John "The Beast" Mugabi would be a champion in MULTIPLE divisions in todays Era

John "The Beast" Mugabi got overrated because he did better than expected vs. Hagler. Prior to Hagler he was 25-0 (25) but did not fight many top fighters. He stopped Frank "The Animal" Fletcher in the 4th round, James Green in the 10th round, and Curtis Parker in the 1st round.

He gave Hagler a tough fight but was stopped in the 11th round. Hagler was up by 3 point on 2 of the cards after 10 rounds.

His best weight was 154 Lbs. but he did fight at MW a good bit. He beat Rene Jacquot (KO1) for the WBC JMW world title but soon lost it to Tery Norris by 1st round KO. It was all down hill after that.

Now, tell me again how he would dominate in this weak modern world of boxing.

 

Are you saying that all today's fighters are better than 30 years ago, then? Golovkin is better than Hagler and Bradley is better than Duran?

I don't see any improvement, unless Khan and Maidana are an indication of some kind of evolution in the sport.

 

how can you compare fighters who are not even on the p4p list today to hagler and duran? :huh atsch

here is clint jackson's record. he was ranked number 10 at welter in 1980 just as amir khan is today.

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=028890&cat=boxer

who wins? clint jackson or manny pacquaio?

 

the same Mugabi that didn't beat one fighter worth a damn???

the same Mugabi that had power and barley any skill to speak of???

that Mugabi???

don't let me interrupt your daily sessions of mass delusion. you lot get angry when that happens.

 

Gets knocked out cold by GGG.
Chin ???
Has power but not enough skill.

 

If you can't beat that c level loser terry Norris then you ain't worth ****

 

Floyd turned pro 18 years ago still on top, Hopkins turned pro 1988 still top 5 in division, JMM in 1993 still top 5 in division, Foreman won HW belt 20 years after he lost it first time, argument new is automatically better is bull****...
I understand point that fighters from 1900s 1920s etc but from about 1960s and up you can absolutely compare them to todays, for example Thomas Hearns would beat anyone fighting today 140 147, SRR would have a chance against anyone in his weigh class, Ali would absolutely toy with any HW fighter today not named Wlad(not favoring Wlad vs Ali but not easy fight, other HW fighters EASY WORK for Ali)
p4p #1 is old school pretty much in everything he does, how come new guys dont beat him even outweighing him a lot. :huh

 

The guy was saying that the fighters of today are automatically better because of some sort of evolution in skills. I would argue that a great fighter is a great fighter in any era.

Pac and Mayweather compare with the best but Amir Khan wouldn't have lasted in previous eras. There are many different titles to go for and much more dodging of opponents now.

As another contributor said, no way are boxers better than guys from earlier times. Napoles, Cervantes and Tiger would all dominate now.

As for Mugabi, I think he was great against Hagler, but the fight took a lot of steam out of him. He would win titles now, but I don't think he would be champ long term.

 

How have boxers progressed exactly? are they punching faster, hitting harder, better chins etc?

 

but but but boxing has progressed :nut

 

The same Mugabi that was Ko'ed in a round by Norris.

He would be a force a 154, but not 168. Those guys come in the ring weighting 180 plus. He is too small.

 

Hagler is overrated. He shouldn't of been hit by such a wild puncher.

Martinez would box the ears off Mugabi.

 

Mugabe as pretty washed up by the time he fought Norris and Norris was no bum either