Why Does Hopkins Get Criticism But Hagler Does Not?

First, let me say that I think Marvin Hagler was a superb fighter and one of the greatest of all time. But I think that If you look at his biggest wins at Middleweight, and you look at Bernards biggest wins at Middleweight, there are some similarities.

Hagler was indeed one of the fabulous four. He was also the naturally biggest man out of all of them and the strongest. He beat Hearns, who was not far removed from Welterweight, so this win as spectacular as it was, was not surprising. He beat Duran, who as we all know started his career a lot lighter, in a fight that was extremely close. As for Leonard, he was removed from his prime, and like Hearns, past his best weight. Still Leonard was victorious in a competitive and close fight. Hagler had other good wins win his career against credible opponents, but these fights were highlights in his career.

On to Hopkins. His reign at Middleweight went under the radar for quite some time, but he was defending his title against top contenders. It wasnt until he fought Felix Trinidad that he got his recognition as one of the best fighters at the time. Still, he was criticized because Trinidad was a former Welterweight champ and passed his best weight. Sound familiar? Then Hopkins went on to beat De La Hoya, who much like Duran moved through the weight classes and was much higher than his prime weight. Again, Hopkins was given some credit but the naysayers still critisized him for beating another "smaller man." ...For the rrecord I am not comparing Trinidad to Hearns and Oscar to Duran in terms of greatness, only in terms of circumstances.

I believe that that both of them were unquestionably two of the greatest Middleweight Champions of all time. But when someone says that Marvin has a much better resume at Middleweight than Hopkins, I disagree to a point. The names do stand out more, but the accomplishments at that weight are pretty even. I think it should also be noted that between the two champions, neither was ever stopped and neither was ever decisively beaten in a one sided fight. I credit both guys and this thread is not a knock on Haglers great accomplishments, its just my perspective on the two fighters and how theve been looked at by the boxing population, and if the ever fought prime for prime, I think it would be a tough fight to call.

1)Hopkins is hated for his later career boring style/obnoxiousness and lets face it we're not objective people, Hagler is not universally loved maybe but moreso than Hopkins clearly.

2)Like you say you're not comparing greatness but still IMO and most people's opinion Hearns>Trinidad, definitely SRL>Oscar, plus you thrown in Duran. People recognize those guys were smaller but put them on such pedestals (not saying that's wrong) because they were such legendary fighters.

I would question some of your base assumptions here.

For starters, I don't think it is so obvious that Hearns was past his best weight at 160. For starters, Hearns was 6'1" and had some notable victories, including devastating KOs, at 160 and up. He also battled Hagler toe to toe until he took one upside the head and got KO'd.

CGM,He did beat have some good wins at 160 but I think Hearns was best at 147 because he had that power and height advantage over almost anyone. He was still a good at Middleweight but I think Welterweight he was best, but its just my opinion not an assumption.

Ouma, I agree that maybe people didnt like his style based on his later fights, but I think a lot of those people didnt see most of his title defences at Midlleweight. He was an exciting fighter. Perhaps because Hagler was fighting the big names there was bigger interest and this made his fights more exciting.

Hagler never faked getting hit low in a bid to get points deducted from an opponent for starters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boom Boom

CGM,He did beat have some good wins at 160 but I think Hearns was best at 147 because he had that power and height advantage over almost anyone. He was still a good at Middleweight but I think Welterweight he was best, but its just my opinion not an assumption.

---

ok, merely the fact that I called it an assumption doesn't diminish the value of the statement, it's just means it a statement that is used to support the main point of your argument.

I will say that IMO some people are too quick to pass judgement on what was a fighter's best weight, just because that fighter lost at a higher weight. Or they use the term "a fighter's natural weight" a little too easily. But that's just me.

I could say the same about Trinidad, who looked just fine thrashing Joppy and Mayorga, but ultimately lost to Hopkins not so much because of a difference in natural weight, but because Hopkins was a better boxer, by far.

I do tend to agree with you though, I wouldn't say that Hopkins deserves the critisism any more than Hagler, critisism he does take is mostly unjustified, and mostly used to talk up another fighter, such as Trinidad or Calzaghe. IMHO.

