Did Marvin Hagler dare to be great?

Leonard was much further gone . He had just got off the floor and beaten a LHW in Lalonde at SMW which once again agrees with what I have said about some fighters are better suited at a certain weight than others.
I notice that you are tying yourself up again. Hill was also around 40 when he faced Lalonde. So that is your argument . Trying to make it sound like prime Hill against a 40 year old Lalonde. Thats a squirm. I actually liked Leonard in that fight (Leonard/Hearns 2) but was in the minority and do admit I was watching as a massive Leonard fan. So as said you are tying yourself up because as you note Leonard beat a fresher version of Lalonde just before Hearns put him down twice in a fight many felt Hearns won.
So as we now admit that Hearns beat a better fighter at LHW than he did MW. Do you deny that? Of course you wont and that is where I have backed you up and made you reevaluate your whole post

 

Wow. There is so much wrong with your post, it's ridiculous. 1st off when I realized my timeframe was off about when vastly overrated by you Hill beat LaLonde I edited it immediately when I realized my error. That doesnt change the fact 39 year old past it Hill couldn't stop 43 year old past it Lalonde whereas 32 year old past it Leonard and fighting in a division that's 21 pounds higher than his optimal weight where his is a universally recognize atg, could stop prime 28 year old Lalonde. Those are facts which you are obviously ignoring. Another fact that you continue to ignore is that nothing special Griffen looked better against Jones than Hill did. Why are you ignoring that fact? Your quote "He (Leonard) had just got off the floor and beaten a LHW in Lalonde at SMW which once again agrees with what I have said about some fighters are better suited than some weight than others." Are you inferring that Leonard was a better 168,175 pounder than he was at 147, 154? And are saying that Leonard WASN'T farther gone than Tommy was in their 2nd fight? Just a couple of years after Leonard kod LaLonde, Sugar was embarrassed against Terry Norris whereas Tommy went on to win belts at 175 and cruiser years after that, albeit against mediocre competition. And as far as vastly overrated by you Hill,you know the guy who looked worse against Roy Jones than Montell Griffen did, being better than anyone Tommy beat at middleweight, we don't know if he would have been better than Shuler because Shuler died right after that fight. And even if he was, that simply does not prove Tommy was better at 175 than he was at 160. And Roldan gave (albeit past it) Hagler a tough fight. I'm pretty certain prime Hagler would have beaten 168 Hill quite convincingly considering Hill's so so resume and his actual performances. And I've noticed you've never mention Tommy loss to past it and over his optimal weight Iran Barkley at 175. Wow, I wonder how a fight between that Iran and the Hill that Tommy beat would have gone down lol.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Bailey world where Sugar Ray Leonard was better at 168 and 175 because he beat Don LaLonde at the higher weight. And Tommy Hearns was better at 175 than he was at 160 because he beat Virgil Hill at the higher weight lmmfao.

 

You write there is so much wrong with my post and then say you realise your own timeframe was off. That says it all and you felt it was so bad you went and edited, which points straight away that you obviously realise you got it wrong.
Not sure why you are trying to go on about Leonard? We were talking Hearns and Hagler and the fact you are looking to change the subject shows the squirming I mentioned earlier.
Lets cut the lengths of the posts down and get to the facts.
Hagler was an amazing MW champ but there were not many top MWs that were around the 6ft height like when Hopkins was active. Yes there were some but not so many top ones at that height. Many of the ones you mentioned didnt really have many top MW wins. You mentioned Hearns and Hill but that was at LHW and was arguably better than any of Hearns MW wins. I explained without you being able to answer in any sensible way how some fighters are better at different weights and you waffled but no more.
Go back and go on about the top around 6ft MWs and the best wins they had.
I see it as different eras and think a great fighter like Hearns may have struggled with some of the MWs from Hopkins era but yes feel Hearns was likely a greater fighter at LHW, where at MW he was stopped by Barkley but at LHW gave a closer fight, where at WW was stopped by Leonard but nearer LHW (at SMW) knocked Leonard down twice. Where at MW and below had been stopped but not at the weights above MW

 

