Marvin Hagler vs Roy Jones, Jr @ 160

He cannot answer them.

 

Are you trying to say Hagler was shot by the time he fought Mugabi at age 31? Mugabi was a puncher not a boxer, yet Hagler was gun shy early and actually behind on the cards at one point. GASP. Mugabi did a number on Hagler's eye. Maybe this is because Hagler wasn't facing a smaller welter, and Mugabi was a legit contender, Hagler struggled. That's a better interpretation. If Hagler took a while to get things going vs Mugabi, who wasn't a boxer, how's he going to deal with a much faster, and more accurate Roy Jones. ?

Hagler didn't exchange with Leonard enough and when he did he got the worst to it. If Hagler would have pressed Leonard instead of doing very little for the first four rounds, maybe he would have won the match. I have scored it more than once. Leonard edged it.

This flaw was visible vs the best Hagler fought, which consisted of Duran and Leonard. So why would it not apply to Roy Jones who was far and away a better middleweight than Duran or Leonard? As I said before Hagler lost to Monroe and had issues with fast handed guys who wanted to box with him. Hagler should have beaten Duran by a bigger margin. He didn't. He also backed off vs Mugabi too, getting behind on points until changing things up midway through the fight. This is either poor Ring IQ on Hagler's part or lack of mental toughness on Hagler's part. Roy Jones would not only destroy that version of Duran, he would not respect him either.

Hearns gave Hagler no choice but to fight back, which was a poor strategy on his part. He was also a little chinny at 160. Jones did not fight at all like Tommy Hearns, so you're mixing apples with oranges, and saying the theory does not hold up. The faster handed fighters who Hagler fought that chose to out box him him in Munroe and Leonard beat him. Jones would not be in there to slug, so the observation, backed by ring results is a factual one.

How did Hagler do vs fast handed guys with top ability that boxed him? History shows us. Jones was not only a fast handed smart boxer, he had power too. You just have issues accepting who Jones was. He wasn't a myth as you said. He beat Toney and Hopkins, two guys at middle that are better than anyone Hagler beat at middle. Neither could land much on Jones. Why would Hagler?

Yet he could do this vs Leonard. Jones had good footwork. Halger was far from shot vs Leonard. No one leading up to the fight said that. Zero people. Hagler was a 4-1 favorite. The fighter with the issues to overcome was Leonard. Leonard had not fought in three years and had fought just once in the previous five years. He had retired on November 9, 1982, six months after undergoing surgery to repair a detached retina in his left eye.

And now may questions fo you just in case you missed them

This content is protected

 

Mendoza,

This is a good post.

Marvin wasn't shot against Mugabi, but he was obviously past his best.

I have no issue with anyone saying that he was faded.

He was faded against Ray.

Although he was only 31, he'd fought almost 70 fights.

That many fights will take a toll on anyone.

At the same age, Roy hadn't had those same number of fights.

It's very difficult to do like for like comparisons between 2 fighters, when everyone's circumstances are different.

Regarding his fight with Leonard, although he was faded, he was fighting a former WW who'd never fought at MW before, and who'd last been seen over 3 years earlier, looking very poor against Kevin Howard. As we know, Howard dropped him. Yet he didn't fight Ray with any sort of aggression. He waited on Ray and gave away those early rounds. Again, you could say he was faded and he'd had a hard fight with Mugabi. But to not stamp his authority on the fight early and to show Ray's speed that much respect, tells me that he would always have been cautious against Ray. Now Man Machine and the others may not agree, but that's what I believe. Now I'm not for one moment suggesting that a prime version of Marvin couldn't have beaten Ray. But if he was cautious against that version of Ray who'd had no recent form or activity, and he was going in the ring with a lot of animosity towards him, again, it tells me that he would never have gone at him like he did against Hearns, even if they'd have fought in 1982. I think he would always have been wary of Ray's hand speed and overall movement.

