Are Hagler's title challengers underrated?

That's not my definition of it, nor does it seem to be anyone else´s here but yours.

By that definition Wlad would be extremely slick considering he's gone a decade without being seriously tagged, and even Fury would be slick. Hell, even Valuev wasn't easy very easy to tag because of his size. But slick?

When I used the term, I meant those that by head movement and other defensive maneuvers, feints and clever footwork (not the same as fast feet) off-set their opponents' offense.

I can't even believe you're arguing against Toney falling square into this category. So did Kalambay and McCallum.

Nunn was more reliant on his reach and quick feet, but he still had plenty tricks up his sleeve. Was a good infighter despite his height and unorthodox style.

Hearns was an offensive marvel. His offense was his main line of defense. Just as Wlad's is. Neither falls into my definition of "slick".

 

Back on topic and while persuing thru 2 or 3 mags on the throne yesty one of them dated 1983 right after Hagler beat Sibson these three tidbits -

Boxing writer on Gomez -

Bazooka has faced the same problem as Hagler: weak challengers.

Another wrote -

Like Larry Holmes in the heavyweight division Marvin lacks challengers of the calibre necessary to titilate the public imagination.

A fan wrote in -

Marvin Hagler is the finest Middleweight around but who did he ever beat? Since winning the title he has fought nothing more than punching bags : Antuofermo, Hamsho, Caveman Lee, Obelmejias and Tony Sibson.

At that time his challengers were not that highly regarded and he was seen as many levels above them.

Frank Fletcher got to number 2 in many mags ratings with a record of 16-2-1 before Scypion sorted him out and Roldan exposed him. His ranking was mostly obtained beating Junior Middleweights.

 

To be slick it also has to come quite naturally. Tommy was too stiff and not fluent enough to ever fit the term. His elusiveness came from his reach, brilliant jab, speed and power. He also had ok reflexes on the outside bearing in mind his opponent had a lot of distance to overcome. He wasn't suited inside like the massive majority of tall fighters.

 

It's simple enough.

1.You said Toney was a lot slicker than Hearns when pressured on the inside.

2. I contradicted that. My example : the Tiberi fight shows Toney getting hit a lot when pressured in the inside.

3. You then said "So you are saying Hearns was slicker than Toney on the inside!?!?!? Come on LOL."

I think you made a glaring logical error there.

 

Yep, to have the head (and often shoulder) movement of guys like Loche, Napoles, Benitez and Toney I think you have to have an innate coordination (coupled with thousands and thousands hours of practicing the moves in the gym, of course).

The great technicians are all very fluent and natural in their movements, I'd say.

Then there are fighters like Ali, Nunn and Jones that are very fluent and natural in their movements without being great technicians since they flout some crucial fundamentals.

 

Heavyweights are a different breed entirely though.

Most good boxers have head movement, defensive techniques, feints and good footwork.

Some fighters do excessive posing and shimmying and get extra credit from some fans for looking relaxed, whether or not it works. people tend to ignore the punches they fail to avoid because they look so cute with the ones they slip.

Hearns boxed with Leonard comfortably and was consistently slipping Leonard's jabs and feinting him, giving as good as he got, and he didn't need to 'get on his bike' either, just boxed him on equal terms.
I think Leonard's a pretty good measure.

 

So when both fighters are pressured inside Hearns is slicker? Because that's what i was asking you.

Your answer indicated no.

I reckon bojak may have understood what i asked you as indicated when his post imo overlapped your comment (bojak - Their fights against Barkley should dispel any doubts that Toney's defence in the pocket was much superior to Hearns's.) you claiming Hearns was slicker on the inside.

 

Who's "slicker" here, prime middleweight James Toney or Reggie Johnson ?

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPOZsNCsG9Y[/url]


Seriously. I think people need to re-watch some of these fights.

Toney doesn't look "slick" here by anyone's definition.
This is the real James Toney, in his prime, against a good respectable but not great middleweight.
Not the imaginary James Toney that lives in the minds and posts of this forum.

 

No, Hearns was not slicker on the inside. Nothing I said suggested that.

 

Toney had only just arrived on the big stage, fair go.

160 wasn't even his best weight and it's been conceded he was inconsistent.

Trying to hone in on his lesser moments isn't fooling anybody.

 

I'm not trying to "fool" anybody.

The whole discussion about Toney came about when I questioned whether middleweights Kalambay, McCallum, Nunn, Toney etc. would have been considered lesser/mediocre or routine contenders had they come along a few years earlier as challengers for prime Hagler.

Therefore, it has to be a 160 pound James Toney.

I'm not interested in his "lesser moments". I'm interested in how he operated in his 160 prime fights, in their entirety. Watch the whole fight. Watch all his middleweight fights.
I am suggesting his moments of superior "slickness" are fairly few and far between.

It matters what he did through 12 rounds against his opponents, because if we're thinking of matching him with prime Marvin Hagler i'm quite sure he's not going to make Hagler quit in the first round by some inspired and ingenius flash of cuteness.

 

No, the same rules must apply. If being "slick" is being avoid getting hit, Wlad and Fury are slick.

And as with everything else, some are better and others. Don't see your point here at all.

And you think this applies to Toney, because he looked bad against Tiberi. Got it.

I, and most other boxing fans, happen to disagree.

I think Toney's defence was genuinely effective, and that defence helped him beat top guys from MW to HW - something preciously few have done.

Yes, he wasn't fantastic in every fight. That applies to almost every fighter.

Ronaldinho had many off games over his career - more than most of his quality. But he was still an extraordinary technician. Had better technique than many that perhaps were better seen over their whole careers.

He circled Leonard and kept him out of reach with a terrific jab and the threat of lethal right.

When Leonard managed to come in range, he hurt him with clean shots. Two times in the mid rds before the beginning of the end in the 13th.

Banitez, Duran and Kalule did a much better job at slipping Leonard's punches while in range.

He also names Benitez and Duran as defensively great fighters in his book. Not Hearns.

 

Nice find!

 

I agree with all of this.

 

Reference the fights then.
Reference the middleweight fights where a prime 160-pound James Toney was a slickster demon (under any workable definition of "slick").

I've watched all the fights recently. He looks pretty sloppy in most of the fights for a large part.

He was for much of the time a strong intimidating brawler who kept his chin tucked behind his shoulder and rolled with punches.
Yet he took plenty, over the top to the top of his head, a habit he never changed. Had a great ability to absorb the punches actually.
His footwork was rarely "clever" at all.
He lost the initiative while being 'skillful' often and steadily resorted to storming forward.

Of course any fighter who wins so many fights has genuinely effective defence of some sort. To win on points means you at least hit the guy more than he hit you (usually).

Toney took way too many punches, as evident from the fact he can't talk any more.
And if you actually go back and WATCH his fights you will see he was taking them often, throughout his prime and beyond. And it becomes no mystery why he's a punch drunk mess.

Reference the fights where he was fantastic.
Reference the fights where his slickness would have put him on another level to anyone Hagler beat.
Reference the fights where his skills shone out as glaringly superior.

Yes.
None of that changes the fact that Hearns was doing his fair share of slipping Leonard's punches and feinting him (two aspects that contribute to your definition of "slick", right?).