Both Hagler and Hopkins did not lack in self belief....or ego.But I think alot of Hopkins backlash is based on .....Him.....Dude is brash,abrasive and will tell you exactly what comes into his head without hesitation,his own biggest fan!!You can slight his overly defensive,almost arrogant backfoot style in his late career but I think his persona and added baggage at times wrongfully comes easier than slighting his in ring ability or career achievements.I think in hindsight Hopkins waited too long at middleweight,not a strong era but he pretty much swept it out and stayed around.Trinidad,Oscar......those were not really about benefiting or advancing Bernard,he capitalized hugely though,turned it on it's ear.Remember all the chatter about a Trinidad vs.Jones Jr "Super fight"?Still wondering about Oscar as a middle,that was a stretch.Now Simon Brown....that was disgusting.Brown,a top superb fighter at peak,belonged noooo where near the elite Middleweight field then.Many have fought guys moving up in defining fights....look at the division jumping going on today,almost out of control.Really can be a broad brush.

this might not be popular but i think hopkins is greater than hagler. what hopkins has done at his age is increiable.

hopkins should not get any criticism for beating trinidad. trinidad made his name at 160 by destroying joppy which neither bhop or jermain taylor couldnt do. they may have beat him but not like tito did. now as for as oscar goes i dont know but oscar was way out his league anyway. but he was the first to ko him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boom Boom

First, let me say that I think Marvin Hagler was a superb fighter and one of the greatest of all time. But I think that If you look at his biggest wins at Middleweight, and you look at Bernards biggest wins at Middleweight, there are some similarities.

Hagler was indeed one of the fabulous four. He was also the naturally biggest man out of all of them and the strongest. He beat Hearns, who was not far removed from Welterweight, so this win as spectacular as it was, was not surprising. He beat Duran, who as we all know started his career a lot lighter, in a fight that was extremely close. As for Leonard, he was removed from his prime, and like Hearns, past his best weight. Still Leonard was victorious in a competitive and close fight. Hagler had other good wins win his career against credible opponents, but these fights were highlights in his career.

On to Hopkins. His reign at Middleweight went under the radar for quite some time, but he was defending his title against top contenders. It wasnt until he fought Felix Trinidad that he got his recognition as one of the best fighters at the time. Still, he was criticized because Trinidad was a former Welterweight champ and passed his best weight. Sound familiar? Then Hopkins went on to beat De La Hoya, who much like Duran moved through the weight classes and was much higher than his prime weight. Again, Hopkins was given some credit but the naysayers still critisized him for beating another "smaller man." ...For the rrecord I am not comparing Trinidad to Hearns and Oscar to Duran in terms of greatness, only in terms of circumstances.

I believe that that both of them were unquestionably two of the greatest Middleweight Champions of all time. But when someone says that Marvin has a much better resume at Middleweight than Hopkins, I disagree to a point. The names do stand out more, but the accomplishments at that weight are pretty even. I think it should also be noted that between the two champions, neither was ever stopped and neither was ever decisively beaten in a one sided fight. I credit both guys and this thread is not a knock on Haglers great accomplishments, its just my perspective on the two fighters and how theve been looked at by the boxing population, and if the ever fought prime for prime, I think it would be a tough fight to call.

---

Some good points there.

I think Hopkins hand picked his opponents a little bit but you cant deny he is a great fighter.

Well I've said many times that Hagler's achievments are a little overratted. He was a great fighter for sure but to me Bernard is certainly on his level and has achieved every bit as much.

The reason Hagler is more praised has to do with the illustrious names of his opponents and the manner of his most famous victories imo.

His fight with Hearns was a war, one of the most famous fights ever and he did spectacular jobs on other fighters, destroying Alan Minter and busting his face comes to mind.

When you demonstrate an iron chin, a willingness to slug it out and the punch power that bowls over your opponents and cuts them up then the public will love you and historians will lavish praise on you.

It's like with Rocky Marciano, hailed as one of the alltime greats his resume has no big names on it at really, at least not when they would have meant anything. But he was in some barnburners and retired undefeated thus creating a legend. Having his own punch, the Suzy Q helped.

When you think of Hagler you can picture his ring wars, just like Marciano.

When you think of Hagler you can't picture a real rumble that he had, a toe to toe slug fest with another great fighter.

In order to be considered great you have to have a dancing partner, and the likes of Jones, Hopkins, Calzaghe and Mayweather have never had one.


That's why Floyd needs to come out of retirement and fight Manny Pacquaiuo imo.

If he fights Manny it becomes a legendary superfight like Hagler Hearns, Leonard Duran etc and his all time status will jump right up as people will have a superfight and a potential memorable fight to remember him by.

