Are Hagler's title challengers underrated?

Hamsho and Antuofermo were more roughhouse/brawler types so I wouldn't say they were as technically skilled but they were quality fighters nonetheless.
Minter was a technically skillful boxer. He lost too many fights on cuts, that's true.

 

Looking at the fights then, McCallum was schooled by Kalambay, utterly unable to avoid getting jabbed, for an entire 15 rounds. Looked like an amateur.
Kalambay for his part was blown away in the first round with a single decent southpaw left from Nunn.
Nunn didn't impress against the limited Barkley and he wilted badly against Toney.
Toney struggled with an over-the-hill McCallum, he looked sloppy against Reggie Johnson, he struggled with David Tibieri and in fact he should have lost that one.

If you watch the actual fights and not the highlight reels, these guys aren't as impressive at middleweight in that period as people make them out to be.

 

What makes you think that? How do you judge what a good or bad loss looks like? How do you compare respective good and bad losses?

Aesthetics can be considered the ideas by which a critical judgment is made on what something/someone looks like. So strictly speaking, yes, it is a matter of aesthetics, which becomes fairly moot if one has already assessed, drawn their own conclusions and come to the belief that Hagler stops them all (barring, perhaps, McCallum).

When I suggested "Not altogether a bad idea but a somewhat expansive level of investigation, which would still only yield a set of subjective speculations." I was very much alluding to 'watching the fights' in order to form fair opinions.

The same advice is also applicable to your statement at the top of this post.

 

The badness of an individual loss is a function of its decisiveness and the inferiority of the opposition and the presence/absence of extenuating circumstances.

No-- your definition of aesthetics is too expansive. What I'm describing are physical characteristics that have direct functional consequences. The fact that you have to look at them to observe them does not make them mere "immaterial aesthetics."

PS - I stand by my point about the value of watching fights, but if your prediction is Hagler by stoppage over Toney, you may also want to check out Toney's boxrec page when you get a chance.

 

Most of Hagler's challengers, with only a couple of exceptions, were absolutely in their primes too.
Young fighters mostly, but not novices. Seasoned prime challengers.

 

Quality fighters with serious limitations (especially Antuofermo). Antuofermo was a very short, sloppy brawler with below average power and speed (and cut-prone). Guys like Toney tear him apart (literally) on the inside. Guys like Nunn and Kalambay do it from range, on the move.

Minter had technical skills and decent size but he was also stiff, had poor head movement, and was also cut-prone. I also don't see him faring well against the men I named at their respective best.

 

Disagree with some of these characterizations but fair enough-- a lot of these guys had off nights. I guess the biggest difference lies in their best nights against quality opponents, when these guys showed their full abilities and potential.

 

So, do you think Antuofermo's loss to Hope was spectacularly decisive; that Hope was distinctly inferior opposition and that there was an absence of extenuating circumstances, in this bout?

Physical characteristics, 'as assessed through observation'. I'm not going to get caught up any further in your bent on semantics. You should know what I'm getting at.

The original point was meant to echo that of Unforgiven (who stated, "If fighters such as Nunn, Kalambay, Toney and McCallum had come along 5 to 8 years earlier people would probably be doubting them as being particularly good middleweights too.") - meaning if, in an alternative universe, these Boxers had appeared as scalps on Hagler's ledger, then any assessment, which had had them in with a chance against Hagler, would be significantly downgraded.

No need. I'm fairly au fait with Toney's record; enough to know he never suffered a stoppage loss. Amazingly, I made that assessment based on watching both his and Hagler's fights, which is why I stand by that opinion.

 

Yes maybe, but that's the point. If they came along when Hagler held all the titles they wouldn't have the same opportunity to showcase their full abilities in a big fight. They'd probably be stopped by Hagler and relegated to routine contender status.

 

Haven't seen much of Hope but from what I've read he was a solid little 154-lber. Saw that he was stopped by someone named Bunny Sterling the year before he beat Antuefermo though and then suffered an (undoubtedly hometown biased) draw against an Eckhard Dagge in his next fight after Vito.

Well then pretend you read about their characteristics and didn't observe them visually... Either way, they're not aesthetics or immaterial and this is not semantics. I think I know what you are getting at--I just disagree.

I guess, although that begs the question of whether they all would have been scalps on Hagler's ledger. More importantly though, I think guys like Nunn, Kalambay, and Toney would have significantly and consistently outclassed guys like Minter, Antuefermo, and Hamsho.

"Amazingly" indeed. Agree to disagree. :good

 

I don't follow. These guys would still be fighting Minter, Sibson, Antuefermo, and Hamsho etc. before and after fighting Hagler.

 

Duran was the only guy Hagler beat that could compare with Mike, Sumbu and Tonery in terms of overall technical skill, and he was a fair bit smaller than them.

I don't see anything special in most of Hagler's challengers. Hearns and Duran were great at lower weights but were beaten by relatively average fighters when they moved up.

 

They lost against each other, how does that make them worse? That Kalambay beat Mike might be because he was good not that Mike was bad, no?

The fact that those four has so few defeats at MW to others than to each other (only Kalambay has, in fact, and that was mostly at the tail end of his career), would suggest that they lost to each other because they all were difficult opponents.

 

You tube is great for showing tons of old fights, but the level of comments by some of the "fan boys" as well as "haters" is really low.

Also, on some fights, you can read literally hundreds of back and forth where a Hispanci guy and Black guy will hurl racial insults at one another.

LOL.

I wrote a dissertation on Frankie Randall's schooling of JC Chavez and I got a bunch of emotional responses like Randall was on roids for both Chavez fights and Randall quit in the rematch - he butted Chavez on purpose because he wanted a way out.

LOLLLLLLL

BTW I do think it has evolved in some respects, but it as devolved in others.

But, yeah can't just make blanket statements that greats from today would beat greats from the past simply because of "evolution."

 

Worth a watch and also worth noting that both Harris and Tonna were solid world class fighters and Ring rated. Tonna, in particular, was a bit of physical monster but cracked mentally against both Valdes and Monzon. These bouts and the two with Minter are a good watch too.

Harris of course would fail in his attempt to wrest the world title from Pastor Corro, after beating Tonna. He never really made a mark, afterwards.

Just be clear - I don't do this and neither was I suggesting this approach.

Fair enough - You seem to lean towards the 'boxing is a science rather than an art form'. I look at actual fights as more of a martial art form. While there are additional stats and potentially other available facts, which can be considered in an overall assessment.

Either way, I get the impression you believe that all the facets you have previously mentioned, e.g. Boxers' strengths and weaknesses; abilities and limitations, etc etc are measurable through watching fights (observation).

My take is that, while there is merit in sharing viewpoints about actual fights, with and from various spectators of the same event, there's no constant, universal scale with which to precisely measure what you see; such that it can be absolutely agreed with, amongst fellow observers.

There are only opinions based on a personalised, imprecise standard, varying from person to person.

Your opinion based on your personal standards of measurement. Fair enough.

Agreed.