Printable View
saying "not bad" sounds like a passQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
"only his last ever fight" sounds like a pass
michael spinks would have been more of a challenge than anyone from the roberto fight onwards, marvin could have really moved up as early as completing the vito antuofermo rematch
When I wrote not bad, I was being sarcastic, it was very good. :)
If his last fight was a pass then so be it. Every fighter has at least one.
Spinks would have been a challenge but Hagler was a career middleweight. His body of work from Vito onwards I would argue is better than facing Spinks if taken together.
Why give up the title he worked so hard for to give it away. Hagler would not have received any favours from the alphabet boys if he relinquished the middleweight title.
Why the infatuation with Michael Spinks??
I think there's something to be said for those old time (and new ones, too) champions that feel comfortable at one weight their entire careers.
Many fighters move up because they don't have the DISCIPLINE to make weight, so they take the lazy way out. Not saying that's the case of all of them... but some certainly do.
Many great champions of the past stayed at one weight their whole careers. Are we going to criticize them because they didn't jump up in weight to challenge bigger guys??
That is the new way of doing things, I guess. I'm old school.
Maybe it's all this jumping up 2 or 3 divisions looking for a money grab. It's turning boxing more into a circus than I care to think about.
Even the jumping itself.
Used to be guys would move up and GRADUALLY acclimate themselves to the new weight.
Now they not only jump 2 or 3 divisions. Some bozos even seek to drag much heavier champions to some ridiculous catchweight, complete with rehydration clauses.... all for the sake of some bogus claim to another weight division title.
It's all crap, if you ask me.
oh you were being sarcastic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
so you do give marvin a pass but just for his last fight?
marvin was a career middleweight sounds like an excuse. i said marvin could have really moved up as early as completing the vito antuofermo rematch. so after that rematch i would say his body of work is less than stellar. "His body of work" you are using a false equivalence, tell me one opponent marvin fought from july eighty one onwards that would have been a bigger challenge than michael spinks
why not give up the title & look for bigger challenges? why would marvin need favours if he was moving up to fight michael spinks?
michael spinks would have been a huge challenge for marvinQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
i think there's something to be said for those fighters that move up or down for challenges
"Not saying that's the case of all of them" exactly, some move up or down for challenges
many fighters have moved up or down for challenges. no one is criticizing anyone. boxing carries great risks. depending on the circumstances fighters can get a pass for not moving up or down for challenges
moving up or down in weight is not new. it's old school
"Maybe it's all this jumping up 2 or 3 divisions looking for a money grab"
or staying put in a division waiting on smaller guys that will bring bigger purses
"Used to be guys would move up and GRADUALLY acclimate themselves to the new weigh"
that's not how it used to be, there are too many to mention but did ray robinson gradually acclimate to before fighting jake or joey maxim? guys like harry greb, mickey walker, sam langford et cetera
"It's all crap, if you ask me"
all crap? nah moving up or down is common throughout the sports history right up until today
Quote:
Originally Posted by TICmichael spinks would have been a huge challenge for marvinQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
i think there's something to be said for those fighters that move up or down for challenges
"Not saying that's the case of all of them" exactly, some move up or down for challenges
many fighters have moved up or down for challenges. no one is criticizing anyone. boxing carries great risks. depending on the circumstances fighters can get a pass for not moving up or down for challenges
moving up or down in weight is not new. it's old school
"Maybe it's all this jumping up 2 or 3 divisions looking for a money grab"
or staying put in a division waiting on smaller guys that will bring bigger purses
"Used to be guys would move up and GRADUALLY acclimate themselves to the new weigh"
that's not how it used to be, there are too many to mention but did ray robinson gradually acclimate to before fighting jake or joey maxim? guys like harry greb, mickey walker, sam langford et cetera
"It's all crap, if you ask me"
all crap? nah moving up or down is common throughout the sports history right up until today
This is all a matter of opinion and personal preference.
I like fighters who take on all challengers, rather than go chasing trinkets for the sake of trinkets. I like fighters who like fighting on even ground, without weight shenanigans, marinating, or other ways to stack the deck in their favor.
