Chavez vs Hagler P4P

Meldrick Taylor, at any division, doesn't not equate to Tommy Hearns. Stomping Hearns in three; is far more impressive than beating Taylor in the final round while hopelessly behind on the cards. Thinking anything else is either ignorance or delusion.

 

No, you’re just being a fanboy. Taylor lost to Chavez in between beating McGirt and Aaron Davis. Hearns got stopped by Barkley and knocked around by Roldan at 160. He didn’t really do anything impressive at that weight.

 

"At that weight". So what happened? Hearns was capable at 168, 175, 154 and 147, but not 160? Regardless of the weight, Tommy Hearns was ten times the fighter Meldrick Taylor was; and he was just as in his prime as Taylor was.

Not seeing how a much more conclusive win over a much better fighter is better than not, is delusional.

 

It’s pretty simple, actually. Hearns was better than Taylor at 147 and 154 and worse at any other weight. And like I alluded to, Hearns moved up to fight Hagler and Chavez moved up to fight Taylor. You’re being silly.

 

Meldrick Taylor was in his absolute prime at 140, was about 24 or 25 years old when he first fought Chavez, had beaten an excellent Buddy McGirt for the title, looked great against a very good Meekins defending it and was the champ at 140 for almost two years when Chavez challenged him, moving up to do so ... Taylor was extremely well managed by the Duvas and considered one of the best fighters in the world .. he was undefeated and at his peak ... to compare him to Hearns who while extremely dangerous as a puncher was always managing stamina and chin issues and unproven at 160 and moving up to challenge the champion. I agree w you !

 

Right. It would be like if Hagler fought a version of Hearns who could only be stopped after round 9.

 

Hearns was kinda like a 20% better Roger Mayweather .... tall, rangy, fast, great jab, explosive power, shaky chin ...

 

Hearns was in no way worse than Taylor at any weight.

You're the one being silly. Some things are established for a reason.

 

Hearns didn't accomplish much at 160. We don't get to use his accomplishments at 147 and 154 to argue he was a great middleweight.

 

So emotional.

 

Mayweather was obviously great at 140 and Pac was obviously great at 135 although neither accomplished much.

The difference is that Hearns got ko’d twice at 160 before even seeing late rounds. Sure, Hagler was special but Barkley was a mid level contender at best.

 

That's funny because I also thought the same of yours

Fact: Hagler boxed better than both Ali and even Leonard - in his prime

Chavez didnt have those extra dimensions as Hagler; couldnt duel from long range

If he had a speedster in front of him, he'd struggle and MAY need help from the referee

nd if faced with a tricky southpaw, MAY need a bit of help from the judges

If you're going to criticize Hagler for laying back in the Duran fight and narrowly winning, how about Chavez - laporte?

I had thought Juan was WAY done for but there he was holding even with the great Chavez

We can also cut Marv some slack in the Leonard fight because as we all know, it was his last fight

and besides that, we all know he really won

Compare that with Chavez' last fights vs DLH. One in which he was cut to ribbons, and the other, he quit

like I said, the Randal fight took it all out of him

as for any doubts you may have about Marvin, relax because they are all unfounded

It's just the natural pessimism in you, but has no bearing on the rest of us

 

Rooster scored it for Hagler by one point. I could bump the thread.