Hagler vs calzaghe

I recall Hagler chewing up a great fighter in Thomas 'The Hitman' Hearns inside 3 rounds.

As opposed to A washed up Roy Jones? or an ancient Bernard Hopkins who Calzaghe squeaked by or maybe a never was in Mikkel Kessler. Joe was a well managed good fighter beating a prime Marvin Hagler is a bridge too far though.

You could just take the fighters Hagler beat on his way up in the `70s and that trumps Joe`s entire career. Hagler had footwork that would make Sugar Ray Robinson proud.

It would be a rough night for Calzaghe. He would most likely take an awful beating.

 

I have only 1 word to add to the above...Tocker Pudwill

 

Hagler won the title from Alan Minter in 1980 in brutal fashion but he probably reached his physical peak a couple of years before that maybe `77 or `78 he was the best Middleweight going.

If you watch films of Marvin Hagler from the late `70s you will see the footwork I`m talking about.

 

I agree but `Im afraid you may be giving Joe a little too much credit. I dont see him lasting against Hagler 15 rounds. The referee may have to save him by the 10th or possibly sooner. His face would be a crimson mask by the end.

 

I think JC is a great fighter, but he , like RJJ, Floyd and the like ruined their standing by pounding on less risky options. Hagler fought the best and won. That Leonard decision was a joke.

Stylistically, Calzaghes high work rate and decent chin give him a chance head to head, and the fact he is at 168. On a resume comparison JC doesn't hold MMHs jockstrap.

 

Good for you.

I remember a 29 year old Hagler barely squeaking past a 32 year old Lightweight.

I remember Hagler almost getting stopped but for the benefit of Richard Steele just before the chew up began.

I remember a 33 year old Hagler getting beaten by an inactive Welterweight, throwing his toys out of the pram and walking away from boxing.

He was ok beating the kind of little guys, and limited guys he fought like Minter, and Antuefurmo, but Calzaghe, not a hope in hell.

J.C. is too fast, too clever, too skillful, and too strong, for any version of Hagler. Note the clever. Calzaghe wouldn't have been stupid enough in the first place to have negotiated all the advantages to the other guy, thinking it would be an easy nights work, and end up plodding round the ring like a headless chicken punching thin air.

How anyone can try to denigrate Calzaghe for his performance against that gutless cheating scum Hopkins, shows they are either morons, or hate Calzaghe.

How Americans can even think of being proud of the lump of **** is beyond me?

 

ETM - I reckon you've nailed this subject.

Interesting that you mention Hagler's fight with Alan Minter in another post of yours on this thread, I've often thought a Hagler-Calzaghe fight would likely have beena longer version of Hagler-Minter but with a similar brutal outcome, likely 7-10 rounds imo.

As it happens, having grown up watching the whole of Minter's career and having watched a lot of Calzaghe, I don't rate Calzaghe as very much better than Minter at all. Statistically that's hard to justify as Joe's glossy 46-0 looks much superior to Minter's stats, but stats don't tell the full story as we know. If Minter had had 4 middleweight titles to go for I'm sure that he could have been a long reigning champion too.

 

Well make your mind up is this Hagler with his " all time great resume " ( as you call it ) the one you are crowing about?

Or is it the 23 - 24 year version?

Hagler never ever faced a guy bigger, stronger, and solid chinned, with probably more stamina who would throw twice as many punches as he could, and for as long, if not longer. And with greater accuracy.

Tbh I don't give a **** about resume's, I'm only interested in h2h, and Hagler loses by total humiliation every time.

 

Hagler hit harder, was faster, had a better chin and was more accurate than Joe. Why do you persist with this argument? I think Hamsho is a more realistic opponent for Joe than Hagler, who would clearly beat him.

Joe was undefeated because he never stepped up; if he had, he would have been found out by the admittedly overrated Hopkins and Jones. Joe was very good, hard to beat but not an all time great like Hagler.

 

Just about spot on. mate. Records today are totally skewed. I'm not even sure Mayweather would be undefeated in earlier eras.

 

hagler never had to fight mario veit, TWICE!! you clearly don't know what you're talking about. hagler probably couldn't have handled starie, sobot and thornberry.

 

great post. the fighters today can hold one of four belts and call themselves champ. the mandatories for all of the organizations are usually a joke. joe held one of these belts for almost 10 years and accomplished basically nothing as far as being regarded as a great fighter. joe was a really good fighter but he knew his limitations and so did his promoter. a fighter like hagler didn't have the luxury of having the backing of fans just because he was from a certain country. he had to come up the hard way before he gained his fame.

 

Hagler weighed 157 or 158 for one of his last fights (Mugabi or Leonard?) Why he'd ever want to move up is beyond me, he was a middleweight through and through

 

This thread has decesended into trash talking, but this is spot on.

 

No it wasn't. For starters Hagler gave away the first 4 rounds trying to box orthodox against a master boxer.

The rest is just a case of effective aggression. Haglers aggression in the main wasn't effective. Leonard just finished the rounds with little flurries which whilst not damaging, never the less were effective.