Hagler vs Briscoe. Impressions?

I never understood why they do that, wouldn't it make more sense to rate the guy who knocked you out higher in order to in turn increase their own standing? Maybe its just a way of denying that winner any respect earned from the loser eg Holmes-Tyson.

 

You'll find most of them "weren't in shape" or a collection of other excuses. They were in shape when they beat fighter A and they name fighter A as the greatest, so imagine what they'd do to fighter B if they were in shape. Of course fighter B just happened to flog the **** out of them

 

Oh of course, I'd say the 3 most used excuses are
-I had trouble making weight
-I wasn't in shape
-I hurt my hand

Indeed I can relate myself, I lost last fight because I WAS undertrained. But, how else could I explain my loss. I didn't simply lose because he was better than me! No way

 

Good stuff mate.

 

Uh, if you look, you will notice I was putting things straight - someone said Leonard was past his prime, so I pointed out that Hagler was also past his prime, just incase anyone thought Leonard beat a prime Hagler. We all know Leonard had seen better days, but Hagler's diminishing abilities are less obvious - probably because his most famous fights came late in his career, whereas with Leonard we have the well-known Hearns and Duran clashes to compare to.

 

One was coming ,one was going.thats the reality of boxing.

 

I think anyone who followed haglers career will see that he was past prime by 87,but not shot at all....

 

But that's just it - not everybody has followed Hagler's career. They might have seen his most famous fights from Duran to Leonard and that's it.

 

This is the classic forum manassa,if folks dont know that hagler and leonard were both past prime (but neither shot at all.) in their 87 bout,then frankly they need a lot of boxing education.....

 

So you mean to say that everyone who's read this thread knows or should know that Hagler was well past his best? Because I was setting the record straight remember, for anyone who didn't know (we get a lot of browsers and non-posters here who may not be as well versed as you or I). Now leave it.

 

Who are you to tell me to leave it? Most of those who post in the classic forum will have a decent knowledge of 'classic' fighters,hence the forum name....Those who browse or read will probably not post,anyway to all newbies and browsers BOTH hagler and leonard were past prime when they fought.....Hows that?

 

**** off.

Enquire that.

 

Age showing now hey? You know what,you bore me to tears at times with your immaturity and new style of posting,(though you have boxing knowledge.),the lounge is the place for you.....
I dont need to 'enquire' your post as you have obviously been 'mauled' by mine manassa......You are henceforth know as 'mauled manassa'.....:hey :good

 

Haha, ha, ha... Ha... Hmm... :dead

 

I followed his career as much as anyone and I think it should be perfectly obvious that he was a shot fighter by that time because he had all the characteristics of a shot fighter.. I think you could say that the case with Sugar Ray Leonard and his loss to Norris, Ray had seen better days but far from being shot. He just a lost to a better fighter.