Hagler vs Briscoe. Impressions?

^ Correct that. Roberto Duran is the greatest lightweight in our time that we can remember. Your bias is once again showing. Anything to lessen the impact of your hero getting outworked by a lightweight.

 

Wrong again rooster. My favourite fighter is roberto duran,and p4p i rate him above leonard,heck at welter duran was comparable head to head with any 147er in history.....To be honest leonard never beat duran convincingly at 147,new orleans was just inconclusive,though a win....

Anyway duran > p4p than leonard > hearns > hagler.....However,all are truely great fighters.....

 

Your hero Hagler struggled a bit with that same lightweight who was older and fatter. Nice work.

 

he didn't struggle. he came to to his level. Duran did nothing special that night and wasn't especially mobile. I thought Roldan was better to be honest and I believe would have flattened Duran like a pancake. Middleweight was a dog eat dog division in those days as James Green, John Collins, Animal Fletcher, Bobby Czyz, Alex Ramos, Wilfred benitez, and Thomas Hearns all found out.

 

Anyways, Briscoe was another good win for Hagler because but Bennie was old so it was an easy fight for him against a big name opponent.

 

Oh! How could I forgot the exploits of Frank 'the animal' Fletcher and James 'hard rock' Green, truly the best the middleweight division had to offer.

 

He never looked convincing, he struggled to beat a former lightweight. Although Hagler won wider than the scorecards suggested, he never dominated Duran, and was made to look ordinary.

This was a prime Hagler, who months earlier smashed Sypicon, and at the start of the year gave arguably the finest performance throughout his reign when he dispatched of Sibson inside 6 rounds.

What Hagler fanatics fail to understand and come to terms with, he was in his prime against Duran. But because he wasn't firing on all cylinders that night, partly due to Duran's smart strategy as well as Hagler's cautious approach, the fanatics usually knock the end of his prime back a year to 1982.

 

And was sublimely defeated by the said 147 pounder

 

Hagler was old and shot, he was beaten up in sparring sessions that only I had the privelege of seeing. My neighbour Hank snuck me in.

 

I didn't say there was anything wrong with Hagler physically. I said he fought down to Duran's level. If there's anyone Hagler should have been cautious of it was Hearns instead of a short armed Duran. Tommy with an 11 inch reach over Duran, sharper, ten times faster, far more dangerous, more mobile, younger and in his prime.

How do you explain that?

Anyways, in the Hearns fight he brought his performance back to proper 1982, 83 level.

 

Wae petes,do you laugh that hearns was better than hagler p4p?
Hearns beat two atgs very very convincingly (duran and benitez.) got a disputed draw with leonard,and gave hagler and leonard life and death in their first fights....Remember hearns best weight was either 147 or 154 where he had only ONE defeat to the truely great and prime leonard....
Hagler beat hearns well (in a life and death battle.) outpointed duran averagely at middle,and lost to leonard...hearns also moved up to lt heavy and beat andries and the best lt heavy in the world in hill...Hagler had a longer reign at one weight (middle.) whereas hearns longest reign was at lt middle....Both are also great head to head at their best weights....I would say it is close p4p but i choose hearns,those that choose hagler have a legit view as well....