Hagler vs Briscoe. Impressions?

You said most of what I would've said regarding the fight.

Hagler fought well and mixed up his attack. More boxing and movement early on, but he picked his spots when to trade up close and did well in that regard too.

Briscoe was on the downside, but still a dangerous opponent.

I've seen this fight and the Hart fight, which others of Hagler's Philly fights were filmed? All of them?

 

Just Boogaloo Watts I think.

 

By the time of the Hagler fight, Briscoe was little more than a grizzled veteran, a seasoned pro who had lost most of his speed and agility. But he still knew where to hit a man and that right hand was as heavy as a big wrench. I thought Hagler fought a perfect fight, winning eight of the ten rounds - he never looked as sharp as he would later in his career, but he fought just hard enough, pacing himself cleverly because he knew Briscoe was tough and would fight until the end. The main keys to this victory were combination punching and fleetness of foot.

 

Hagler would have given Leonard more than just a close fight, he'd likely have overpowered him and won by a fair margin. He'd certainly have done far better than the past prime, battle-worn Hagler of '87 did

 

This fight was fun to watch. One thing to note about it; as tough as Briscoe was he looked on the decline in this fight. Hagler looked fresh, green, and hungry. I wish I could have been around for Hagler's Philly Spectrum fights.

 

Manassa,leonard was also way past prime v hagler. Watching hagler v duran and the actual fight between marvin and ray i think the outcome would have been the same if they had fought in 83,though a quicker paced and even better fight...Hagler was quicker in 83,yes,but ray was also much quicker back then....Marvin also showed against duran in 83 that he could be hesitant and weary against an atg intelligent boxer,and the duran of 83 was way above his best weight and as a consequence lacked mobility/speed and couldnt keep up a pace for 15...Sugar ray would have all these qualities in abundance in 83 v hagler coupled with lateral movement and the mindset to outbox and not try to outbrawl/outpunch hagler.....I dont see what hagler brings 'different' to the table to 'overpower' leonard as you say...

 

Haglers performance in this fight was pathetic

 

Please don't bore me. We know that already.

 

If you find the truth 'boring' then why emphasise that hagler was 'battle worn and past prime' in your defense of him? The problem with you guys is you cant rationalise why a fighter like hagler got beat by a pat prime,overweight,one fight in five years rival.....I tell you how it happened,rays a genius of a fighter,and had the style to beat marvin...It would be more rational if you guys just conceded ray was a hell of a fighter,rather than making excuse for marvin and in effect belittling hagler,who thought he won and didnt make excuses that he was past prime....Duran thought hagler was the best fighter he ever met after the hagler loss,better than marvin,so take his cue,he knows them both much better than you having shared many rounds with them...
I think its boring with you making marvin hagler into a superman (rather than the atg fighter he was.) without any empirical backup....

 

I think you mean Duran thought 'Leonard' was the best fighter.



Anyway, Duran is almost certainly the type to rate a guy he defeated ahead of one that just beat him. He was always one of the sorest losers of all-time. I don't think he rated Hearns much. What a surprise.

 

True. When asked upon his retirement who the biggest hitter was he ever faced, Duran named Hagler.
Er, what about the guy who pulverised him in two rounds? :huh

 

Exactly. It'd be nice if once in a while they said "yeah the guy who knocked the **** outta me was great". Like Beau Jack did about Ike Williams.

 

Yes,i meant duran thought leonard was the best fighter he fought,not hagler....
Yes duran was a sore loser,sometimes without grace,but this 'ego' is what was part of his latino psyche in making him a great machismo fighter,and enabling him to challenge guys miles bigger,stronger and faster than himself without running....
It would have been much better if he actually had grace and admitted at times that the better man on the night won,in this respect he is like that other bad loser jc chavez....
As for duran saying hagler was the hardest hitter he faced,and not hearns,well we all know that is not true.....Duran should not make excuses for being trounced by hearns,because he had lots of times in his career where he was badly prepared or had to lose weight quickly but nobody destroyed him so completely and utterly,and in fact nobody else came remotely close.....Duran should admit the lightning speed,elusiveness,awesome power,size,torpedo jab,body attack and hearns' willingness to go for broke early was too much for himself at robertos age and above his best weight.....Make no mistake,i think nobody in history at 154 or possibly even 160 does this to duran as hearns did...Hearns best win and his absolute prime....
Anyway,enough waffle,what do you think of montreal duran v cuevas hearns? Thats a fight for the ages.....