I have not seen all of his fights, but ones that impressed me were the one with Sibson and the second Mustafa Hamsho fight.
Thanks Curtis. I've been saying the same thing after witnessing for myself the terrible deterioration of Hagler in a sparring session late March 87. For another fighter to make that remark openly is proof postive of everything I've said - and coincides perfectly with my own observation. Now everyone here will have no choice but to acknowledge everything I mentioned the last three years is as John Thomas would call it "spot on". The Weaver triplets were used to test his reflexes for a few rounds and I concluded the same thing as Richie-that this is not how a fighter should react to his sparring partners-it was pathetic seeing Hagler take ream after ream of flurries and being made a fool of-- by his sparring partners which is why I say he was shot going into the Leonard fight. The problem is that leonard fans don't like it-they hate it when I bring it up because it takes away from the accomplishment. And they want to say "Leonard employed the right style to beat Marvin-all other fighters employed the wrong tactics" when in fact Leonard was the beneficiary of facing a shot fighter. Leonard fans are the biggest liars on the face of the planet and will say anything to make their man look good, especially lie. The worst part of the session came from the first two men he sparred with. He did a little better with his last partner but there was nothing positive to speak of coming away from this session. I'm glad that a professional boxer, world champion spoke up this way. His word carries a lot of clout and gives me credibility also. Anyone who was there to see it has to concluded marvin was shot, tired, inept punching bag while still champion (or 1/3 champion) and had no business in the ring.
A very nice way of saying Leonard beat Hagler without actually saying it in those terms. Well done Rooster.
I also liked his fight with Roldan, but it seemed he only took control once Roldan's eye began bothering him, but it was an enjoyable fight nonetheless. Yeah i had just watched the 2nd Hamsho fight yesterday, while i had watched the first one about a year or 2 ago. So how was it watching the fight live mate? It would have been awesome, i havnt seen a big fight live yet.
Yeah that was another good performance, yeah i wasnt sure if i was thinking of the right fight, but its the same one.
I thought that the Hamani fight was a devestating finish but Hagler was waiting on him too long. The Scypion fight was his best performance in my estimation. Worst is easily Leonard. Second worst is Mugabi. Hagler was a complex boxer-puncher and that endurance contest with Mugabi was beneath him... it would have been unnecessary 5 years previously.
Its a trick question, as straight forward as it seems. Is it strictly performance when asking "what was a fighters best performance" or does it need to be packaged with the quality of opponent when making a decision? I suppose pure performance in some instances when a certain individual makes his choice and other times a bit of both. Someone could easily come up with Hagler's win over Caveman Lee, and who can argue with that. He destroyed him inside a round with sheer brute strength, accuracy, and power.
He took him out in the 2nd round..... He boxed very well, felt him out in the first round, and looked to time him in the 2nd, and the finish was perfect. The second he was hurt he was out of there.
Hagler had too much self pride for that. And the reason the fight developed the way it did was because of Duran's smart strategy, which fooled everyone. Hagler and the Petronelli's expected Duran to come out aggressive, and as we know, he didn't.