Marvin Hagler vs Chris Eubank (Any Weight)

What the hell is the point of this question? Its simply ******ed to match a CW with a middle. Especially considering that both Eubank, and Hagler were in thier primes at 160.

So I wont answer your question... but at 160.... Hagler by commanding decision. He'd outclass Eubank, especially down the stretch.

 

Hagler would win this fight easy.Eubank might win a few rounds at the most but thatsit,his chin allows him to go the distance. 147-139 o118-111 over 12 rounds

 

No.
He hated fighting southpaws, let alone hard counterpunching southpaws. :good

 

yes he can.
but this is ESB's classic forum.
hagler had some poor losses and draws.
but he is one of the saints here.

 

hagler ud 8-4,boxing lesson given

 

Eubank is THE most overrated fighter on ESB. He was a good fighter, but FAR from great. Hagler was several levels above him.

 

I dunno if i'd go quite that far.He does get overrated by Brit fans sometimes, but i think gets put down a lot as well.

I think he was more a fighter who was just lacking certain areas and a waste of talent that took the easy WBO route.He couldn't fight or punch effectively coming forward and had **** stamina.Other than those two glaring flaws, there wasn't much bad at all about him as a boxer-puncher, but it meant he could only look good if he was against someone he could control the pace with.

Don't think he'd have any chance aagainst Hagler however.Marv can win this however he wants.

 

Marvin picks him apart, Chris sort of got me into boxing but he just has too many flaws

 

(1) the most overrated fighter on ESB (classic forum) is Joe Louis. fact. :deal
(2) i did not say eubank was better , just that he (realistically) could have won against hagler. see boxrec for historical precedent.
(3) i am also not sure if hagler would have fared better than eubanks against collins , calzaghe or thompson , i really don't know.

 

1. Louis is overrated, but at least Joe was a great fighter. Eubank is not.

2. Eubank did not have the tools to beat Hagler. Too sloppy, and not smart enough nor the stamina to beat Marv. Eubank was no Ray Leonard, and it was a faded Hagler that Leonard beat.

3. Hagler at his best would have clearly defeated Collins, and Calz. Thompson is cruiser.

Just cause Eubank moved in weight to higher divisions means nothing. Hagler was a better fighter.... better by FAR in fact.

Your talking about a top 3 all time middle vs a guy who's not even top 15.

 

totally agree but your wasting your time:yep

 

:huh:huh:huh

 

I dont know about your boxing Iqatsch Those losses were earlier in his career,and those guys that beat him Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe were excellent fighters who might have beaten Eubank. When you post a matchup im assuming(like im sure everyone else is) that you are talking about a prime Hagler. Hagler in his prime would have picked collins apart,stopped Calzaghe in a very competetive fight,and easily outbox eubank. Carl Thompson thats a stupid comparison hes a cruise.:roll: