Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
the Hagler that beat the likes of Hearns
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
deffinately the hearnes hammering hagler. i cant think of many middleweights in history who could have stood up to that. maybe your robbinsons and your la mota's. but deffinately not your b hops, jones jrs or your taylor's.
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomp
Just wondering what people's opinions are on when exactly was his prime. Someone on a previous thread (I think it was the 100 greatest boxers ever thread) mentioned that his prime was 77-79 i.e. that he peaked before he won the title. During this period he avenged a previos loss and a previous draw (emphatically boxrec suggests) but he also drew with antuofermo.
I have seen bits of some of his fights pre world title (including Alan Minter) and would agree that his style seemed slicker than later on in his career (he seemed to have good rythm and countered well), he would also arguably be at his physical prime (athletically) in his mid to late twenties.
After winning the world title (in the clips I have seen) his style seems to change to a more brutal come forward style. It's as if he figured out that he had this solid chin that his challengers couldn't hurt him, so he would come forward relentlessly and batter them. His knockout streak up to and after the Duran fight is impressive (which includes antuofermo who he drew with previously)
This leads me to the question of which version of Hagler was the most effective, the slick moving one who beat the likes of Minter, or the brutal version who roughed up and Knocked Hearns out?
That would be me.... ;)
IMO, Hagler was at his very best in his November 1977 bout with the then unbeaten top contender Mike Colbert. His Prime began IMO, with his revenge victory over Winky 'The Worm' Monroe, and finished with his destruction of 'Sugar' Ray Seales in February 1979.
The first Antuofermo fight, perhaps was the first indication Hagler had indeed 'peaked'. And although Hagler was unlucky to only get a draw; much like de la Hoya against Trinidad, he did not help his case by boxing on the run in the championship rounds.
The closest Hagler came to achieving his best form as champ, was perhaps against Tony Sibson in 1983.
By the time he was fighting Hearns, he was relying virtually purely on his power and his chin, it was an amazing fight, but Hagler had well and truly peaked by then.
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
after he won the title he lost his hunger and thought he'd accomplished everything. he got sloppy and started running in proper running shoes instead of his old heavy boots. even though the proper footwear weighed a fraction compared to the boots, his times were slower after he was champ. even if he won the title when he was in his prime, the same thing would of happened to his performance
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirdy
deffinately the hearnes hammering hagler. i cant think of many middleweights in history who could have stood up to that. maybe your robbinsons and your la mota's. but deffinately not your b hops, jones jrs or your taylor's.
Robinson would have died against Hagler there... Roy Jones Jr. would have beaten him because he alot faster than Hearns, and he hit harder than Hearns who hurt stunned Hagler a few times. Hagler was strong, but I don't feel he was exceptionally stronger than Taylor. Also B-hops would techinically picked Hagler apart, and he would come into the fight larger than Hagler. Lamotta would be outmuscled by Hagler, and KTFO... Robinson couldn't keep Lamotta away in their first fight... well Hagler is bigger, stronger, faster than Lamotta and would have killed Robinson.
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
I often go back & forth on the subject of Hagler's prime...I think that Hagler shined the most around 1981 on...but I know that everyone will say that was his slide.
Personally...I just thought that he got better with age. I know that as he got older he started relying on his power & chin & that that is a no no...but I think that it made his performances more dramatic & gritty.
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
His prime= late 70s, his most exciting time= early 80s.
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
I just think he had along prime. Simple as that. Its like saying which B-Hop was more prime...vs. Taylor or vs. Johnson. Both
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBoom
I just think he had along prime. Simple as that. Its like saying which B-Hop was more prime...vs. Taylor or vs. Johnson. Both
Well you would say that, wouldn't you 'Boom Boom'? Or should that be Alan ;)
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknowndonor
His prime= late 70s, his most exciting time= early 80s.
Change early 80's, to mid 80's, and I agree 100%.
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBoom
I just think he had along prime. Simple as that. Its like saying which B-Hop was more prime...vs. Taylor or vs. Johnson. Both
Well you would say that, wouldn't you 'Boom Boom'? Or should that be Alan ;)
?? Alan????
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBoom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBoom
I just think he had along prime. Simple as that. Its like saying which B-Hop was more prime...vs. Taylor or vs. Johnson. Both
Well you would say that, wouldn't you 'Boom Boom'? Or should that be Alan ;)
?? Alan????
LOL, I thought that might go over everyones head, it is a pathetic Britkid joke ;)
I suspect your name is in honour of Ray Mancini, but 'Boom Boom' was also the nickname of Alan Minter, who lost the Middleweight Championship to Hagler in 1980.
As my argument is that Hagler was at his best pre World Championship, you would expect Alan Minter to claim that, that is wrong, and that he met prime Hagler in 1980...
Hence the awful joke...
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBoom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBoom
I just think he had along prime. Simple as that. Its like saying which B-Hop was more prime...vs. Taylor or vs. Johnson. Both
Well you would say that, wouldn't you 'Boom Boom'? Or should that be Alan ;)
?? Alan????
