Marvelous Marvin Hagler appreciation thread

This content is protected

[YT]TZHIo5ylQA8[/YT]

One of the best highlight videos ever.

 

Leonard had several fights at middleweight.

 

Sumbu Kalambay and Iran barkely are not proven fighters?

 

Saying that Nino wasn't rated in or around the TOP 5 pound-for-pound was he was in his pomp shows how much (or little) you know. :good

 

Met Marvin several time being from Massachusetts. Class guy....hard worker ..
trained like an old school fighter....I'd put 'em in the ring against any of 'em..
Robinson...Zale...LaMotta...Graziano...Monzon...Walker....Cerdan.....

 

I agree with you about Nunn, but i think Kalambay was at the very least as good as Toney at middleweight

Of course that first round ko was a much of an anomaly result as is possible in boxing.

 

One of my all-time greatest memories was going to see a PPV of the fight with my dad, my cousin, and my uncle. I was a kid. We were in a huge facility watching it on a bigscreen.

There was pot in the air and everyone was hyped. We suffered through the undercard....and BAM! The fight was over so fast.

 

I am trying to discuss these issues in a manner befitting the classic forum. Maybe you need to work on your reading skills. Maybe you need to not selectively edit someone's post when you quote them.

In either case, let me help you out here.

Is that better? Does that word stand out enough now that you won't miss it this time?

 

I said that Toney was a proven GREAT. Maybe you can point out to me the proof that Kalambay was GREAT.

 

Kalambay at 160 was about as good if not better than emile griffith, emile's overall record at 160 is nothing to brag about really. Nino lost to most of the top guys he fought anyways.

 

WTF does Griffith have to do with Kalambay?

 

dmille, you make a lot of sense but my question is how do you prove if someone has it or not.

 

IMO greatness is a hierarchy

A fighter can prove themselves as (merely) great in any one of three ways:

1 Have a great record, proves consistency over the course of a career
2 Defeat great fighters, proves ability to win at the top level
3 Win great fights, proves ability to overcome adversity

An all-time great must prove themselves in two more ways:

4 Total dominance. IMO the most dominant fighter is the undisputed champion who defenses his title against the legitimate (not alphabet) number one contender once a year. Many would cite longevity, but I say that longevity must be combined with dominance.

5 Pound-for-pound. IMO for the all-time great weight shouldn't matter (within reason, of course). A fighter can prove himself p4p in two ways. The smaller fighter can prove himself by successfully moving up in weight. The larger fighter can prove himself by stopping the smaller fighter from successfully moving up. And IMO every heavyweight title fight is a pound-for-pound matchup due to the unlimited nature of the division.

 

That's pretty good Dmille, not to mention original. You actually have a system. I never saw anyone with their own rules that go with a heirarchy. That explains why you have Hagler ranked so high in reference to some of the things you said about him. Still, I have a few doubts about Toney and I really think someone like Kalambay was a tough nut to crack which Nunn obviously did when he found that opening through his guard.

In the end though, you have more persuasive proof with Toney standing and Nunn lying flat on the canvas. And as I've said, the victor gets all the bragging rights.

 

Kalambay arguably accomplished more than nino benvenuti, so i can make a claim that nunn kod someone thats even better than nino.