do you really think in 30 yrs people are going to be questioning whether Corrales Castillo was an all time great fight?? As far as I'm concerned the build up to that fight played no role whatsoever... I can't even remember there being much hype over it.. It's simply the in ring action itself that makes that fight what it is.. I know I'm not clearing anything up here, just saying that it's easy to get caught up in thinking , oh Hagler Hearns was the best fight ever.. But really much of it is just due to the signifigance it had in the sport at that time. It would be like Mayweather moving up to MW and fighting Pavlik, with both of them just trading bombs for 3 rounds with a dramatic KO.. Obviously not in regards to the styles or anything, just to see two p4p guys clash and throw all caution to the wind.. Basically there's no right answer to whether the fight was overrated other than to say the action itself probably didn't equate to one of the greatest fights ever. I don't see anything wrong with analyzing fights strictly by what happened in the ring. I didn't even see Corrales Castillo live, and hardly even thought anything of the matchup beforehand.. It doesn't make it any less exciting to watch though.
Re: Is Marvin Hagler vs Thomas Hearns Slightly Overrated ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
It is definately one of the best ever high profile fights. A classic War that I saw Live on TV and it got me hooked on Boxing.
I guess that tells you how great it was. For me personally,as I didn't see it live,I think it was an amazing fight but not the greatest,maybe because,as has been mentioned, I was not around for all the hype etc. Similarly,in 30 years time,people may wonder about the fights,we,as in this generation,consider great in the same way.
I think that might be what ICB is getting at though. Obviously being around for the hype and all makes a fight that much more intriuging... But do you really think in 30 yrs people are going to be questioning whether Corrales Castillo was an all time great fight?? As far as I'm concerned the build up to that fight played no role whatsoever... I can't even remember there being much hype over it.. It's simply the in ring action itself that makes that fight what it is.. I know I'm not clearing anything up here, just saying that it's easy to get caught up in thinking , oh Hagler Hearns was the best fight ever.. But really much of it is just due to the signifigance it had in the sport at that time. It would be like Mayweather moving up to MW and fighting Pavlik, with both of them just trading bombs for 3 rounds with a dramatic KO.. Obviously not in regards to the styles or anything, just to see two p4p guys clash and throw all caution to the wind.. Basically there's no right answer to whether the fight was overrated other than to say the action itself probably didn't equate to one of the greatest fights ever. I don't see anything wrong with analyzing fights strictly by what happened in the ring. I didn't even see Corrales Castillo live, and hardly even thought anything of the matchup beforehand.. It doesn't make it any less exciting to watch though.
Thats the best response so far CC P4P im glad you understand what im trying to say.
Re: Is Marvin Hagler vs Thomas Hearns Slightly Overrated ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
It is definately one of the best ever high profile fights. A classic War that I saw Live on TV and it got me hooked on Boxing.
I guess that tells you how great it was. For me personally,as I didn't see it live,I think it was an amazing fight but not the greatest,maybe because,as has been mentioned, I was not around for all the hype etc. Similarly,in 30 years time,people may wonder about the fights,we,as in this generation,consider great in the same way.
I think that might be what ICB is getting at though. Obviously being around for the hype and all makes a fight that much more intriuging... But do you really think in 30 yrs people are going to be questioning whether Corrales Castillo was an all time great fight?? As far as I'm concerned the build up to that fight played no role whatsoever... I can't even remember there being much hype over it.. It's simply the in ring action itself that makes that fight what it is.. I know I'm not clearing anything up here, just saying that it's easy to get caught up in thinking , oh Hagler Hearns was the best fight ever.. But really much of it is just due to the signifigance it had in the sport at that time. It would be like Mayweather moving up to MW and fighting Pavlik, with both of them just trading bombs for 3 rounds with a dramatic KO.. Obviously not in regards to the styles or anything, just to see two p4p guys clash and throw all caution to the wind.. Basically there's no right answer to whether the fight was overrated other than to say the action itself probably didn't equate to one of the greatest fights ever. I don't see anything wrong with analyzing fights strictly by what happened in the ring. I didn't even see Corrales Castillo live, and hardly even thought anything of the matchup beforehand.. It doesn't make it any less exciting to watch though.
CC on me my man,classy response.
Re: Is Marvin Hagler vs Thomas Hearns Slightly Overrated ??
Just want to continue what P4P was saying, just forgetting the hype for a minute. I was basically saying is the fight overrated when people say this is one of the great fights of all time ?? yes 1st round was amazing but there have been plenty of amazing 1st rounds, like Bert Cooper vs Michael Moorer, which was better 1st round than Hearns vs Hagler IMO. Plus the fight was more competitive and it added more drama with the knockdowns.
Action wise there have been many better fights and i don't think it should matter if there big names or not. If the fight is a amazing fight even if there big names or not, it should still get credit for being amazing fight.
Re: Is Marvin Hagler vs Thomas Hearns Slightly Overrated ??
Also, ive got it on DVD somewhere... This fight wasn't as hyped (at the time) as some might think.
Referring to the pre-fight hype, the narrator says something like ''Suprisingly, this fight failed to capture the imagination of many'' or something like that.
So i guess it was only regarded a superfight in hindsight ??? I dont know how much truth is int that. Is there any posters here who are old enough to know for sure ???