Hagler had one of those careers,that got much better in peoples memory after he retired.
At the time a retired Sugar Ray had more endorsement deals then Hagler did.
10 years from now people will be looking at B-hops career and marveling at it.
You may not like his style,that mixed philly crab,Bernards defense stuff,but you cant argue with the results. And an even weirder part of Bernard,is he takes guys hearts. Nobody except Jones ever looked quite right after fighting Bernard. Taylor became a plodding defensive fighter,Trinidad became a balloon,Holmes became an afterthought,so did Tarver,Johnson went from an undefeated prospect of the highest caliber,to a journeyman.
At the time,nobody liked Hagler's style either,he was neither a bully like Duran or Hearns,neither did he have 5 tons of flash like SRL,but he was somewhere in the uninspiring middle. But he was effective.

Hearns it a far better win then a Tito for this reason he was able to go all the way up to cruiserweight and still win belts Tito after a good win at middle weight got owned by Hopkins, Winkey and Jones he was not even in the fight for any of these he got owned and looked a lesser fighter.

Hagler never Bored me, His best days were getting there. He beat good Fighters. He would have frightened Hopkins to death, Hopkins wouldnt even stand and have it with Wright ;D.

<He beat Hearns, who was not far removed from Welterweight, so this win as spectacular as it was, was not surprising.>< Boom Boom>

Before anything else, let me just point out that Hagler's win over the "Detroit Cobra" was nothing less than spectacular, in the truest sense of the word. Attaching unsurprising to it diminishes the feat, for it truly was one of the most spectacular wins in the history of the sport! Hagler was not the favorite going to the fight, for it actually was considered a death wish to face Tommy Hearns, especially at those weight classes; W, SW/LM, and M during those days.

I saw the fight live on TV, and I can tell you it was electric, the apprehension on Hagler's face leading on to the fight was so evident. What game plan? What strategy? What personal endangerment was at stake? These where all the source of the apprehension was from.

Hearns' superior reach, the jab-right straight was lethal, too much to overcome, hence, the Detroit Cobra. How can Marvelous Marvin overcome his handicap against Hearns? His strongest suit, the converted southpaw stance with the most sfillful and most active right hand in the business, was negated by Hearns' superior physical attributes.

BRAWL! There it was, the most brutally lopsided three rounds that Hearns ever been in his whole career. The Cobra was defanged, in such short fashion, that he was unable to call on his superior advantages to save himself from the savage beating he is experiencing. At times he was shown as weakly and vulnerable. Knees wobbling, and trembling vulnerable.

Surprising indeed! Hagler was way bloodied himself. To give one, he had to, be at harm.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler, repeatedly in these kinds of wars, (even not as bloodied), and the reason for his retirement, (more from SRL's refusal to give him a rematch than from his failing abilities) forever endears MMH in the minds of boxing fans. The integrity that he showed in choosing retirement when refused the Leonard rematch (he personally thought that he was robbed), showed greatness even superior to that which he showed atop the ring. A class by himself!

Hopkins will have his day, I am sure, for he too, is a cut above great. But for now let Hagler be in a class on his own!

Boom Boom, you make a great point & that's why I'm surprised some people didn't think Ray beat Hagler. Hagler was tough no doubt but did beating guys like Hamsho (twice), Vito, Sibson, William Lee, etc. prepare Hagler for a boxer like Ray? None of Hagler's title defenses were against a master boxer like Ray. Hearns could have boxed but chose to slug. Duran was too small. The Mugabi win was impressive but he was another slugger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackRazor

Boom Boom, you make a great point & that's why I'm surprised some people didn't think Ray beat Hagler. Hagler was tough no doubt but did beating guys like Hamsho (twice), Vito, Sibson, William Lee, etc. prepare Hagler for a boxer like Ray? None of Hagler's title defenses were against a master boxer like Ray. Hearns could have boxed but chose to slug. Duran was too small. The Mugabi win was impressive but he was another slugger.

---

Don't forget Bennie Briscoe that was another very impressive win for Marvin Hagler, Bennie Briscoe probably come the closest to stopping the great Carlos Monzon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackRazor

Boom Boom, you make a great point & that's why I'm surprised some people didn't think Ray beat Hagler. Hagler was tough no doubt but did beating guys like Hamsho (twice), Vito, Sibson, William Lee, etc. prepare Hagler for a boxer like Ray? None of Hagler's title defenses were against a master boxer like Ray. Hearns could have boxed but chose to slug. Duran was too small. The Mugabi win was impressive but he was another slugger.

