Emile Griffith vs Marvin Hagler

He did pretty good in the rematches against Watts and Monroe and Seales .. the Duran fight is so over rated .. Hagler fought cautious in his first super fight but he won cleanly, was never behind in any way, was never hurt in any way ... the Leonard fight Hagler was old, plain and simple .. Hagler may have been the most talented and perfect middleweight we ever had .. his problem was sometimes between his ears .. when he went balls to the wall no one really was competitive ..

 

Finally someone who makes sense. I agree with you that Hagler for whatever reason could be taken out of his game, yes he did destroy both Watt and Monroe in the rematches but should he have loss the 1st time? Sure he did beat Duran, but did he dominate him? Shouldn't he have? Their shouldn't have been any "yeah buts " about that fight. Shouldn't he have come out the gate, and really push Leonard like he did Hearns? He was the active fighter, I thought before the fight he would come out like a cruise missile. All the fighters named were real slick, could move, and were very good defensively. They forced Hagler to think. And I could see a fighter like Griffith being very capable of doing the same thing. But the Monzons, The Grebs,The Walkers, Wouldnt be a problem to him. Those style fighters allowed Hagler to do what he did best, counter aggressive fighters with pin point combinations.

 

You still haven't said ANYTHING of substance yet. I really don't believe you really know anything thing about boxing, since your biggest contribution is to attack an opnion, but not explain yours. Maybe your to dumb, and can't articulate your opnion therefore your only option is to attack what someone else writes. Typical internet bully.

 

I have always thought that Marvin lacked a bit of confidence .. he was nervous in a big fight against Duran. He got psyched out by Leonard, giving up glove size, ring size for the ego of the larger purse .. he was nervous about going 15 the first time against Vito . he almost punched himself out the first time against Geraldo and never forgot it .. when he went balls to the wall like against Hearns he was a monster .. Hearns was in his absolute prime for Hagler .. I remember thinking that anyone Hearns hit he would take out and that he'd hit Hagler .. and he did but that night Marvin was a beast and he took some opening shots no one else could have taken .. without question Marvin's weakness was between his ears, this whole need to call himself Marvelous bit ... it's the reason why I feel a less talented but so much mentally stronger Monzon would likely outpoint him over 15 ..

 

Hagler beat Leonard imho

 

You, on the other hand, haven't made any sense at all.

 

What are you anyway, a 20-something You Tube/Boxrec whiz kid?

 

I just have to ask...so far all people keep bringing up is the Duran fight to criticize hagler.

What about some of the poor losses Griffith had at middleweight in his prime to men like Don Fulmer, Rubin Carter, Nino Benvenuti 2x, Manuel Gonzalez and Stanley Heyward?

The people who say “styles”...what about levels? Didn’t hagler prove himself a clear level above Griffith at 160lb?

 

Lmao. "I really don't believe that you ... Blahblahblah" your opinion is more irrelevant than a stone simpleton.. You are the typical nerd

 

Hagler's performances are over-analyzed. Certain of them more so than others (Watts 1, Monroe 1, Duran, Leonard).

Most people acknowledge that Hagler was stiffed on the decision against Watts. The genuine loss against Monroe seems to carry greater significance than it really should, amongst those questioning Hagler's abilities.

The bout was not televised and so no film of it is available (to the best of my knowledge). Reports suggest that Monroe took an unusually aggressive approach, which won him the bout. It was not a case of Monroe being slick or using some other form of sorcery to get Hagler to think.

Not even a full three years into his career, Hagler was what... 21? (or 23, depending on which d.o.b. you want to believe). Both he and Monroe, along with several other good middleweights, were seeking contention in a highly competitive scene and, given that after this bout Hagler wouldn't lose for another 10+years, in close to 40 bouts, I'd call the result of their first fight an anomaly. The Watts and Monroe losses are no big deal.

Hagler beat Duran; wider than the cards suggest and he did so on account of skill. This is another bout, which seems to count against Hagler, due to him not meeting with certain viewers' [mainly retrospective] expectations and I rarely see a fair appraisal given on the fight.

Hagler was putting on a clinic, at times, which seems to have been overcast and all but completely forgotten because of the idea that Duran had control over Hagler's actions; otherwise, Hagler would have beaten Duran all over the ring and had him out of there - surely? Had Hagler done so, I wonder what criticism he would have faced then.

The Leonard bout is an aberration. The only aspect of it perhaps worthy of the analysis it has received, over the last 30 years, is the result. The fight itself told us something a few people already knew. Hagler was old and shopworn. There is little more to be gleaned from that bout and, in my opinion, nothing that tells us much about Hagler as a fighter.

And, how many other great champions have been so heavily judged on the strength of the very last fight of their career, such as Hagler has been?

 

As often spot on.

 

True, but who did Hagler perform better against, guys who were stalkers, punchers brawlers. Or slick boxers who gave him angles?

 

What haven't made since to you sir? I think I'm quite clear on my opnion and the reasons behind it.

 

It's an interesting question and I genuinely see the point you are making. However, you might as well ask, did Hagler perform better against weaker opposition than he did against his better opponents? Should we not rate a performance relative to the stage Hagler was at in his career, when certain fights took place, as well as consider the quality of the opposition in those fights?

Just as an example, Hagler more or less slugged it out with Vito Antuofermo and Marcos Geraldo - to a draw and a hard-won decision, respectively. I have seen and heard Hagler being criticized for both bouts, despite the opposition involved, in these cases, being straightforward slugger/brawlers (and apparently tailor-made for Hagler). Were these performances by Hagler better or worse than say those he gave in his TKO1 victory over Ray Seales or KO2 win against Loucif Hamani?

Just a thought or three...


As this might relate to a speculative Hagler/Griffith match, we have to consider Emile Griffith as an elite opponent - there's no getting away from that. And, I would still say Griffith poses problems to solve for Hagler but not in a way Hagler can't soon overcome. To my mind, Griffith does not present the sort of subtle difficulties that, say, Duran was able to offer. Griffith is not likely to sit back and wait to counter Hagler. I think, unlike Duran was against Hagler, Griffith would tend towards initiating assaults.

This is where it would have been interesting because Griffith on the attack is when we saw him shine the most, in my opinion. His forward strikes could come from off-center, with maintained accuracy, due to his wide-spectrum armory and rapid shifts in his footwork. It was quite something to watch.

Would it be enough to disrupt Hagler? It was rare someone attacked Hagler, without a response in kind and a gratuity on top.

Whilst I'd speculate that Griffith could seek to move in, throw his combinations and then move out again (as he was capable of doing quite deftly), I think Hagler would begin to time him; start to consistently counter the Griffith jab, catch Griffith coming in and then chase him, as Griffith sought to take evasive action.

Ultimately, I see Griffith coming off second-best in the majority of the exchanges. Some of the rounds might be very competitive and no doubt Griffith would have his moments - but, I would favor Hagler to bank most of them, towards a UD.

 

Oh agree, I never wrote he would beat Hagler, my only contention is Hagler wouldn't blow him out as some on this site have said. And because of Griffith abilities that you covered fantastically and Hagler, for whatever reason seemed to become hesitant against certain styles.