Marvin Hagler vs. Joe Calzaghe

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by Dave's Top Ten

All good points JT. Suffice to say I disagree with most of 'em. For the record I was hoarse on Sunday morning after spending my Saturday night at the Garden roaring on JC.

Fair play Dave, it's all about personal opinion of course.

Would have loved to have seen you on the screen roaring for Calz mate! Half your luck getting to go to such big events.

What fights have you attended besides that one mate? I am sure i remember you mentioning others, maybe even a Hagler fight or two?

[Dave's Top Ten]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

Fair play Dave, it's all about personal opinion of course.

Would have loved to have seen you on the screen roaring for Calz mate! Half your luck getting to go to such big events.

What fights have you attended besides that one mate? I am sure i remember you mentioning others, maybe even a Hagler fight or two?

Hagler fights? No, not me. Several fights in the UK. Only managed to have seen a couple here so far in NY - Cotto v Judah (perhaps the best atmosphere I have ever experienced at a boxing match) and Calz v Jones. Can't afford it too often - it's a recesssion you know !!
Paid a whopping $250 for my JC v RJJ ticket and I was almost at the back !! Damn Calzaghe promotions !

[Dave's Top Ten]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

Marvin was perfectly suited at 160, a completely natural middleweight. Even with the modern weigh in i can't see Hagler doing anything different as he is so well suited at 158 - 160. Calz by contrast leans right down then gains as much as 20 odd pounds by fight time. He's coming in at 168 but weighing 185 or even more punch time. He's a much much bigger man naturally.

Ezzard often brings the modern weigh in point up, and it's a fair comment. Fighters such as Hagler would be disadvantaged by the modern rule, where as Calz and co would be disadvantaged by the old. Who is to say Hagler under modern draining and the like would not be boiling down to 154 then fattening back up to 160 or whatever fight time. By contrast Calz might have to simply fight at 175, he certainly would in Haglers day with no 168. Even staying at 168 might be a drama.

Personally i am not sure i like the modern trend tho there hasn't been any tragedy recently.

Good points but we just don't know if Hagler would have been suited 160+. It's a complete intangible. The only thing we do know is that he did perform well the few times he did weigh in above 160 and when he was relatively light (eg against Hamsho 1 and Duran) he apparently lacked some power. To me Chris Eubank looked, physically, like Hagler, the ultimate middleweight, but he managed it and all the way to cruiser! To me James Toney looked a 'small' middle (like Hagler) and looked what he did. Anway, good debating with you as always. Lacy - Taylor on in a minute. Laters !

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by Dave's Top Ten

Hagler fights? No, not me. Several fights in the UK. Only managed to have seen a couple here so far in NY - Cotto v Judah (perhaps the best atmosphere I have ever experienced at a boxing match) and Calz v Jones. Can't afford it too often - it's a recesssion you know !!
Paid a whopping $250 for my JC v RJJ ticket and I was almost at the back !! Damn Calzaghe promotions !

Hahahaha, they don't miss us by the sounds. Regardless what an experience tho. Something to tell the grandkids.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by Dave's Top Ten

Good points but we just don't know if Hagler would have been suited 160+. It's a complete intangible. The only thing we do know is that he did perform well the few times he did weigh in above 160 and when he was relatively light (eg against Hamsho 1 and Duran) he apparently lacked some power. To me Chris Eubank looked, physically, like Hagler, the ultimate middleweight, but he managed it and all the way to cruiser! To me James Toney looked a 'small' middle (like Hagler) and looked what he did. Anway, good debating with you as always. Lacy - Taylor on in a minute. Laters !

Marvin himself made comment a few times on his being completely suited to 160.

Cheers mate, remember no links!!

Enjoy.

[Robbi]

A year ago Calzaghe put on one of best performances against Kessler. His speed, volume, boxing ability, reflexes, and ability to adjust halfway through the fight were all evident.

Early 2006, he dominated Lacy and hardly came off second best in a span of 20 secs during the fight, far less losing a round. His workrate and clusters of punches were on the mark all night long. Speed, accuracy, second to none.

Those are probably the signature fights for his stamina as well as his effectiveness.

He never even dominated a lesser fighter on paper as convincingly as he did against Lacy prior to that showing over 12 rounds.

Yet against Jones he's well past his peak even though he beats him convincingly as well and shows no serious declines, if any, in all areas of his game? I want awnsers on this JT. Let me know the reasons why.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by Robbi

I want awnsers on this JT. Let me know the reasons why.

ROBBI

And to awnser your question. I might soon. Maybe tommorow, maybe next week if this thread is still going then.

[Robbi]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

The only reason I never addressed your point on a thread a few weeks ago was because of your moaning at why I never awnsered the thread question. After all your bitching and moaning I thought I'd be an awkward customer and not awnser what you asked me, which was of course 'the thread question'

Anyway lad. I'm off to bed. Was watching some Hopkins earlier. Hopkins W12 Hagler.


Goodnight.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by Robbi

The only reason I never addressed your point on a thread a few weeks ago was because of your moaning at why I never awnsered the thread question. After all your bitching and moaning I thought I'd be an awkward customer and not awnser what you asked me, which was of course 'the thread question'

Anyway lad. I'm off to bed. Was watching some Hopkins earlier. Hopkins W12 Hagler.


Goodnight.

Well i have better things to do than awnser to your pedantic meanderings in that case




Holmes SD15 Frazier

night

[cuchulain]

Originally Posted by Dave's Top Ten

JT, to be honest those views seem several times more extreme than the ones I laid out. Not really polar. Let's get a little more realistic. JC has proven himself an excellent fighter over the years, but his 'greatness' comes from fighting unproven fighters or 'shells'. I was at the fight at MSG and was shocked how little RJJ had left. He was done. He still managed to have JC almost out in the first round. At supermiddle, I think prime Toney and Jones handle JC without too many problems. Prime Hopkins comes up from middleweight and handles him fairly easily. Prime Eubank perhaps nicks it. Micheal Watson would have given him fits in a similar way Reid did. Calzaghe STRUGGLED with 168. 164? He would be drained! After a fiddly few opening rounds the fight becomes one sided against Hagler, who I think ends up pummeling Calzaghe. Bottom line, I think a few of us are getting carried away with JC. At 168? Granted, that would be more entertaining.

Oh my goodness I can see Calzaghe's head snapping back now as he on rushes onto Hagler's right jab. Down goes Joe ...again

Hardly !

Now tell me you didn't have a few jars before the fight.

[jaysuperman27]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

Calzaghe causes Hagler trouble no matter what the result.

Marv's best chance is to maul (like the Hearns fight) him, by taking Joe out of his comfort zone.

I simply cannot see Hagler outboxing Calzaghe.

PS. Marv had severly overrated 'boxing skills' IMO

I dont think so, I saw a Hagler 70's fight.. his boxing skills, speed,upper body movements were better than the Hearns fight.. during 85-87, he was more of a brawler... a younger Hagler mauls Calzaghe

[Bummy Davis]

Originally Posted by Dave's Top Ten

Try and keep comparisons of fighters to their peaks - it's far more interesting. Hagler was nowhere near his peak against Leonard. It's like comparing Holmes (against Spinks) to other ATG heavies.

and Leonard was not near his peak as well and was coming back. Its funny but the version of B-Hop that fought Pavlik and Calzage is one of the best I have seen, dispite his age, I think he put the weight on perfectly and looks stronger than ever. I think a Calzage fight would be close but Haglers style would bring out the best in Joe....I like Joe here

[natonic]

I picked Hagler much earlier in this thread. Since then, I've seen the Calzaghe - Jones fight. I watched it last night along with Taylor - Lacy. I DO NOT think Jones was a shot fighter. The most shot fighter I watched this weekend was Lacy. I think Jones was a very good LightHeavy last week who got beat by a great LightHeavy. Jones is not what he once was, beat he wasn't shot. I become more impressed with Calzaghe each time I see him. Yeah, Hopkins made him look mortal, but then who looks good against Hopkins. He has Hopkins trying to claim low blows, trying to get rest or points or out of the fight completely. I was impressed how Calzaghe took some really good flush shots from Jones. I'm starting to think Calzaghe would be a little too big and fast for Hagler.

[Dave's Top Ten]

Originally Posted by cuchulain

Hardly !

Now tell me you didn't have a few jars before the fight.

I think JC was badly hurt. For the first time in his career, he didn't just bounce up - he took his time and looked shaky. A peak Jones would have finished him off. It was startling how uninterested / incapable Jones was in mounting a follow up attack, luckily for Joe. Shot fighter.

[Dave's Top Ten]

Originally Posted by Bummy Davis

and Leonard was not near his peak as well and was coming back. Its funny but the version of B-Hop that fought Pavlik and Calzage is one of the best I have seen, dispite his age, I think he put the weight on perfectly and looks stronger than ever. I think a Calzage fight would be close but Haglers style would bring out the best in Joe....I like Joe here

I never said SRL was at his peak in the Hagler fight and I would never pick that SRL in a fantasy matchup, just as I wouldn't pick that Hagler. Nuff said. By the way, can you describe Hagler's style and why it would bring out the best in JC?