Hagler doesn't need a pass from anyone to be considered one of the greatest middleweights in history.
You don't see the controversy surrounding his career that surrounds the careers of others that will go unnamed for purposes of this discussion.
But again... it's a matter of opinion.
You've clearly stated yours.
I've clearly stated mine.
On the flip side I wonder how Spinks would have viewed or been received in facing a career middleweight who had yet to have his highest profile "fab four" fights. And what did Spinks bring in 81. Was that ever a topic with a single writer posing the question or calling for a match or Hagler to leave middle then. Genuine question. Was there ever a demand or market. Assuming Hagler would have gone up after Vito rematch in 81, completely erasing the Hearns, Duran and what is considered a high profile classic war with Mugabi and Leonard. Three HOFs gone just like that. Turns out greats could provide entertaining legendary fights. Duran, Mugabi, Hearns and Leonard were that. Spinks was literally champ for 1 whole month at the time. Who needed who more maybe with Spinks, Hagler was the one making over a million knocking off 3 top ranked challengers even before Duran. My old favorite on any top champion...sweep out the immediate division and challengers. Irony is and I did not "live" it live so could be totally off...but Spinks at times sounds a similar case and was looking for that 'explosion' of household name notoriety. He himself looked to go up specifically for the glory and finally a career purse, and Holmes wasn't exactly looking stellar and running very close with Witherspoon and Williams. Best I can tell that was Spinks very first million-dollar fight of his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by TICoh you were being sarcastic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
so you do give marvin a pass but just for his last fight?
marvin was a career middleweight sounds like an excuse. i said marvin could have really moved up as early as completing the vito antuofermo rematch. so after that rematch i would say his body of work is less than stellar. "His body of work" you are using a false equivalence, tell me one opponent marvin fought from july eighty one onwards that would have been a bigger challenge than michael spinks
why not give up the title & look for bigger challenges? why would marvin need favours if he was moving up to fight michael spinks?
i guess michael would have been viewed marvin as good money & been received as other fighters have that have fought men coming upQuote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliOn the flip side I wonder how Spinks would have viewed or been received in facing a career middleweight who had yet to have his highest profile "fab four" fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by TICoh you were being sarcastic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
so you do give marvin a pass but just for his last fight?
marvin was a career middleweight sounds like an excuse. i said marvin could have really moved up as early as completing the vito antuofermo rematch. so after that rematch i would say his body of work is less than stellar. "His body of work" you are using a false equivalence, tell me one opponent marvin fought from july eighty one onwards that would have been a bigger challenge than michael spinks
why not give up the title & look for bigger challenges? why would marvin need favours if he was moving up to fight michael spinks?
And what did Spinks bring in 81.
Was that ever a topic with a single writer posing the question or calling for a match or Hagler to leave middle then. Genuine question.
Was there ever a demand or market.
Assuming Hagler would have gone up after Vito rematch in 81, completely erasing the Hearns, Duran and what is considered a high profile classic war with Mugabi and Leonard. Three HOFs gone just like that. Turns out greats could provide entertaining legendary fights. Duran, Mugabi, Hearns and Leonard were that.
Spinks was literally champ for 1 whole month at the time. Who needed who more maybe with Spinks, Hagler was the one making over a million knocking off 3 top ranked challengers even before Duran.
My old favorite on any top champion...sweep out the immediate division and challengers.
Irony is and I did not "live" it live so could be totally off...but Spinks at times sounds a similar case and was looking for that 'explosion' of household name notoriety. He himself looked to go up specifically for the glory and finally a career purse, and Holmes wasn't exactly looking stellar and running very close with Witherspoon and Williams. Best I can tell that was Spinks very first million-dollar fight of his career.
michael had just won the title from eddie a month after marvin's rematch with vito. what michael brought was a bigger challenge than anyone marvin fought from that point on
don't know if it was ever a topic, did marvin ever give any indications of moving up? genuine question
don't know if there was a demand, there was probably a market
michael spinks would have been a bigger challenge than anyone marvin fought after the vito rematch. yes three hall of famers, how would you rate them as all time middleweights?
it doesn't matter how long michael was champ or who needed him. marvin was making good money against lesser challenges than michael would have been
marvin had already cleaned out middleweight after the vito rematch
michael was starting to get boxing covers in eighty two & the buzz for the dwight fight was growing. michael's wife died so that might have played into his moving up for the bigger money as well
I can't recall a big push for Hagler to face Spinks at that time. Spinks became a great light heavyweight and it was retrospectively asked as you have done.