---

i ALWAYS thought he beat Hagler clearly at that. it should have been a UD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackRazor

Boom Boom, you make a great point & that's why I'm surprised some people didn't think Ray beat Hagler. Hagler was tough no doubt but did beating guys like Hamsho (twice), Vito, Sibson, William Lee, etc. prepare Hagler for a boxer like Ray? None of Hagler's title defenses were against a master boxer like Ray. Hearns could have boxed but chose to slug. Duran was too small. The Mugabi win was impressive but he was another slugger.

---

i ALWAYS thought he beat Hagler clearly at that. it should have been a UD.

---

I disagree it was a very close fight which i had a draw, SRL faded badly down the stretch. But i don't really want to bring it up, because it will open up a can of worms.

But SRL would of been stopped had it been a 15 round fight, like it was supposed to be until SRL got it changed, he also demanded the gloves. The ring size ETC.

SRL waited until Marvin Hagler had slowed then, then chose the right moment, and not only that he also got everything he wanted, which would be in favor of a master boxer like himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackRazor

Boom Boom, you make a great point & that's why I'm surprised some people didn't think Ray beat Hagler. Hagler was tough no doubt but did beating guys like Hamsho (twice), Vito, Sibson, William Lee, etc. prepare Hagler for a boxer like Ray? None of Hagler's title defenses were against a master boxer like Ray. Hearns could have boxed but chose to slug. Duran was too small. The Mugabi win was impressive but he was another slugger.

---

i ALWAYS thought he beat Hagler clearly at that. it should have been a UD.

---

I disagree it was a very close fight which i had a draw, SRL faded badly down the stretch. But i don't really want to bring it up, because it will open up a can of worms.

But SRL would of been stopped had it been a 15 round fight, like it was supposed to be until SRL got it changed, he also demanded the gloves. The ring size ETC.

SRL waited until Marvin Hagler had slowed then, then chose the right moment, and not only that he also got everything he wanted, which would be in favor of a master boxer like himself.

---

a draw?? Hagler lost the first 3 rounds. which mean he had to win 7 of the last 9 rounds. most of his shots were missed. and SRL timed him perfectly when the round was about to end. it wasnt one sided but i felt he clearly beat Hagler.

now i will watch the fight again and rescore it. :cool:

Hearns is the Motor City Cobra... now I remember, not the Detroit Cobra as I earlier stated. Sorry me badd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

i ALWAYS thought he beat Hagler clearly at that. it should have been a UD.

---

I disagree it was a very close fight which i had a draw, SRL faded badly down the stretch. But i don't really want to bring it up, because it will open up a can of worms.

But SRL would of been stopped had it been a 15 round fight, like it was supposed to be until SRL got it changed, he also demanded the gloves. The ring size ETC.

SRL waited until Marvin Hagler had slowed then, then chose the right moment, and not only that he also got everything he wanted, which would be in favor of a master boxer like himself.

---

a draw?? Hagler lost the first 3 rounds. which mean he had to win 7 of the last 9 rounds. most of his shots were missed. and SRL timed him perfectly when the round was about to end. it wasnt one sided but i felt he clearly beat Hagler.

now i will watch the fight again and rescore it. :cool:

---

Well you can't imply that me having it a draw, is some sort of shock. Considering how controversial the fight is, its the most debated decision in boxing history.

After the 4th round Marvin Hagler won a majority of the rounds, and was working for most of the rounds. SRL would try and steal rounds with flashy flurries, which wern't really effective as they were mostly slapping shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

I disagree it was a very close fight which i had a draw, SRL faded badly down the stretch. But i don't really want to bring it up, because it will open up a can of worms.

But SRL would of been stopped had it been a 15 round fight, like it was supposed to be until SRL got it changed, he also demanded the gloves. The ring size ETC.

SRL waited until Marvin Hagler had slowed then, then chose the right moment, and not only that he also got everything he wanted, which would be in favor of a master boxer like himself.

---

a draw?? Hagler lost the first 3 rounds. which mean he had to win 7 of the last 9 rounds. most of his shots were missed. and SRL timed him perfectly when the round was about to end. it wasnt one sided but i felt he clearly beat Hagler.

now i will watch the fight again and rescore it. :cool:

---

Well you can't imply that me having it a draw, is some sort of shock. Considering how controversial the fight is, its the most debated decision in boxing history.

After the 4th round Marvin Hagler won a majority of the rounds, and was working for most of the rounds. SRL would try and steal rounds with flashy flurries, which wern't really effective as they were mostly slapping shots.

