I have so much respect for both of them that it’s hard to choose. I can say only this: They both achieved amazing things that the other didn’t. Two outstanding legacies with very different strengths.
I'm with you now. Yeah there's be no backing off with a P4P Marciano that's for sure. Hagler got a bit caught up by the event, he slowed down when he could have put real pressure on a tiring Duran (somewhere around the 8th i think) and he also may have overplayed his cut. Thankfully for him he decided he was at a safe stage of the fight to let himself go with 2 rounds left lol. Hagler: "It seemed everybody was disappointed that I didn't knock him out. I felt that way myself. But he wasn't that vulnerable to a knockout. It was hard to hit him with a solid punch....You don't barrel in there on a guy like Roberto Duran. Why take unnecessary punishment unless you have to? I'd been effective and was winning the fight, so it isn't like I had to go in there and take the punishment to bomb him out." Duran: "He came to tear my head off, but when he saw that I could hit him hard, with strength, he got scared and became a coward. That's why he didn't take too many chances and mix it up with me. Everyone was saying he was a destroyer, but when he hit me, he didn't do anything to me. His punches absolutely did me no damage. He got scared every time he threw a jab because I could get my right in under it. That's why he held off so much."
Maybe I was watching a different fight, but I'm pretty sure Hagler absolutely hurt and at times just plain bullied Duran. Maybe Duran was on some serious drugs the hours before the fight and their effects hadn't lingered off, because calling Hagler a coward when Hagler was walking him down almost the entire fight is crazy work. Remember that one skit where Ali, Tyson and Leonard found a baby and were trying to take care of it ? I want one with Roberto Duran, Dick Tiger and Tommy Loughran together in some fancy restaurant, trying to dominate the room, resulting in each one trying to argue that they actually never lost a fight. They talk about it in detail, how they did this and that, how the judges were blind or paid off, all the while we flashback to the actual fight and they all just get dog-walked
Macho gotta macho lol. I thought round 6 was excellent for Hagler and felt he should have kept that sort of heat on. I haven't seen that skit but damn it's hard to even imagine hahaha. Your skit might be even better tho I think an immediate rematch would have seen Hagler pressure more and maybe even make it hard for Duran to find the finish line. I could be wrong tho, but Hagler loved a good rematch and i can't see him being a bit starstruck twice in a row.
This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
I was actually talking about Roy. Have a look back. Ray has the amazing wins, but I rank Archie higher, based upon his deeper resume/wins, and his great longevity.
Look, you have now had 3 attempts to have an objective debate, yet you have failed miserably on each occasion. The irony in your posts is utterly staggering. It is YOU with the cloudy judgement. It is YOU who’s delusional. YOU are the guy who thinks that Floyd is a top 5 ATG. Your lack of self awareness is hilarious. Have you any idea how that opinion makes you look here. It just completely exposes your complete lack of boxing knowledge. All you are doing, is solely focusing upon Moore’s losses, whilst lauding over Floyd’s zero. Yes, Moore lost. He lost to Charles, Patterson and Rocky etc. But that’s okay. Ali lost to Frazier. Frazier lost to Foreman. Hearns lost to Marvin. Marvin lost to Ray. Ray lost to Duran. Duran lost to Hearns. That is what happens when you fight prime greats. Now maybe Archie Moore could never have beaten Rocky and Patterson. However, apply context. Look at where he was. He was in his 40’s, with over 180 fights on his resume. Something that was completely alien to Floyd. Now about this for an idea, you utter genius: Why don’t you analyse Archie’s skill set and look at who he DID BEAT. Regarding Floyd, you’re not going to tell me anything about Floyd. Because I’m in my 40’s, and I watched his entire career from the 96 Atlanta games. I know everything about the man. I know how great he was. But I also know that he NEVER fought a prime ATG, or the guys who Archie fought. Floyd NEVER saw an Ezzard Charles. He never saw a Lloyd Marshall. He never fought twice per month, or fought 200 plus times. Floyd fought in a lesser, modern day era, with 4 belts and 18 weight classes. He fought lesser opponents, with a day before weigh-in. You are a casual fan, blinded by the 50-0, and the 23 world champions. Yet those stats would not have existed in Archie’s day. Most of those champions would never have been champions. Ezzard Charles couldn’t get a title, yet in Floyd’s era, guys like Baldomir and Guerrero were champions. Now I have repeatedly told you that under my ranking criteria, which is what most people use, Archie ranks higher. So why don’t you tell me why Floyd should rank higher. Archie’s losses are only one factor to assess. Now if you were also to assess his skills, his resume, his wins, his accomplishments and his longevity, it will hopefully open your ignorant mindset. Again, Floyd was a great fighter. But he did not fight the same calibre of opposition. He doesn’t have any losses, but then he doesn’t also have the same quality or depth of wins. He is completely unproven against the calibre of guys who Archie fought. Also, we don’t know if he’d even have fought guys like Charles and Burley, let alone have beaten them. Now either come back and have an objective debate, or don’t bother replying at all.
It's the strength of the calibre of Ray's wins, the variance of styles of the greats that he beat and his H2H prowess that rank him highly for me. Depending on criteria, I can see why anyone would rank him anywhere from top 15 - 40. He is the one fighter other than Roy that had the talent, if not the competition and/ or fight activity to be ranked in the top tier of fighters, alongside Robbi, Greb and Armstrong, that I've been alive to see. Floyd could've done the same and possibly Holyfield but alas, it is what it is.
I love a spirted debate but this seems to be making you upset not my intention so I’ll post one more and if you don’t agree that’s fine. After all we re not finding a cure for childhood cancer here we do this only for the fun of it. Your right Archie met Charles as LHs problem is he lost all 3 times last one was a KO. I was a Floyd Patterson fan I met him a couple of times when I went to college in New Paltz NY where he lived. Great guy good but definitely not a great fighter however he did totally outclass Moore and demolish him in 5 rounds. The best LH Moore had to challenge him was Harold Johnson. They did have very competitive fights with Archie winning 4 out of 5. Johnson was a nice fighter and had he fought in the 80s or 90s he could have been a solid contender but there were several guys as good or better. Archie was a very good light heavyweight you want to say great go ahead but one of the very top P4P of all-time no sorry.
Archie is arguably top ten p4p ever. Most likely in the top 20. I picked Floyd but you’re severely underrating him to just call him good. He beat Maxim who beat Patterson he beat Lloyd Marshall who beat Charles. Archie would enter his prime years after the Charles fights. When he would develop his legendary cross arm style. Also Harold Johnson is also an ATG’s at LHW and even had an impressive HW run. Better than most. These people were more than just good.