Wow. You write down some shite.I fixed my post immediately after realizing I got the time frame wrong. I didnt "feel bad and edit it" as you erroneously claim. I immediately fixed it as soon as I realized I got the time frame wrong. Proof? Look at the bottom of the post where there is no "edited" with the time quote at the bottom because I did it immediately. You can (irrelevantly) harp on it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that 39 year old past it Hill couldn't stop 43 year old Lalonde, but 32 year old past it Leonard, fighting in a division 21 pounds higher than the weight he established himself as an atg, blasted out a prime 28 year old natural 168 175 pounder in that LaLonde. That's a fact that you cannot deny, but you obviously can avoid. And you cant deny Griffen looking better against Jones than Hill did. Those 2 facts are certain as well, and you have simply avoided them, no surprise there. Too bad you just got blown out of the water on that one. Why am I going on about Leonard? Well considering the fact that he's one of just a handful of fighters that fought both Hagler and Hearns and also knocked out prime LaLonde, something a past it Hill couldn't do to a past it Lalonde, something else you havent really addressed other my rectified mistake in the time frame sequence, Leonard is most pertinent to this discussion, no matter how hard you try to avoid what actually happened in the sport. As far as your top middleweights over 6 feet when Hagler and Hopkins were on the go, a few weeks ago, I did a poll on the British forum on who would have won between Eastman and Sibson. The results by mostly YOUR COUNTRYMEN were in: 2 Englishmen had Sibbo by points, one had Sibbo by ko and one Irishman and one Englishman had Sibbo winning by knockout or Eastman by points. Clearly you hold Eastman in far greater esteem than your countrymen do if one of Hagler's easiest victims was deemed better than your close to 6 foot middleweight Hopkins decisioned Eastman. And when Drew wrote that he felt he would have picked 89 Duran over the taller middleweights that you like to bring up, Holmes and Echols on page 10 of this thread, you know the Duran that you claimed wouldn't trouble Hopkins, you wrote "fair enough" under his post lol. You pwned yourself there big time. As far as some fighters being better at some weights, of course that's true. But you have yet to demonstrate how Tommy was better at 175 like you like to claim, than he was at middleweight. Bring up Hill's name all you want but consider he was pretty good at best according to his resume, won loss record and performances, there is still nothing to indicate Tommy was better at 175 than at 160. And if you saw the Hearns Barkley fights because the evidence states that you haven't, you would have seen that Tommy was handily beating Iran at 160 before he got caught, something Tommy WASN'T DOING at 175 where he LOST A DECISION TO THE INFERIOR BOXER BARKLEY, then you would known the bull**** you wrote to not be true. So either you're lying or you havent seen the fights. Which also could be said about Hearns Leonard in their 2 fights as well because if their 1st fight had been 12 rounds, Tommy would have won a decision as he gassed late. He was out boxing Leonard quite handily before he gassed, another fact you're ignoring. And as far as your last statement that Tommy wasn't stopped above middleweight, so what? His resume above 160 was littered with past it fellows and mediocrities. Again I ask you (no matter as you wont answer) which fighters that Tommy fought above 160 were REMOTELY as good as Leonard and Hagler? You've been sonned, no matter how you try to spin it.

 

Very long post and no doubt as bad as the others.
Will have a read and laugh a bit later and get back to schooling you in the next few days
Regards
bailey

 

Welcome to Bailey land, where according to him, Hearns was better at 175 that at 160, because he beat Virgil Hill at 175. And Leonard was better at 168/175 than at 147/154 because he beat Donny LaLonde there. And simply because Bailey says so, despite the facts.

 

Wow. I noticed you responded immediately. You've been obliterated with facts and you cant handle it. Can't wait to read more nonsensical responses on your part. No go and watch the Barkley Hearns fights and Leonard Hearns fights FOR THE FIRST TIME LOL. And then let's see what else you have then, more bull**** lol.

 

I think because Pacquiao climbed from Light Flyweight to Light Middlweight to win a title that people's expectations have changed. It used to be acceptable for a champion to sit at his natural weight and defeat all challengers at his class and smaller men brave enough to challenge him. But now it's not that way anymore. A great fighter is now expected to move up in weight and try his luck against larger men.

