Marvin Hagler v.s Harry Greb

Do you think that boxing technique has evolved significantly since Grebs time? If so in what way? There is no doubt todays fighters have the benefit of better training and nutrition but are they more skilled?Today a Bernard Hopkins is hailed as an ATG,he is very good no doubt but the level of competion ,and the depth of talent isnt there any more,boxing is a minority sport today and its talent pool suffers badly because it has to compete with so many other sports,many fighters today arent allowed the time to develpo into complete fighters,the emphasis is on staying unbeaten and looking good on ppv.For every Hagler,Chavez,Delahoya,Leonard ,there are 50 guys who have only mastered the rudiments of their trade,look at Trinidad,Wright a good but not great fighter schooled him,Tito was unable to slip Winkys jab and ate it all night ,it was a cake walk,any fighter with fast hands is lauded as a potential SRR,eg Mosley ,who was beaten by Forrests jab and right cross,these arent secret weapons ,they are the basics in any fighters armoury,when we see a Toney or a Hopkins we say they are "old school",and they are but can they do anything that a Giardellocouldnt do?Boxing technique has regressed not improved in my opinion,so thats why ,allied with film of his opponents and his stellar record I pick Harry greb to beat Hagler ,Greb beat rated Heavies and Light heavies ,Hagler stayed in his 160 comfort zone.

 

Again. My point is that you have no footage of Greb to analyze his style. Who he beat means he was great in his era. You still can't look at how he beat the guys he beat, and give an accurate account for it. You can say he was great then, and should be great now, but you can not analyze his style and say for sure how he match with someone else from a different time.

 

Boxing techniques may have regressed in recent years, but they have progressed since the early part of the 20th century. Watch the earliest footage available for boxing, and give an honest look at the guys fighting. They don't look as skilled as fighters from the 1930's onward. I think you do have a point about its regressing since the 80's to some extent, but today's fighters look like they have more technique when compared to anyone you have on film from the 1920's and before.

 

We are of course talking abouth the same Marvin Hagler who had tough nights against Kevin Finnegan, Vito Antuofermo and Juan Roldan. Guys whose styles were not what you would call classical. Hagler would have a tough night against a durable and dirty guy like Greb. Bad film footage doesn't make a bad fighter, watch Ali against Evangelista or Wepner and he certainly doesn't look like an ATG. Watch him against Frazier or Foreman and you see a different fighter. Why does Greb get marked down because he isn't taking a sparring session with a geriatric too seriously.

 

Hagler by ko .........

 

Look, JohnBKelly, no one has said mark him down as a lesser fighter.

What is so hard to understand? If you can't see someone fight, you can't give an accurate analysis of how they would look against someone else.
You can't. If you can tell me how. Don't say look at his record. That has nothing to do with how he counters a jab. Don't say he beat so and so. It doesn't show how he deals with straight right hands. You can't say you read an article by such and such. Such and such may not have been sober when such and such watched the match they were reporting.

Writers may be giving accurat depictions, but you don't know if they were or not if you can't see it too. Why is this so difficult to accept?

 

If I were training the Marvelous One for this fight this is what I would tell him.

(gathered from many sources but not of course from video)

Be Aware...

You are going to fight an animal in a deathmatch. He has tremendous aggression and no fear. He will throw punches from the opening bell until the end of the last round. He is as dirty as they come. Everyone who ever saw him in action commented on his speed and ferocity. His chin is Iron, you will be in for a long fight.

HOWEVER: He isn't a KO artist - he isn't likely to take you out. He isn't a clever boxer - you CAN get your punches in he CAN be hit. He isn't pretty, so he will have to outwork you on the inside consistently to win rounds and that is his only gameplan. But do not underestimate that plan because he is a master at executing it.

Marvin your fight winning edge is going to be your ability to outmuscle him on the inside with your clinch to smother his attack WHILE making him pay every time he tries to bore in. You do this with your accuracy and lateral movement.

Since you are a southpaw forget the jab. No one kept Greb off them with a jab anyway so don't even try. He is too fast to hit at long range, you catch him comming to you. When he does come in you throw short sharp lead left crosses as he closes and follow up with hook to the body, uppercut, hook to the head and clinch if you can't turn the corner on him and open the range to make his eat this combo again. And again. And again.

You are tough and are not afraid to brawl with anyone - that fight is 50/50 with Greb. Don't get lured into going toe to toe with Greb, that is HIS best chance to win, a war of attrition is what HE does. You will catch too many butts, thumbs and elbows infighting with that dirty *******.

You are the better boxer - so BOX!

Come to this fight in the shape of your life and don't take a single round off.

Every round you aren't giving your best and landing the harder cleaner punches and tying him up will be a lost round for you due to Grebs’ workrate.

Every round you catch Greb charging in with combo’s and tie him up before he can maul you will be a won round for you.

You have to win at least 8 of those. Don’t count on them being the last eight – that won’t happen. Look at what coasting in the early rounds got you in the Leonard fight!

You can and you will win if you want it as badly as he does and are in the kind of shape you displayed throughout most of your career if you execute this plan.

At least I don't have to worry about you fighting down to your opponents’ level -

 

To me personaly the guys back then were far harder and lived a far tougher life then MOST of todays fighters,sure styles have got better and better,but **** no matter what era you come from if your tough your tough,and id say greb was ****ing tough as nails.Its a bit like saying a roman legionaire was not as good as a american marine or british para today,because of equitment and training,and id have to say bollocks to that,a few legions in iraq would brutaly clear the whole area out of insergents no problems,kind of silly way to look at it,but it bugs me when people say old school fighters were bad and would be slaughtered now.

 

Who said old school fighters would be slaughtered now? I don't think anyone in this thread said that.

In fact, I said techniques may have evolved, but if old school fighters were living in the same era as modern fighters, they would have access to the same techniques. That has nothing to do with my argument here. My argument is that you can't get a view of someone's style without viewing it. You are simply reading about how others viewed a style.

 

Greb by clear cut UD over 15

 

Hagler by easy decision. Show me footage of Greb that proves otherwise.

 

This is something that I have asked before. I have asked a few times to some posters to show me some clips of a boxer, so I can give my opinion regarding a particular match, but I don't get an answer.

I don't understand how some people can give an opinion and not hesitate at all, considering that they have never seen that boxer fighting.

I don't have the knowledge that many of the posters who post in this forum have, and that's the reason I ask for some clips to have an idea.

I think your question is fair.

 

how is it fair?to say hagler unless you show me otherwise is ludicrous,if a person thinks greb wins but you can't agree through no footage then you can't just simply pick the other guy-why not just say i haven't got a clue.

 

Greb on points.