atsch Wow ! And your argument is backed up by what again ? your looking stupid again WEIGHT ! you should call it a night !:hey PS HAGLER lost to VITO who was a smaller less powerful version of PAV ! ( Oh and before you start I did see the fight and realize MARV should have gotten the nod )
Everyone knows Hearns didn't have the best of chins, but some people make out like it was pure glass, which is bull****. 4 KO or TKO losses in 60+ fights spanning 20+ years at multiple weights? Also 2 of those losses came against Leonard and Hagler. Hell WALDO has one less KO than that and you think he's as durable as Holyfield :nut :nut :nut
So basically, you brought up a fight to back your argument up that you admit Hagler won? Not related to that guy that defended OJ Simpson are you? No? Thought not.
again you sound stupid ! unless of cource you do know the difference between falling from exaustion and going to sleep from average punches !:yep
he shhould have won the fight but he was in tough against a lesser fighter then PAV ! And thats all Ive been claiming ! It would be a tough fight win or lose !:deal And I dont use misleading stats to try and win an argument ! Hence I made people aware HAGLER was simply in tough and shouldnt have lost dispite what the record says !
You got annhilated on this thread. Now Hearns is below pavlik...WOW..at middleweight. DO YOU KNOW THE SPEED, BOXING AND PUNCHING ACCURACY DIFFERENCE. ARE YOU ON CRACK. WTF.. And yes as CT said, Hearns has a better everything but chin and recovery ability. Pavlik would get up only to be bludgened by Hagler. Hagler too fast, too much skill, too good of defense and aggression.
:yikes there is not a fighter..not a fighter..who defines being a good puncher besides hearns who could box and punch. Name one punch that Pavlik throws better. I DARE YOU.
everytime somebody agrees with one of you clowns he OWNING the other poster ! TOMMY was better then HAGLER at just about everthing also ! He was alot better then BARKLY who just might be a very cheap version of PAV ! get it !
What exactly do you mean? Why would I provide evidence to the contrary of my position? :huh Pavlik isn't exactly the second coming of McCall either. And the point is that Hagler managed to outpunch and outfight Hearns BEFORE he hurt him.
I don't think much of TooPretty but credit where credit is due he was right, Fighting Weight has schooled you throughout the ENTIRE thread.
Hearns-- Purely at middleweight, he destroyed Shuler, Roldan, and a host of lesser lights while taking considerably less of his career at that weight. In other weights, he continued to post knockouts all the way up to cruiserweight. Excellent power at 154 as well, though I suspect you don't care about that. As for boxing skill vis a vis Pavlik, it's a fairly obvious discrepancy. Mugabi-- Annihilated Fletcher and Parker (top 10 ranked), and was 24-0 (24) when facing Hagler. Total career record 42-7-1 (39) Pavlik may have a case for being as powerful a puncher as Mugabi, and perhaps Hearns. But he was not more powerful than either, and definitely did not have Hearns' skill. But again, who was the fighter with the jab, height, and two fisted power that gave Hagler trouble? If it wasn't "fragile" Hearns when Hagler blasted him out in two rounds, who was it?