The more mouth watering contests for Marvin were against the other 3 kings.
Hagler was a relatively small MW. Add in same day weigh-ins and the fact that I don’t think SMW existed, so I doubt there would have been any clamour for him to go to LHW. I think there might have only been 2 governing bodies back then.
In those days , more often than not people proved they were great by wiping out their natural weight division.
Only the real superstars went up the divisions. There wasn’t the capacity to be a multi weight “champion” by picking off lesser champions like they do today.
I use to watch ESPN which showed Hagler when he was fighting in 1970's and he was amazing. His speed, skills and fitness were exceptional and he slowed down as champion relying on his great chin and toughness to best his opponents.
When Hagler eventually became champion there was no way was he going to give up his titles to move up in weight. Marvin gave us historic fights which should be appreciated.
i find that strange as i remember back in two thousand one when a roy jones v felix trinidad fight was being seriously discussed. both were pound for pound, roy was at light heavy & felix was a unified jr middleweight champion preparing to go into the middleweight tournament. the plan was for tito to have his two fights & become undisputed at middle & then move up to fight royQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
I’m not sure how this correlates with Hagler. Different worlds.Quote:
Originally Posted by TICi find that strange as i remember back in two thousand one when a roy jones v felix trinidad fight was being seriously discussed. both were pound for pound, roy was at light heavy & felix was a unified jr middleweight champion preparing to go into the middleweight tournament. the plan was for tito to have his two fights & become undisputed at middle & then move up to fight royQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Hagler was not a big MW.
they weighed in the same day back then.
Hagler probably walked the streets at less than 170lbs , so why would he bother fighting at 175?
There isn’t the silly money there is now, but you can safely say Hagler would earn WAY more fighting SRL than he would fighting Michael Spinks.
Spinks as we now know was on his way up the weights.
Like @Master said, I can never remember the Hagler / Spinks fight ever being talked about.
I’m not sure how this correlates with Hagler. Different worlds.Quote:
Originally Posted by TICi find that strange as i remember back in two thousand one when a roy jones v felix trinidad fight was being seriously discussed. both were pound for pound, roy was at light heavy & felix was a unified jr middleweight champion preparing to go into the middleweight tournament. the plan was for tito to have his two fights & become undisputed at middle & then move up to fight royQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Hagler was not a big MW.
they weighed in the same day back then.
Hagler probably walked the streets at less than 170lbs , so why would he bother fighting at 175?
There isn’t the silly money there is now, but you can safely say Hagler would earn WAY more fighting SRL than he would fighting Michael Spinks.
Spinks as we now know was on his way up the weights.
Like @Master said, I can never remember the Hagler / Spinks fight ever being talked about.
it correlates with marvin because there was talk of a smaller guy moving up. i also remember talk that bernard hopkins should have moved up to try & avenge his loss to roy, bernard was trying to set a record for defenses & i think both their egos got in the way. it correlates because there was talk of middleweights moving up to light heavy, so it seems strange that there wasn't any talk of marvin moving up to face michael, especially around late eighty threeQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraI’m not sure how this correlates with Hagler. Different worlds.Quote:
Originally Posted by TICi find that strange as i remember back in two thousand one when a roy jones v felix trinidad fight was being seriously discussed. both were pound for pound, roy was at light heavy & felix was a unified jr middleweight champion preparing to go into the middleweight tournament. the plan was for tito to have his two fights & become undisputed at middle & then move up to fight royQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Hagler was not a big MW.
they weighed in the same day back then.
Hagler probably walked the streets at less than 170lbs , so why would he bother fighting at 175?
There isn’t the silly money there is now, but you can safely say Hagler would earn WAY more fighting SRL than he would fighting Michael Spinks.