LOL, I thought that might go over everyones head, it is a pathetic Britkid joke ;)
I suspect your name is honour of Ray Mancini, but 'Boom Boom' was also the nickname of Alan Minter, who lost the Middleweight Championship to Hagler in 1980.
As my argument is that Hagler was at his best pre World Championship, you would expect Alan Minter claim that, that is wrong, and that he met prime Hagler in 1980...
Hence the awful joke...
Aha. I gotcha. took a few minutes and a bad headache though ;D. Minter was always one of those forgettable fighters to me
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
hagler in his later championship years although winning the bigger fights was a lot more flat footed (hearns, mugabi)
undoubtedly his boxing peak was around 76/77 when fighting on the tough philadelphia circuit against the likes of briscoe,hart and monroe. he combined a granite chin with power and also very underrated boxing skills and movement
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
hagler took a hell of a right hand in the first against hearns that shook him bit, thats about it. after that everything else just bounced of his skull. you bet your ass he would of murdered a b hop or a taylor that night. they have never and will never come up against anything that aggressive and relentless. it was a mugging and i reckon most middleweights would have fell to hagler that night.
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomp
Just wondering what people's opinions are on when exactly was his prime. Someone on a previous thread (I think it was the 100 greatest boxers ever thread) mentioned that his prime was 77-79 i.e. that he peaked before he won the title. During this period he avenged a previos loss and a previous draw (emphatically boxrec suggests) but he also drew with antuofermo.
I have seen bits of some of his fights pre world title (including Alan Minter) and would agree that his style seemed slicker than later on in his career (he seemed to have good rythm and countered well), he would also arguably be at his physical prime (athletically) in his mid to late twenties.
After winning the world title (in the clips I have seen) his style seems to change to a more brutal come forward style. It's as if he figured out that he had this solid chin that his challengers couldn't hurt him, so he would come forward relentlessly and batter them. His knockout streak up to and after the Duran fight is impressive (which includes antuofermo who he drew with previously)
This leads me to the question of which version of Hagler was the most effective, the slick moving one who beat the likes of Minter, or the brutal version who roughed up and Knocked Hearns out?
That would be me.... ;)
IMO, Hagler was at his very best in his November 1977 bout with the then unbeaten top contender Mike Colbert. His Prime began IMO, with his revenge victory over Winky 'The Worm' Monroe, and finished with his destruction of 'Sugar' Ray Seales in February 1979.
The first Antuofermo fight, perhaps was the first indication Hagler had indeed 'peaked'. And although Hagler was unlucky to only get a draw; much like de la Hoya against Trinidad, he did not help his case by boxing on the run in the championship rounds.
The closest Hagler came to achieving his best form as champ, was perhaps against Tony Sibson in 1983.
By the time he was fighting Hearns, he was relying virtually purely on his power and his chin, it was an amazing fight, but Hagler had well and truly peaked by then.
I thought it was you britkid. I would tend to agree that his physical prime was in the late 70's, but IMO his tactics (or lack of) in his championship years may have been more effective results wise. Though I have to admit that I haven't seen the two antuofermo fights to see if vito was shot by the second, or that simply Marvin was more dominant and hence showing that his tactics may have been more effective in the latter half of his career (apart from the Leonard fight when he tried to outbox him).
IMO Hagler would be too much for the likes of B-hop and Taylor. I never saw Roy Jones at middleweight, but I'd assume that he'd try to keep Hagler at a distance, and Marvin would have to be at his very best if he were to have a good chance of getting to him.
It would have been a cracking fight against SRR. SRR was never knocked out in his prime (discounting the heat against Maxim) and had an excellent chin to go with the rest of his abilities, so I don't see Hagler knocking him out. But IMO Hagler could win a decision if he was in good shape by possibly outworking him, like Lamotta and Turpin (but I doubt that SRR was at his best in those fights)
Re: Marvin Hagler's prime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirdy
deffinately the hearnes hammering hagler. i cant think of many middleweights in history who could have stood up to that. maybe your robbinsons and your la mota's. but deffinately not your b hops, jones jrs or your taylor's.
Robinson would have died against Hagler there... Roy Jones Jr. would have beaten him because he alot faster than Hearns, and he hit harder than Hearns who hurt stunned Hagler a few times. Hagler was strong, but I don't feel he was exceptionally stronger than Taylor. Also B-hops would techinically picked Hagler apart, and he would come into the fight larger than Hagler. Lamotta would be outmuscled by Hagler, and KTFO... Robinson couldn't keep Lamotta away in their first fight... well Hagler is bigger, stronger, faster than Lamotta and would have killed Robinson.
Uhhh "Robinson would have died against hagler" the greatest fighter to have ever laced gloves(and Not just by my standards but by every boxing expert). I believe you are a young chap you might want to watch robinson's fights b4 you say something like that.
