Marvin Hagler or Evander Holyfield?

I watched all of his defenses years ago. I'd call Hagler the Brockton rock, but he did not put his punches together in combinations like Holyfield did at cruiserweight and heavyweight.

 

Marvis Hagler only ever looked a truly exceptional boxer against limited brawlers that created easy openings in which Hagler could pick at.He had a tremendous jab,threw some very good combinations,had very good footwork and was quite a gifted counter-puncher - but Holyfield was also skilled in all those particular areas and possessed the level of speed - both of hand and feet - that Marvis could only dream of.



And Holyfield did it against a variety of styles and opposition that enjoyed tremendous physical advantages over him.Hagler never had to face that type of adversity because he was too content on calling up fighters from smaller weight classes rather than moving up himself.

 

Better fighter at his best: Hagler, for me. Both are highly well-schooled, well-rounded fighters but Hagler was on the next notch up, imo. He was also typically more disciplined in his strategic choices.

Greater fighter: EH, paining me to say so. I am not a weight-jumper groupie, but I do think EH at cruiser could've been as dominant as he cared to be for as long as he cared to be there, and should get his points for hanging with the big boys and bringing in very impressive wins while doing it.

More exciting: Holyfield's vulnerability after moving up gave him a drama factor that didn't happen through most of Hagler's career. I will give him the edge here.

Now, please, delight us with your take on Sugar Rob Leonard and Timmy Hearns. I may take you even more seriously on those subjects.

 

In what way are Hearns and Duran "limited brawlers"?

 

You mean Timmy Hearns and Humberto Duran, who fought Marvis Hagler? :huh Both quite crude compared to Tommy and Roberto, who fought Marvin, I should say, my good man.

 

Hagler more skilled in both departments.

Holyfield higher p4p.

Hagler higher at mw than holy at hw.

 

They're not,and I never said that they were,either.


The Hearns fight was one in which Hagler was forced to rely on sheer determination,durability and conditioning rather than boxing ability.That's why I said as a "boxer" rather than a "fighter".


And I think most would acknowledge that Hagler didn't look exceptional against Duran.

 

To be honest though, Holyfield did this against heavyweights. The worst division in boxing where the fighters are slower and lazier than any other division. Hagler fought the best prior to his title reign and then after. Many of the guys Marvin fought could have been champs had Marvin not been there. Fully Obel, Juan Roldan, Tony Sibson, Hamsho. etc. We know that Hearns and Duran were champions, so the other guys would have been also. Obel was champ at 168 later.

 

Holyfield can be suggested as the more exciting fighter in retrospect, but during Hagler's career one had best not blink the eyes because any punch from him could decide the match, and that punch could well be his right jab, a power shot in reality that Liston's left was in mythology. (I sometimes think of Hagler as the southpaw Liston, somewhat ironic because Marv names Patterson as one of his idols.) What he did to Hamani with a right jab to the forehead was one of the most frightening displays of power I've ever seen produced by a jab from either side.

Evander's match with Dokes was spellbinding. As he was thought of as a cruiserweight, many figured he couldn't trade with the bigger Dokes like that without crumbling, yet it was the bigger man who eventually fell. For my money, Holyfield-Dokes was the HW fight of the 1980s, and the best protracted HW fight since Manila.

 

i believe ring voted it as such as well.

 

MAG1965 i fully disagree with you that the heavyweight division has been, is or will ever be the worst division in boxing

Physically speaking the heavyweight division is the best, heavyweights truly are the top dogs and that's undisputed

Obviously the work rate is lower in a heavyweight fight as heavyweights expend more energy moving around and throwing so much muscle

Speed is arguable,to be honest i think the quickest heavyweights of any era have basically matched the quickest middleweights

Holyfield to me was more enjoyable to watch, he had so much heart and puts his punches together so well.

 

I do not agree. But I respect what you say. Heavyweights fight great one fight and then the next one weigh 20 pounds more and are uninspried. Sort of the Tony Tubbs/Tim Witherspoon syndrome There is not much discipline at heavyweight since they don't have a weight they have to meet up with, which dictates I think their whole work ethic. In the 1980's the guys who fought there like Pinklon Thomas and Tony Tubbs would not have been even contenders at middleweight during Hagler's reign. Tyson then comes along in 1985 and works hard and is in shape and he beats everyone in his path. Not as easy in other divisions.

By the way, the first title fight I went to was Pedro Decima and Paul Banke. Two little guys fighting going tops the whole fight. It lasted 4 rounds but it was a great fight. I thought when Michael Carbajal fought Humberto Gonzales that the boxing public would start to like the smaller fighters and appreciate really work and skills, but it never connected. Somehow people want to see the big guys get knocked out. You have more one punch knockouts at heavyweight, but not greater fights.

 

occasionally you get the disciplined guys like Evander and Tyson who come along and they reign for a long time. Evander is smaller than most guys but his heart and work ethic are what has given him some of his best wins.