Spinks as we now know was on his way up the weights.
Like @Master said, I can never remember the Hagler / Spinks fight ever being talked about.
marvin was not a big middleweight is an excuse. harry greb, micky walker & sam langford among others are said to be about the same size, didn't they weigh in on the same day back then? different worlds indeed
marvin should have bothered fighting at light heavyweight for the challenge & risk
i agree that marvin would earn more fighting ray than michael, that is my entire point. i give marvin a pass for the last five to six years of his career because he had already cleaned out middleweight by then & was looking for bigger money against lesser challenges
michael spinks became the man at light heavy in early eighty three & didn't move up until late eighty five
like i said it seems strange that marvin v michael was never talked about, as history had many middleweights or smaller moving up to light heavy or higher & as i highlighted roy jones v felix trinidad was being seriously discussed when tito hadn't even fought at middleweight yet & the roy v bernard rematch was also talked about
Fuck me! This is where I step out again.Quote:
Originally Posted by TICit correlates with marvin because there was talk of a smaller guy moving up. i also remember talk that bernard hopkins should have moved up to try & avenge his loss to roy, bernard was trying to set a record for defenses & i think both their egos got in the way. it correlates because there was talk of middleweights moving up to light heavy, so it seems strange that there wasn't any talk of marvin moving up to face michael, especially around late eighty threeQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraI’m not sure how this correlates with Hagler. Different worlds.Quote:
Originally Posted by TICi find that strange as i remember back in two thousand one when a roy jones v felix trinidad fight was being seriously discussed. both were pound for pound, roy was at light heavy & felix was a unified jr middleweight champion preparing to go into the middleweight tournament. the plan was for tito to have his two fights & become undisputed at middle & then move up to fight royQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Hagler was not a big MW.
they weighed in the same day back then.
Hagler probably walked the streets at less than 170lbs , so why would he bother fighting at 175?
There isn’t the silly money there is now, but you can safely say Hagler would earn WAY more fighting SRL than he would fighting Michael Spinks.
Spinks as we now know was on his way up the weights.
Like @Master said, I can never remember the Hagler / Spinks fight ever being talked about.
marvin was not a big middleweight is an excuse. harry greb, micky walker & sam langford among others are said to be about the same size, didn't they weigh in on the same day back then? different worlds indeed
marvin should have bothered fighting at light heavyweight for the challenge & risk
i agree that marvin would earn more fighting ray than michael, that is my entire point. i give marvin a pass for the last five to six years of his career because he had already cleaned out middleweight by then & was looking for bigger money against lesser challenges
michael spinks became the man at light heavy in early eighty three & didn't move up until late eighty five
like i said it seems strange that marvin v michael was never talked about, as history had many middleweights or smaller moving up to light heavy or higher & as i highlighted roy jones v felix trinidad was being seriously discussed when tito hadn't even fought at middleweight yet & the roy v bernard rematch was also talked about
If you can’t understand the difference between boxing in the 1900s and the 1980s and then the differences between the 80s and modern day, I can’t help you mate, cos I haven’t got the time or inclination to educate you on it.
Comparing Apples and Oranges mate.
Fucking hell, trying to say Hagler/SRL/Hearns are comparable with Harry Greb,Micky Walker and Sam Langford because they all did same day weigh-ins!!
Dear me. I’m speechless.
settle down primo carnera, we're just having a discussion
i understand some of the differences between the nineteen hundreds boxing, eighties & modern boxing just fine
i'm not comparing apples & oranges, just giving you some examples of some smaller guys who moved up
"Fucking hell, trying to say Hagler/SRL/Hearns are comparable with Harry Greb,Micky Walker and Sam Langford because they all did same day weigh-ins!!"
you conveniently missed when i said "among others" two of the guys you mention ray leonard & tommy hearns were using same day weigh ins at welter & moved up higher, roberto was the same at lightweight. if marvin had of wanted to move up he could have
settle down primo carnera, we're just having a discussion
i understand some of the differences between the nineteen hundreds boxing, eighties & modern boxing just fine
i'm not comparing apples & oranges, just giving you some examples of some smaller guys who moved up
"Fucking hell, trying to say Hagler/SRL/Hearns are comparable with Harry Greb,Micky Walker and Sam Langford because they all did same day weigh-ins!!"
you conveniently missed when i said "among others" two of the guys you mention ray leonard & tommy hearns were using same day weigh ins at welter & moved up higher, roberto was the same at lightweight. if marvin had of wanted to move up he could have
I see we're still discrediting Hagler with some obscure purpose in mind....
:D
creating a strawman argument again. no one is discrediting anything, as i've said repeatedly. some of you guys just have rose tinted lenses onQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
There is no harm in Tic having the discussion. It looks like Spinks moved up to heavyweight after he cleaned out his division.
Every fighter chases the money including the old time greats like Grebb. Legacy is not the decisive factor no matter what the boxers may say.
Absolutely fair. But would you start a thread about a Boxer who has just passed away and simply put “Legend”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Then a few years later, question his legacy by asking if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys? Even though these “smaller guys” are all time greats?
Yep, “Legend”.
why wouldn't i start a thread about a boxer who has just passed away & simply put "legend" when i think he's a legend?Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraAbsolutely fair. But would you start a thread about a Boxer who has just passed away and simply put “Legend”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Then a few years later, question his legacy by asking if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys? Even though these “smaller guys” are all time greats?
Yep, “Legend”.
"Then a few years later"
i've already said that i searched & the only other thread on the front page was called marvin haggler, the site has been having issues for weeks, sorry that i'm not prepared to wait for minutes on end to search through each page to try & find another marvin hagler thread to post in
"question his legacy by asking if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys"
once again as i've mentioned several times already in this thread, so i'm not sure if you are now ignoring that intentionally, i am not questioning marvin's legacy. i've already stated that in my opinion he was already a legend before the roberto duran fight. i'm asking if marvin gets a pass for fighting smaller guys, for bigger money over the last five to six years of his career, instead of looking for bigger challenges
"Even though these “smaller guys” are all time greats?"
yes these smaller guys are all time greats but as i've asked previously & no one has answered, where do you rate these smaller guys all time at middleweight?
yep, marvin is a legend
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Maybe I'm just more cynical than most. Why suddenly start a discussion on having to (cough) "give Hagler a pass" out of nowhere... except maybe to later draw comparisons with another fighter someone is also trying to "give a pass to"??
Huh?
Huh?
:D
Something smells fishy.
nah it's because someone lives rent free in your head. it's very rare these days to find you posting about much else when talking boxingQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Maybe I'm just more cynical than most.
If asking “if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys” isn’t questioning Marvin’s legacy, then I don’t know what is! :):)Quote:
Originally Posted by TICwhy wouldn't i start a thread about a boxer who has just passed away & simply put "legend" when i think he's a legend?Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraAbsolutely fair. But would you start a thread about a Boxer who has just passed away and simply put “Legend”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Then a few years later, question his legacy by asking if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys? Even though these “smaller guys” are all time greats?
Yep, “Legend”.
"Then a few years later"
i've already said that i searched & the only other thread on the front page was called marvin haggler, the site has been having issues for weeks, sorry that i'm not prepared to wait for minutes on end to search through each page to try & find another marvin hagler thread to post in
"question his legacy by asking if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys"
once again as i've mentioned several times already in this thread, so i'm not sure if you are now ignoring that intentionally, i am not questioning marvin's legacy. i've already stated that in my opinion he was already a legend before the roberto duran fight. i'm asking if marvin gets a pass for fighting smaller guys, for bigger money over the last five to six years of his career, instead of looking for bigger challenges
"Even though these “smaller guys” are all time greats?"
yes these smaller guys are all time greats but as i've asked previously & no one has answered, where do you rate these smaller guys all time at middleweight?
yep, marvin is a legend
you conveniently left of the most relevant part of my question "for bigger money over the last five to six years of his career, instead of looking for bigger challenges"Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraIf asking “if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys” isn’t questioning Marvin’s legacy, then I don’t know what is! :):)Quote:
Originally Posted by TICwhy wouldn't i start a thread about a boxer who has just passed away & simply put "legend" when i think he's a legend?Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraAbsolutely fair. But would you start a thread about a Boxer who has just passed away and simply put “Legend”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Then a few years later, question his legacy by asking if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys? Even though these “smaller guys” are all time greats?
Yep, “Legend”.
"Then a few years later"
i've already said that i searched & the only other thread on the front page was called marvin haggler, the site has been having issues for weeks, sorry that i'm not prepared to wait for minutes on end to search through each page to try & find another marvin hagler thread to post in
"question his legacy by asking if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys"
once again as i've mentioned several times already in this thread, so i'm not sure if you are now ignoring that intentionally, i am not questioning marvin's legacy. i've already stated that in my opinion he was already a legend before the roberto duran fight. i'm asking if marvin gets a pass for fighting smaller guys, for bigger money over the last five to six years of his career, instead of looking for bigger challenges
"Even though these “smaller guys” are all time greats?"
yes these smaller guys are all time greats but as i've asked previously & no one has answered, where do you rate these smaller guys all time at middleweight?
yep, marvin is a legend
you also completely ignored where i said "in my opinion he was already a legend before the roberto duran fight"
if you think marvin fought the biggest challenges over the last five to six years of his career, that's fine we can agree to disagree
if you think marvin was too small to move up, that is also fine we can agree to disagree
but your misrepresentations show you hold a bias & are not interested in an honest discussion
I guess I just can't get my head around still finding round about fault or double talk about Hagler avoiding bigger challenges while at the same time identifying he completely cleaned out his division, then remained active facing back to back to back #1 ranked challengers, set division records and only then fought 3 legends. It's like taking a two way swipe, "Hagler didn't take bigger challenges" and Duran, Hearns and Leonard were "smaller". Even though every single one of them would go on to win championships at middle or Spr middle or Lt heavy. Just seems to make the smaller talk a nonstarter. I'll stick to my take in that zero pass for Hagler is needed simply because he didn't jump what is two divisions today for a fight no one was talking about. The crazy thing is that if he was held to today's standards or lack thereof, Hagler could have simply sought out lesser title holders to cherry pick a belt all in the name of running around being hailed as some "multi division champion" and some would have eaten it up. Guys today get away with murder doing that :-X. Cough. Different times now.
On a side I'm just going to spend spare time trying to think of legends who stayed at their natural weight range on the very top/championship scene for the duration of careers. It's actually quite the distinction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TICnah it's because someone lives rent free in your head. it's very rare these days to find you posting about much else when talking boxingQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Maybe I'm just more cynical than most.
Nah. It's because I have an advanced Bullshit Meter that detects bogus arguments made for ulterior motives. Especially those so sloppily hidden.
nah you're just a boxing casual these days, i doubt you watch much boxing at all these daysQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by TICnah it's because someone lives rent free in your head. it's very rare these days to find you posting about much else when talking boxingQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Maybe I'm just more cynical than most.
Nah. It's because I have an advanced Bullshit Meter that detects bogus arguments made for ulterior motives. Especially those so sloppily hidden.
he had basically cleaned out middleweight with the vito rematch, marvin chose to remain at middleweight to get his number of defenses up & await the big purses that came with the names below himQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
those back to back number one challenges who for defense numbers & purses, nothing wrong with that. moving up would have been a bigger challenge
three legends, yes, but none of them had done anything substantial at middle. two sanctioning bodies didn't want the ray fight to happen
making a run at light heavy would have been a bigger challenge than fighting roberto, tommy & ray
didn't every single one of them not start at lower divisions than marvin? just because the went up higher doesn't mean they didn't start out at lower weights. just seems to make the marvin was a small middleweight talk a nonstarter
that's fine for you to stick to your zero pass needed, i disagree. it's not that he simply didn't move up, that is part of it. he chose to stick around at middleweight & avoided herol & mike for the ray fight, then sat on the sidelines waiting on a rematch
i still find it strange that no one was talking about a potential michael spinks v marvin fight
marvin did stick around making defenses & collecting purses, instead of looking for bigger challenges
when you look at those legends who stayed at their natural weight or the duration of careers, take note of the last five to six years of their careers. it would be interesting to see what type of opposition they fought. might make for a another thread about what fighters finished their careers strongest
No misrepresentation Mate, just pointing out the main part of what you said. I can’t see how that’s not honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by TICyou conveniently left of the most relevant part of my question "for bigger money over the last five to six years of his career, instead of looking for bigger challenges"Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraIf asking “if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys” isn’t questioning Marvin’s legacy, then I don’t know what is! :):)Quote:
Originally Posted by TICwhy wouldn't i start a thread about a boxer who has just passed away & simply put "legend" when i think he's a legend?Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraAbsolutely fair. But would you start a thread about a Boxer who has just passed away and simply put “Legend”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Then a few years later, question his legacy by asking if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys? Even though these “smaller guys” are all time greats?