Like you've alluded to, he was also cautious against Duran too. Now why was that? Sure, he knew that Duran was great. But he held advantages in height, reach and power over him, and like Ray, Duran had also never fought at MW before, and he was coming into the ring with recent losses to Laing and Benitez as well as his win over Moore. So that's 2 great fighters he was cautious against.

Man Machine asked a valid question, which was:

What would Marvin have made of Roy as a MW?

Obviously, we'll never know the answer to that. But IMHO, he'd have seen enough of him to have respected his speed and his highly unusual unorthadox style.

If we choose the Tate version of Roy to put forward in this fantasy fight and we assume that Marvin had knowledge of him up to that point, then he'd have seen the Castro, Hopkins, Malinga and Tate fights. And I think all of those fights were impressive. Jorge Castro was very well respected. He had 2 very close fights with Reggie Johnson amongst others. Roy beat him easily. Roy also beat Hopkins much easier than the official scores, (IMHO) and he had an injured right hand. He also looked impressive against a big and durable Malinga, who'd recently had tough fights with Benn and Eubank. Roy beat him easily and knocked him out. He then iced Thomas Tate with a left hook from out of nowhere in 2 rounds, after Tate had recently taken Jackson the distance. So it's my belief that Marvin would have respected him and may well have been cautious of his speed and skills, in the same way he was against Duran and Ray. I don't think it would have been a given that he'd have hunted Roy down like the terminator for every second of every round, like some people here have suggested.

Now seeing as though Marvin was one of the greatest fighters of all time, he'd have had a real chance of beating even a 25 year old version of Roy Jones. There's no doubt about that. But anyone who doesn't believe that Roy could also have beaten Marvin, is in my opinion, completely ignorant.

It would have been a great fight.

 

No. The comment was that Hagler had shown himself to be slow and cumbersome against Mugabi.

The term “gun-shy” and the name “Marvin Hagler” really don’t belong in the same sentence.

Not that it really matters but, at what point was Hagler behind on the scorecards against Mugabi?

No. It’s just your interpretation, which helps support your argument, whereas I am sure plenty of people, who’d watched Hager’s career, would consider him to have been visibly past-prime when they watched the Mugabi bout.

I’d expect a PRIME Hagler to deal with Jones Jr. much differently than a past prime Hagler dealt with Mugabi.

Regardless of the scorecards, it is still regarded as a highly disputed decision. Hagler was obviously slow and flat-footed, throughout the match, but was still able to close the gap on Leonard and land.

But again, this fight is a poor benchmark, from which to assess Hagler’s chances in any fantasy fight.

Why are you ignoring Hearns as one of the best that Hagler fought? Could it be because the Hagler/Hearns fight doesn’t fit the ‘defective Hagler profile’ you’re trying to build?

No surprise there.

First, you need to establish that there was a “flaw” to apply, which you haven’t really achieved here. Second, you need to take into consideration that both Duran and Leonard were technically superior to RJJ and you are not.

As I have alluded to before, Hagler was not the finished article when he lost to Monroe, who he went on to stop twice, in subsequent bouts.

Again, plenty of comments on this forum probably concur with the idea that Hagler actually did win more rounds than the scorecards reflected. I can certainly remember post-fight reports in the press conveying similar thoughts.

But this bout and its result are neither here nor there. It does not provide an indication of how a fight would go with RJJ; no more than it could have predicted what would happen between Hagler and Hearns.

He won both fights; one of them by 11th round KO.

How do you extrapolate from your speculation on Duran/RJJ, as to how a fight between Hagler and RJJ would go?

I mean:
Frazier beat Ali (and, even in defeat gave Ali fits in the two return bouts);
Foreman beat the bones out of Frazier; but
Ali mugged Foreman.

Go figure!

This is a misinterpretation of the action. Hagler initiated the engagement of Hearns, with a big right hand, a second after the opening bell.