---

well of course his shots arent gonna be effective on Haglers hard ass head. but they were clean landing shots the only shots that looked kinda slappy were in round 12 when he flurried out of the corner.

but like i said i will rewatch this fight for like the 15th time since its one of my favs. i will post my scorecard in a bit. but it couldnt have been draw.

We are branching out here from the main topic.

SRL's initial retirement apart from the detatched retina, is due to Hagler's seeming invincibility in those days. (What more with the injury)

I believe Sugar Ray conveniently used the injury to avoid an inevitable confrontation with Hagler at that point in time. He only came out of this semi-retirement and resumed his career, when in his mind, had resolved to come up with the winning gameplan to beat Hagler.

Which he did!( I believe he narrowly won that fight with Hagler too)
So to Sugar Ray Leonard's credit, he himself now is a walking, breathing, and living legend to the sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Hagler had one of those careers,that got much better in peoples memory after he retired.
At the time a retired Sugar Ray had more endorsement deals then Hagler did.
10 years from now people will be looking at B-hops career and marveling at it.
You may not like his style,that mixed philly crab,Bernards defense stuff,but you cant argue with the results. And an even weirder part of Bernard,is he takes guys hearts. Nobody except Jones ever looked quite right after fighting Bernard. Taylor became a plodding defensive fighter,Trinidad became a balloon,Holmes became an afterthought,so did Tarver,Johnson went from an undefeated prospect of the highest caliber,to a journeyman.
At the time,nobody liked Hagler's style either,he was neither a bully like Duran or Hearns,neither did he have 5 tons of flash like SRL,but he was somewhere in the uninspiring middle. But he was effective.

---

Definately. Haglers legacy got better as the years went on, and even the Leonard fight became more contraversial in Haglers favor in peoples minds.

As for Bernard, I think that the history books may even rank Hopkins in the to 15 fighters of all time. Bernard has said it himself, he wont be appreciated till hes gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boom Boom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Hagler had one of those careers,that got much better in peoples memory after he retired.
At the time a retired Sugar Ray had more endorsement deals then Hagler did.
10 years from now people will be looking at B-hops career and marveling at it.
You may not like his style,that mixed philly crab,Bernards defense stuff,but you cant argue with the results. And an even weirder part of Bernard,is he takes guys hearts. Nobody except Jones ever looked quite right after fighting Bernard. Taylor became a plodding defensive fighter,Trinidad became a balloon,Holmes became an afterthought,so did Tarver,Johnson went from an undefeated prospect of the highest caliber,to a journeyman.
At the time,nobody liked Hagler's style either,he was neither a bully like Duran or Hearns,neither did he have 5 tons of flash like SRL,but he was somewhere in the uninspiring middle. But he was effective.

---

Definately. Haglers legacy got better as the years went on, and even the Leonard fight became more contraversial in Haglers favor in peoples minds.

As for Bernard, I think that the history books may even rank Hopkins in the to 15 fighters of all time. Bernard has said it himself, he wont be appreciated till hes gone.

---

Hopkins is a technician.
For a fan of seeing an exciting fight,it doesnt inspire much.
If your a student of the game itself,you love watching him work,but if you arent,he seems almost boring.
I mean I can see it totally,I think most more casual fans get stunned when he gets KO's,but what their missing is,he's been breaking a guy slowly round by round. And he's also getting his opponents timing and rhythm down,so he can just deliver a one shot KO like he did to DLH.
Hop just sat on that punch,he was just waiting for it.
Just like Hagler,he doesnt excite the public mind,but he does win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

a draw?? Hagler lost the first 3 rounds. which mean he had to win 7 of the last 9 rounds. most of his shots were missed. and SRL timed him perfectly when the round was about to end. it wasnt one sided but i felt he clearly beat Hagler.

now i will watch the fight again and rescore it. :cool:

---

Well you can't imply that me having it a draw, is some sort of shock. Considering how controversial the fight is, its the most debated decision in boxing history.

After the 4th round Marvin Hagler won a majority of the rounds, and was working for most of the rounds. SRL would try and steal rounds with flashy flurries, which wern't really effective as they were mostly slapping shots.

---

well of course his shots arent gonna be effective on Haglers hard ass head. but they were clean landing shots the only shots that looked kinda slappy were in round 12 when he flurried out of the corner.

but like i said i will rewatch this fight for like the 15th time since its one of my favs. i will post my scorecard in a bit. but it couldnt have been draw.

---

rnd 1 SRL
rnd 2 SRL
rnd 3 SRL
rnd 4 hagler
rnd 5 hagler
rnd 6 SRL
rnd 7 SRL
rnd 8 hagler
rnd 9 even cant really decide who gets its
rnd 10 hagler
rnd 11 SRL
rnd 12 SRL hagler missed alot of shots lol

even if i give hagler rnd 9 SRL would still win.

Hopkins being BORING hurts him. Fair enough, as Ouma says, it's the latter part of his career, but that's when his most high profile fights occured.

NONE of them are memorable/special (to a non fan). The Tito and Oscar fights (these guys don't come close on all-time great lists to Leonard/Hearns) are not really competitive. Just a dominant performance by Hopkins.

Compare that with Hagler-Hearns.. which will ALWAYS be regarded as one of the greatest/thrilling fights ever. Hagler-Leonard is legendary for the "controversy."

I think you have to take into consideration Roy Jones clearly beat Hopkins at middleweight too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

Well you can't imply that me having it a draw, is some sort of shock. Considering how controversial the fight is, its the most debated decision in boxing history.

After the 4th round Marvin Hagler won a majority of the rounds, and was working for most of the rounds. SRL would try and steal rounds with flashy flurries, which wern't really effective as they were mostly slapping shots.

---

well of course his shots arent gonna be effective on Haglers hard ass head. but they were clean landing shots the only shots that looked kinda slappy were in round 12 when he flurried out of the corner.

but like i said i will rewatch this fight for like the 15th time since its one of my favs. i will post my scorecard in a bit. but it couldnt have been draw.

---

rnd 1 SRL
rnd 2 SRL
rnd 3 SRL
rnd 4 hagler
rnd 5 hagler
rnd 6 SRL
rnd 7 SRL
rnd 8 hagler
rnd 9 even cant really decide who gets its
rnd 10 hagler
rnd 11 SRL
rnd 12 SRL hagler missed alot of shots lol

even if i give hagler rnd 9 SRL would still win.

---

9th round even ? that was Marvin Hagler's best round.

Because Hagler was humble and Bernard constantly runs his mouth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

well of course his shots arent gonna be effective on Haglers hard ass head. but they were clean landing shots the only shots that looked kinda slappy were in round 12 when he flurried out of the corner.

but like i said i will rewatch this fight for like the 15th time since its one of my favs. i will post my scorecard in a bit. but it couldnt have been draw.

---

rnd 1 SRL
rnd 2 SRL
rnd 3 SRL
rnd 4 hagler
rnd 5 hagler
rnd 6 SRL
rnd 7 SRL
rnd 8 hagler
rnd 9 even cant really decide who gets its
rnd 10 hagler
rnd 11 SRL
rnd 12 SRL hagler missed alot of shots lol

even if i give hagler rnd 9 SRL would still win.

---

9th round even ? that was Marvin Hagler's best round.

---

after half the round SRL turned it around not like he had Hagler in trouble or anything but he was racking up some shots after he got out of that corner. if i had to give it to someone it probably would be hagler but it wasnt a easy round to judge IMO.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QpGCvipwTxE

I just watched that round and it still wasn't that close to me, Marvin Hagler beat SRL up in that round. SRL threw alot of combinations which most of the punches missed. But he was fighting back out of desperation, it was a Marvin Hagler type of a round, and he won it clearly.

I also felt Marvin Hagler won the 12th round aswell if i remember rightly, he hurt SRL quite badly at the end of the round. And despite SRL showing off to the crowd he didn't do a whole lot in that round. And i think those 2 rounds make the difference in your scoring, and you may need to watch those rounds a bit closer Frank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nonito Donaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

rnd 1 SRL
rnd 2 SRL
rnd 3 SRL
rnd 4 hagler
rnd 5 hagler
rnd 6 SRL
rnd 7 SRL
rnd 8 hagler
rnd 9 even cant really decide who gets its
rnd 10 hagler
rnd 11 SRL
rnd 12 SRL hagler missed alot of shots lol

even if i give hagler rnd 9 SRL would still win.

---

9th round even ? that was Marvin Hagler's best round.

---

after half the round SRL turned it around not like he had Hagler in trouble or anything but he was racking up some shots after he got out of that corner. if i had to give it to someone it probably would be hagler but it wasnt a easy round to judge IMO.

---

Very good points king, you know what you're talking about!