
Originally Posted by
Taeth
Also people that are arguing that Hagler was a different fighter when he was younger. Well that would have helped Roy out more, Hagler liked to box a lot more in his prime when his only chance against Roy would be to come with relentless pressure, however Hagler was still a counter puncher in his prime even when coming forward, and there is no way you could fight that way against Roy. Roy was way too fast for Hagler to fight in that style. Hagler tried to fighting that way against Duran and that made that fight a lot closer than it could have been because Duran was faster, and a better boxer then Hagler, it cost Hagler against Leonard early when he tried to outbox him.
James Toney was a great fighter at coming forward and countering, in a fight much closer, but similar to Chavez-Taylor, James Toney had been landing hard right hands against the supremely gifted Michael Nunn all night, until he turned it up late, and Nunn succumbed to the pressure and Toney's power. Toney came forward trying to let Roy lead, and Roy was too fast for TOney to react.
Now you can compare overall, all you want of Hagler to TOney, but Toney is way up there in terms of the best middleweights ever, easily in the top 15 or 20(this being the deepest divison ever IMO). Anyways TOney regardless of his lower rank was faster, had a same caliber of chin, and was a better counter punch then Hagler. He was also harder to hit, but Roy was too elusive, too good at moving, too good at countering. Nobody could counter like ROy and it catches everyone off guard.
Thats why I think Hearns has a better chance against Roy because he would use the range which Roy showed that he was less comfortable in dealing with when he faced Hopkins and Griffin.
Bookmarks