“Hagler, right of the bat, attempting to get inside”
“Hagler being the aggressor”

These things being said within 10 seconds of the opening bell. So - NO - Hearns was not dictating the strategy here. It was Hagler’s design and it worked.

I didn’t suggest that Hearns fought like Jones so I am not mixing apples with oranges.
Your “flaw” theory doesn’t hold up because Hagler’s strategy against Hearns, who was probably the best Middleweight opponent he faced, does not in any way align with what you are trying but failing to establish as a flaw.

Monroe (I) was an early Hagler bout. Some 37 bouts and 11 years later, without defeat, Hagler was ring worn and flat-footed against Leonard.

The version of Hagler who fought Monroe in ’76, is not the same one, who fought Leonard in ’87 and neither was in their prime.

Monroe was dusted, two out of the three times Hagler fought him.
He lost to Leonard on a hotly disputed SD, at the very end of his career.
Hearns had fast hands and power, too - and got smoked.

Not at all. Jones was a real, physical ring phenomenon. This is undeniable (even with that small cloud of suspicion about his PED use).

The mythology is that created by a few of his fans.

This^^ doesn’t make sense - In your opinion, Hopkins and Toney are better than anyone Hagler beat and that somehow means Hagler couldn’t do better than Hopkins and Toney??

I actually disagree with the first part of the statement, on two counts.

Firstly - Hopkins was not the finished article at 160 when Jones faced him and he went on to improve over the next three or four years. I think Hearns was better than the RJJ version of Hopkins.

Secondly - Toney was not even fighting at 160 and could barely make 168, by the time RJJ and he met. It’s a good win on paper but, I’m not sure this helps build a case for RJJ’s credentials at middleweight.

But he did do it against Leonard, just not as well as he would have done in his prime.

I’m not sure that bit of history really matters, for the purposes of this debate.

We never saw a 32 year old middleweight called Roy Jones Junior.

Well, Hagler didn’t really but, there’s no accounting for the accuracy of the Judges scoring.

That depends on how questionable the judging is, doesn’t it?

Anything is possible.

 

If anything I was generous to Duran. McCallum had at least been a champion at 175 and hadn't lost to anyone like Kirkland Laing

 

The way to beat Hearns is not to fight smart but to fight aggressively (Barkley, Hagler).That is not Roy's style.You are not going to outsmart or outbox a masterboxer like Hearms who has the reach and height advantage.

Yes Hearns was vulnerable but so was Roy who did not have the best chin either (although it was better than the Hearns chin)

 

This content is protected

What a junk reply. We saw Jones at age 32. Assume he losses the weight needed and rehydrates to 160. Now your pick?

This content is protected

Jones would win via stoppage, possibly on cuts and Antuofermo would be lucky to win three rounds, making the robbery nearly impossible.


Do you think Jones would lose to Watts even with questionable judging?

This content is protected

Why is it with you, your fanboy excuses come in the variety of he wasn't prime, or at age 31 he was past his prime, or the judges robbed him ( Even with Leonard ) , ect...

By contrast when it comes to the other guy in the fantasy match up, his opponents even if they made the hall of fame weren't ready, and the man who beat them was a myth. This not a fair and balanced opinion. Watts would not stand a chance vs Jones and you know it.

This content is protected

Yes, but what do you think? I listed Hagler opponents, who he either lost or drew with, and you just cant seem to admit Jones would have beaten the same opponents. Not once in four tries. This proves the point I was trying to make. You can not be objective when it comes to Hagler. If this was a court of law you have to recuse yourself, because if we were under oath, Roy Jones being a myth, and cross examination would be something you could not stand against.

 

That's what I said.

Roy would not have signed to fight Hearns and then tried to have outboxed him.

He would had to have fought him aggressively.

 

We saw what might happen to a Jones Jr, if he sheds a significant poundage. He loses more than just the weight.

This content is protected

You asked if I thought Jones would draw with Antuofermo; not how he would avoid very questionable scoring, which is what Hagler had to endure. That said, RJJ might make it nearly, but not absolutely, impossible to avoid it.