Yep, “Legend”.
"Then a few years later"
i've already said that i searched & the only other thread on the front page was called marvin haggler, the site has been having issues for weeks, sorry that i'm not prepared to wait for minutes on end to search through each page to try & find another marvin hagler thread to post in
"question his legacy by asking if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys"
once again as i've mentioned several times already in this thread, so i'm not sure if you are now ignoring that intentionally, i am not questioning marvin's legacy. i've already stated that in my opinion he was already a legend before the roberto duran fight. i'm asking if marvin gets a pass for fighting smaller guys, for bigger money over the last five to six years of his career, instead of looking for bigger challenges
"Even though these “smaller guys” are all time greats?"
yes these smaller guys are all time greats but as i've asked previously & no one has answered, where do you rate these smaller guys all time at middleweight?
yep, marvin is a legend
you also completely ignored where i said "in my opinion he was already a legend before the roberto duran fight"
if you think marvin fought the biggest challenges over the last five to six years of his career, that's fine we can agree to disagree
if you think marvin was too small to move up, that is also fine we can agree to disagree
but your misrepresentations show you hold a bias & are not interested in an honest discussion
If you think starting a tribute thread with “legend” then critiquing why he fought smaller guys isn’t at best hypocritical, at worst having a hidden agenda, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Nail on the head! 👍Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
total misrepresentation on your part. the main part of what i said was towards the end of his career. go back & look at my original post. you're being very dishonestQuote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraNo misrepresentation Mate, just pointing out the main part of what you said. I can’t see how that’s not honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by TICyou conveniently left of the most relevant part of my question "for bigger money over the last five to six years of his career, instead of looking for bigger challenges"Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraIf asking “if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys” isn’t questioning Marvin’s legacy, then I don’t know what is! :):)Quote:
Originally Posted by TICwhy wouldn't i start a thread about a boxer who has just passed away & simply put "legend" when i think he's a legend?Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo CarneraAbsolutely fair. But would you start a thread about a Boxer who has just passed away and simply put “Legend”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Then a few years later, question his legacy by asking if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys? Even though these “smaller guys” are all time greats?
Yep, “Legend”.
"Then a few years later"
i've already said that i searched & the only other thread on the front page was called marvin haggler, the site has been having issues for weeks, sorry that i'm not prepared to wait for minutes on end to search through each page to try & find another marvin hagler thread to post in
"question his legacy by asking if he gets a pass for fighting smaller guys"
once again as i've mentioned several times already in this thread, so i'm not sure if you are now ignoring that intentionally, i am not questioning marvin's legacy. i've already stated that in my opinion he was already a legend before the roberto duran fight. i'm asking if marvin gets a pass for fighting smaller guys, for bigger money over the last five to six years of his career, instead of looking for bigger challenges
"Even though these “smaller guys” are all time greats?"
yes these smaller guys are all time greats but as i've asked previously & no one has answered, where do you rate these smaller guys all time at middleweight?
yep, marvin is a legend
you also completely ignored where i said "in my opinion he was already a legend before the roberto duran fight"
if you think marvin fought the biggest challenges over the last five to six years of his career, that's fine we can agree to disagree
if you think marvin was too small to move up, that is also fine we can agree to disagree
but your misrepresentations show you hold a bias & are not interested in an honest discussion
If you think starting a tribute thread with “legend” then critiquing why he fought smaller guys isn’t at best hypocritical, at worst having a hidden agenda, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
as i've said before, one should be able to critique parts of a fighters career without being critical of the whole body of work, nothing hypocritical about that. there's no hidden agenda but what has been shown is that you hold a bias & it limits your logic in this discussion, shown by your strawman arguments about canelo, hidden agenda's, old threads, questioning marvin's legacy et cetera that you've created to attack rather than the actual discussion
Everybody has opinions/bias and Hagler last 5/6 years stands against any other great boxers.
