Marvin Hagler vs. Jack Johnson

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by cross_trainer, Jan 1, 2012.


  1. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,030
    Jun 30, 2005
    Does Hagler do better than Ketchel?
     
  2. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,225
    Feb 15, 2006
    Probably worse or not much better.
     
  3. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    Maybe, although it's a bit of a moot point giving Johnson was carrying Ketchel

    Hagler would be the best boxer Johnson faced, his jab, workrate, efficiency and in fighting give him a shot here. Johnson should probably be favoured but Hagler is a great smaller man
     
  4. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,225
    Feb 15, 2006
    Truly you are incredible.
     
  5. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    Thank You Janitor :good Honestly though who put a better P4P package in terms of skillset and physical ability did Johnson face? Arguably Langford, I doubt Langford had the skillset of a Hagler though
     
  6. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,225
    Feb 15, 2006
    Well I think we at least have to credit Langford with being better pound for pound, and a more formidable puncher.
     
  7. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    I don't see why he's better P4P, other than the fact he fought in an era where he had to fight in every few weeks against bigger men who weren't much cop

    Langford may or may not have been better. Skillwise and depth of era wise Hagler looks the better boxer and isn't really smaller
     
  8. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,225
    Feb 15, 2006
     
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,064
    Mar 21, 2007
    :rofl caught me funny


    About the same.
     
  10. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
     
  11. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,225
    Feb 15, 2006
     
  12. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    For the sole reason it affects your agenda, if we look at the quantity of recognised boxers in Langford's era it is far smaller than in Hagler's era. Aside from the point boxers talk about the number of boxers who talked about the explosion of pro-boxers post-Dempsey

    Exactly less money in boxing means less demand for fighters and actually the social mobility wasn't any worse than it was in the last 30 years, social mobility is pretty weak today, is today a great era? No it isn't

    And the only form of entertainment in most major cities? :lol: You're happy talking out of your ass I see

    Ahhh a whole 6-7 fighters who fought each other and no one else is the most incredible body of talent in history based on what exactly? :lol:

    And let's get this straight, Marquez schools ******* 3 times but Pacman is out of his league OKAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY
     
  13. ChrisPontius

    ChrisPontius March 8th, 1971 Full Member

    19,404
    278
    Oct 4, 2005
    The heavyweight division was so poor that half of the HW contenders were lightheavies or even smaller.
     
  14. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,225
    Feb 15, 2006
     
  15. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,225
    Feb 15, 2006
    Can you name any era where light heavyweights havn't permeated the rankings?

    Also, if there is no light heavyweight division, where exactly is a 175lb fighter meant to fight?