This content is protected

You asked. I answered.

How do you quantify questionable judging, anyway? How do you envisage a 21 year old Jones Jr. faring under the lights of the Spectrum in 70s Philadelphia, in a bout with a hometown Ring-Rated contender?

This content is protected

Projection! You, more than most, specialize in selective sampling of evidence, which is why you attempt to direct the course of a debate with loaded and leading questions (like these I have answered), which do not really address the primary matter under discussion.

Moreover, your questions frequently need to be based on false assumptions for them to work for you; or, worse still, fail to take into consideration key bits of information [e.g. many observers felt Hagler deserved the decision against Antuofermo (I)].

It's ok. I get it. You need to debate in this way to earn some semblance of vindication for your otherwise porous arguments. You almost always ignore valid points leveled against your case, either by a blanket repetition of points already addressed or by changing the line of argument altogether (moving the goalposts). I've seen you do it for years now.

A case in point is you referring to the small issue taken with my comment about 'Jones as a myth', which I have addressed previously and more than adequately addressed again for you, in the main response to your post before this one. But still, you use it as a counterpoint. Very weak.

This content is protected

No. I don't know it.

This content is protected

Again, I'd ask - How do you envisage a 21 year old Jones Jr. faring under the lights of the Spectrum in 70s Philadelphia, in a contest against a hometown Ring-Rated contender? This time, less than two months after having been stiffed on a decision, at the same venue.

This content is protected

It proves nothing of the sort. Rather, it exposes your desire to control the narrative and your narrow-minded treatment of evidence.

You've implied I am a Hagler Fanboy. Ask me who I think wins between Hagler and Monzon.

This content is protected

Fortunately, this isn't a court of law. Even more fortunate [for you] is that it is extremely improbable that we'd ever have anything that needed settling in such a theater.

This content is protected

You clearly haven't read my posts properly, including the one you've replied to here; favoring retorts on my responses to your ineffective questions, instead.

This content is protected

you can hire a lawyer to examine the evidence for you.

 

Jones by UD.

 

Roy. Bad style matchup for Marvelous Marvin.

 

Jones

 

Yes that was his best weight and he's arguably the best Super-Middle ever.

 

Ooh, tough call.

I think Marvin could get the nod - even possibly secure a later round KO - TKO.

His mindset and confidence are key factors.

IMO, he gave Duran too much respect. Be that as it may, I don’t believe that fight was as close as some might have it - Roberto certainly exceeded forecasts - and sometimes, without justification, fighters get “bonus” points just for their defiance of pre fight projections.

Against Leonard, I don’t think Marv had confidence issues as much as he had issues with complacency and unwise early rounds strategy.

I think he sought the most comprehensive of victories - outbox Ray first and then step it up for the KO.

When Rays amazing recapture of his old self turned back Marv’s efforts to outbox him, Marv tried to step it up and but quickly found the gas tank fast depleting along with the discovery of several other major deteriorations in his game.

The Mugabi fight reflected that Marv had gone back a bit - but the Leonard fight proved to be the classic example of a fighter ageing badly during the course of a fight.

 

Marvin without question has the deeper resume at 160 and I don’t think Roy Jr had reached his peak yet at this weight, but head to head I think the matchup favors Jones.

Hagler makes it interesting for a while but Roy is too fast and his footwork is more than adequate … plus as was mentioned somewhere above, Roy hit hard enough to garner Marvin’s respect that he couldn’t be too wreckless.

There’s also this thing with Hagler in his bigger fights — first world title fight vs. Vito, Duran (his first ‘superfight’) and Leonard — where he just doesn’t seem to bring his best. Hearns is of course the exception but even then he just waded through nearly inhuman punishment to assert his will … and I think Thomas’ approach forced that as he came out so aggressively. Hagler was hesitant in his other big fights and Roy Jr isn’t a guy you can be hesitant with IMO.