Anybody 168 and below today is expected to eventually move up after winning a world title. 175 and up gets a pass because they're already so damn big and at that point the jump is 175 all the way to 200 and then unlimited. And people realize that those guys are just getting too damn huge to be giving up size against.

 

I responded immediately, like I am now, because I am on the site dummy. No more no less. I also responded so quickly to that long post because I have as stated not read it yet and will read it and get back to you.
You havent given any known facts of note. In fact as you admitted earlier when you gave facts that you had to edit straight after you were owned lol.
Now chill, I will read it and get back to you in a day or so when I am not as bored.

 

Ok nirwit, fact 1 that you've ignored: at 160, Tommy was beating Iran handily before the stoppage.
Fact 2 that you've ignored: Tommy was decisioned by Iran at a time when Iran was clearly past his best and at a weight that was above Iran 's best at 175.
Fact 3 you've ignored: Virgil Hill, Tommy's best victim at 175, looked worse against Roy Jones than Montell Griffen did in Jones Griffen 1.
Fact 4 you've ignored: Tommy was clearly out boxing Ray in their first fight up until he gassed late.
Fact 5 you've ignored: your countrymen on the British boxing forum almost unanimously had easy Hagler victim Tony Sibson beating one of BHop's best victims in Howard Eastman, one wrote by stoppage. Oh wait, I forgot. You're talking about good, bid middleweights lol.
Fact 6 you've ignored: 39 year old past it Virgil Hill couldn't knock out past it 43 year old Donny LaLonde. But 32 year old past it natural welterweight Ray Leonard knocked a prime 28 year old natural 168/175 pound Donny LaLonde out in a division 21 pounds above Leonard's best weight.
Fact 7 you've ignored: on page 10 of this thread, Drew said that 89 Duran would beat Holmes and Echols, 2 of the tall, BHop victims you keep harping on. Underneath you wrote "fair enough" LMMFAO.
Fact 8 you've ignored: you listed the big middleweights Eastman, Nichols, and Holmes to beat Hearns. And their best victims were guys like Soliman, Cherifi etc. When I asked you which one of these fellows would you have favored against Virgil Hill, you ignored the question.
Fact 9 you've ignored: when I asked you what fighter Tommy fought above 160 that was remotely as good as Leonard or Hagler, you simply ignored the question.
Have I missed anything yet lol? I can see why you're bored. I'd be bored too if I was getting pwned by all the facts. Is this post long/short enough for you?Now run along and watch the Hearns Leonard and Barkley Hearns fights for the 1st time.
Wow, I keep editing because I keep remembering more facts or things you've ignored.

 

And to all of you out there that deny that Monzon, Hagler and GGG were/are great fighters because they didn't move up, you're wrong. All 3 of these fighters were/are great. It's a shame people's agendas get in their way instead of admitting what they see with their own eyes. As far as the TS is concerned, he's a lying, crude troll who has been banned under multiple aliases, and will be banned again when he starts his nonsense again. Are you reading this thread, troll? Of course you are.

 

And just for the record, how do you see a Barkley that decisioned Hearns against a Hill that was decisioned by Hearns panning out? Can't wait to read your answer. Actually I can lol.

 

Sorry it has taken so long for me to reply, but I got a bit bored and had to get back when I could be bothered.
First thing I see is that you are mentioning a post about me, which shows that you are feeling owned. Still back to this...
I'll be honest. I started reading this and realised that you really are lost and beyond being explained to. You go on about Leonard beating Lalonde, mention Lalonde as a solid 175lb fighter and ignore that the fight was at 168lbs. That shows how you are squirming and looking for an angle you cant find, and still say all this and forget that at that weight, Hearns did alot better against Leonard which highlights what I have said.
I knew it was a mistake to start reading the words of someone who is lost, but did say I would come back to you and have stuck to my word, but what a waste. Did you forget what weight Lalonde was at against Leonard or were you just squirming?

 

Its boxing and anything can happen and here you have painted yourself into another corner because at MW Hearns was stopped by Barkley, at LHW it was a better performance by Hearns.
You see, there you go again getting owned. Hearns gets stopped at MW but not at LHW

Kept to my word about replying but from here on, you will be on your own. I have humoured your often ridicuous posts too many times