Spinks would have been a big challenge for Hagler. Probably Michael would have won but just because Hagler did not go up does not detract from his career. Facing Duran, Hearns and Leonard are better opponents put together than taking on Spinks at that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TICnah you're just a boxing casual these days, i doubt you watch much boxing at all these daysQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by TICnah it's because someone lives rent free in your head. it's very rare these days to find you posting about much else when talking boxingQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Maybe I'm just more cynical than most.
Nah. It's because I have an advanced Bullshit Meter that detects bogus arguments made for ulterior motives. Especially those so sloppily hidden.
You know, oddly enough... you're partly right.
I DON'T watch much boxing these days.
I watched more boxing back before fawning groupies such as yourself became enamored of coddled, manufactured divas like Ginger... and Instagram princesses like PrincessRy.
Before boxing became even more unwatchable with all these circus fights with cherry-pickers like Ginger wanting to starve cruiserweights to fight for bogus titles.
Before being a highly publicized punk became more important than working hard for a good career.
Before manufactured divas like Ginger called themselves The Face of Boxing.
Before YouTubers and MMA dudes thought boxing was all about shortcuts.
Yeah.
I watched more boxing back then.
Then boxing became full of fawning groupies such as yourself.
just like i said, you're a boxing casual these days & your comments show it. you do a disservice to all the boxers grinding away. maybe if you focused on boxing & not individuals you wouldn't have so much resentment. good fights are good fights & you're missing out
i found this article
https://www.upi.com/amp/Archives/198...2257438670800/
a quote from michael from the story 'Marvin, here I am. If you want a big payday, come on and get me. Marvin is awesome and so am I. I want to see Marvin come right up and meet the Spinks Jinx.'
this was after the oscar rivadeneyra fight, i find it extremely hard to believe michael called out marvin & the boxing community didn't talk about that fight
Neither had McCallum, far from it at the time. But in this instance now it's ok if Hagler faced a "smaller" fighter right? One far less established, widely known, battle tested, or career accomplished overall compared to Duran, Hearns and Leonard. And Hearns was actually top ranked at 160 when he faced Marvin and I'll never be convinced Mike was a bigger threat to Hagler than Tommy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TIChe had basically cleaned out middleweight with the vito rematch, marvin chose to remain at middleweight to get his number of defenses up & await the big purses that came with the names below himQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
those back to back number one challenges who for defense numbers & purses, nothing wrong with that. moving up would have been a bigger challenge
three legends, yes, but none of them had done anything substantial at middle. two sanctioning bodies didn't want the ray fight to happen
making a run at light heavy would have been a bigger challenge than fighting roberto, tommy & ray
didn't every single one of them not start at lower divisions than marvin? just because the went up higher doesn't mean they didn't start out at lower weights. just seems to make the marvin was a small middleweight talk a nonstarter
that's fine for you to stick to your zero pass needed, i disagree. it's not that he simply didn't move up, that is part of it. he chose to stick around at middleweight & avoided herol & mike for the ray fight, then sat on the sidelines waiting on a rematch
i still find it strange that no one was talking about a potential michael spinks v marvin fight
marvin did stick around making defenses & collecting purses, instead of looking for bigger challenges
when you look at those legends who stayed at their natural weight or the duration of careers, take note of the last five to six years of their careers. it would be interesting to see what type of opposition they fought. might make for a another thread about what fighters finished their careers strongest
Quote:
Originally Posted by TIC
I unearthed your real motive for dissing Hagler, and you're understandably embarrassed and upset.