Hagler vs Jones

I dont know, have thought about it several times but I cant pick a clear winner, think about this its 84/85 something like that and hagler is king, you think mid 90's jones beat him? im on the fence here, cant decide.

 

No, I mean too good. Too good at what he does. They're not going to be exchanging multiple blows throughout the fight. Jones is too smart, too fast, too elusive. Hagler's going to get beaten to the punch most of the time and he's not going to land with any great frequency throughout the bout. He'd need a big rally where he lands multiple shots to stop Roy in order to win, and I seriously doubt it happens. Being technically more skilled than Jones or more varied doesn't really mean much. Plenty of guys are going to have those advantages against him, but very, very few fighters in the history of boxing were as adept at controlling fights as a peak Roy Jones was. He was a phenomenal ring general, among the best ever, and that's perhaps Hagler's only major weakness. The only issue here is whether or not Roy was at his peak by the end of his Middleweight run. If not, he's going to be in trouble at some point. If so, he'll beat Marvin, no question about it.

 

He had glaringly obvious positioning problems, Jones.

 

A 'green' Hopkins, Griffin, of course, and southpaws Harding and Tarver landed plenty on Jones. None are even in the league below Marvin Hagler.

Yes, Hagler would have to adjust to Jones' speed and outside game. I concede that he may not - but he doesn't have to! And that is the point. If he cannot master Jones' speed and timing, he can get close and bring it inside where Jones is extremely vulnerable and really has no answers. If Jones finds that his speed and reflexes are neutralized by Hagler at whatever distance and in whatever style Hagler chooses - he's done. Jones is the one who is not versatile here - not Hagler.

I understand these 'power, speed and reflexes' arguments, and they are convincing - but only if you minimize factors other than athleticism. Boxing is more a game of skill and intangibles than power and speed. If it wasn't, then other sports' athletes who have God-given talent would fare much better in the ring. The fact is that they don't.

The argument of those who are dazzled by the speed and power of Jones relies on things other than what makes real greatness - things like skill, quality of competition, and how a fighter reacts to real adversity. Hagler cannot match the handspeed of Jones, but in these categories - which I argue are more important in boxing - he trounces Jones. And that would make all the difference in the world in my book.

 

Most fans and analysts overstate the skill of guys like Muhammad Ali and Jones. I cannot count how many times I have heard the glorification of Jones' skill when it is actually talent that they are watching. For example, pulling back from a punch is technically unsound and is risky because if I see that you like to rely on reflexes and lean away from a shot, I can feint a shot and as you pull back, I am stepping in with an overhand. Talent is flashy and skill is easy to overlook, but one is better than the other.

 

Roy is a much smarter fightr than people are giving him credoit for.


He knows exactly where his advantages would be, and that's either on the outside, or catching Hagler coming in. And yes, he had tremendous power at that weight.


We all know Hagler was a beast, but H2H I would pick Roy based on the combination of speed and power, something Hagler had never seen the likes of.

 

Jones was only ever hurt at light heavy and above and was invincible in all but maybe the first Griffin fight and the Hopkins fight before then. He was able to move up in weight and school James Toney, one of the best fighters of his generation. Hagler was a great middleweight but he never moved up in weight and had a lot of difficulty with Duran and Leonard, two fighters much smaller than Jones. The fight with Trinidad, after Jones was shot, is proof that Jones was simply too strong for naturally lighter men. He had tremendous power at the lower weights, almost on the level of Tommy Hearns, but was far faster and had better endurance than the Hitman.

 

Jones would 'beat him to the punch' only in the sense that he'd release a punch that travels quicker - but not necessarily lands! Hagler in his peak in the 70s had an airtight defense. Hagler's defense is one of the most underrated I've seen - he'd block bodyshots with his elbows or duck under a right hand to get inside, slip a left hand punch with a twist of his hips.

He always had his hands up and was a great judge of distance - he'd come in with that awesome double right jab, and before the guy has even thought about getting off a counterpunch, Hagler's out of range again, always with his hands high.

 

He beat 10% of Toney, who ate himself out of the fight. Even then, Jones struggled to land cleanly or touch the chin.

Even against Sugar Boy Malinga and Tony Thornton, Jones struggles desperately to land any clean blows - he has to resort to feints against Malinga and only 10% of his 30-punch combination against Thornton actually landed.

Hagler, at his best, was beyond.

 

Havent seen the griffin fight in forever but I do remember hopkins winning his rounds when he got RJJ on the ropes, something that everyone forgot Roy had trouble with until Tarver 1 because no one could get him on the ropes but it shows it is a weakness he had his entire career, just one that wasnt often exploited.

 

Roy, and it would be easy. If you can barely get by Antefuermo and the only fights you're known for are against welterweights moving up - and you LOSE one - you're not going to hang with Roy ****ing Jones Jr.

 

Roy would beat Hagler prime for prime, no doubt in my mind. Too quick in feet and hand speed. Too accurate. Hagler would cause Roy problems periodically throughout the fight and force him to move side to side and backwards more than Roy would like. The fight would be boring for the most part, but Roy pulls out a UD with many fans claiming he ran too much.

 

A fight for the ages this one. What a pity they didn't fall in the same part of history. But we can be very thankful that Hearns, Leonard and Duran did coincide in the same part of history as Hagler.

 

Roy jones take this baby!!!

 

Nobody can beat prime Jones even prime Hagler.