Marvin Hagler vs Roy Jones, Jr @ 160

Indeed, Monroe was the deserved winner, from the accounts I've read. It is probably the only undisputed decision cast against Hagler in his entire 67-fight career.

But, as @Flash24 states, Hagler was green, at 21 years old and having only been a pro for just short of three years. Moreover, Monroe was pretty darn good.

 

Its not Roy's speed thats the main issue its his style. He's pretty much only throws 5 punch combinations or leaping haymakers and does so with GOAT level punch accuracy just is not going to lose rounds.

That style isn't a problem specifically for Hagler its a problem for anyone in history at 160-175 and probably cruiserweight too(even though he never fought there until he was shot to pieces)

The fact that he's also P4P maybe the faster ever, maybe P4P the most powerful puncher ever, ATG finisher, had ATG body punch resistance, ATG Fight IQ and ATG stamina only multiplies the issue for opponents

 

Hagler was versatile. One of the best all-round boxers in the sport, ever. So, of course, he used different strategies against different fighters. That's a given, surely?

I neither particularly agree nor disagree with your above characterization of the fights you have provided above. Except for the Hearns bout, because we all know that Hagler declared, after the fight was over, that his way was the only way to beat Hearns; using words to the effect that he had to get inside and chop Hearns down like a tree.

I appreciate where you are coming from with your descriptions of them, but I don't want to get bogged down in the detail of these individual fights, as they are studies in their own right.

However, what I will suggest is that there's a certain mythology, which has arisen from Hagler's legacy over the years and, in particular, with regard to the strategies and tactics employed in his defeat (Leonard) and close-shaves (Antuofermo I; Duran). Three fights (1-1-1) from a 67-fight career - and yet, somehow, these three fights underpin just about every single detracting viewpoint on Hagler's chances in a Head-to-Head, against any Middleweight in history.

I think an illusory truth effect has been reinforced by internet forums, to the extent that boxing lore holds variations on a theme about Hagler, which go beyond a view that he was, on occasion, overly cautious and methodical; instead, describing him as "hesitant" (or that he froze), as if he'd been psychologically overwhelmed by the fights in question and/or just didn't know what to do.

This seems to me to be a somewhat negative and a not altogether accurate slant on Hagler, drawn from the few bouts in which his seemingly cautious approach made a difference - and, let's face it, only one of those decisions resulted in an 'L' and all of them are considered to have produced controversial scorecards, in one way or another. So, if from your 67 pro bouts, it is deemed that you lost one [controversial] decision at the very end of your career, because of a tactically poor start, then you've really not done too badly.

Does it reflect a 'standard' in the form guide? Not in the slightest.

Apart from the inherently massive assumption?

Unfortunately, I can neither buy into the idea that Hagler doesn’t go in with a plan or that he doesn’t adapt mid-fight, which is the point often overlooked about Hagler’s caution. Both of which would have required him to have some respect for Roy.

I would add that, Duran, Hearns nor Leonard all had their own, individual styles, making each of them a unique challenge. Hagler was versatile enough to meet those challenges, in my opinion.

Thirdly, is that all three of those fighters were technically superior to Jones Jr and, in their own way capable of doing things that Jones could not (some aspects have been touched upon in thread).

Also - I think we'd all agree that Jones Jr was very fast, but he wasn't Barry Allen. His speed was not insurmountable. Moreover, it is easy to forget that Jones didn’t fight anyone like Hagler, either. How is Roy going to handle being hunted and speared from all angles by a fighter he can’t really hurt? How will his chin hold up, because banking on and believing in RJJ not getting hit is a fool’s paradise.

Lastly, at 25-0 and with his best mark to-date having been a promising contender in Hopkins, RJJ's reputation wouldn't seem to be worth a great deal, in comparison to that of Duran, Hearns and Leonard. It's hard to know what Hagler would make of a relative novice, who was yet to achieve his superstar status. But, I very much doubt that awe would be involved.

I'll tell you what does come across as being a bit ignorant and that is erroneously implying that someone else is being ignorant, because of a perceived assumption that they didn't actually make.

At what point did I even insinuate that Hagler would not respect Jones Jr? Moreover, what has respect got to do with Hagler being, to use your word, "hesitant"?


The salient questions are, what is it about Jones Jr that would give Hagler cause to stand back on the side of caution? Would just standing in front of Jones doing nothing work for Hagler? What would Jones do whilst Hagler just dithered; deciding what he was going to do?

The above are really questions on the worst-case scenario for Hagler; the, “What if Hagler does nothing?” scenario. And, it’s pure fantasy, of course.


I've mentioned before that Hagler's jab would be a big factor. It would disrupt Jones Jr and take away the control he is used to having in almost every bout he’s been in. At the same time he'd actually need to deal with the Hagler jab because it would be setting up all manner of other available punches in Hagler’s armory.

Since I don't believe RJJ could outjab Hagler, it’s likely that his only recourse would be to go on a serious offensive. Jones Jr is essentially an offensive fighter; a guy who leads with powershots, is he not? The alternative of Jones going on the run seems unlikely. But, what if he did?

I think Hagler can close the distance on RJJ, in either case, and turn this into a war that suits him. And, what I would give to see Jones Jr attempt his wide-open 'dive bomb' left hooks on Hagler. I honestly think they would be the accident waiting to happen to RJJ. Hagler’s own left or short-range power from his right, on the counter would, at the very least, form a deterrent very early on.

Jones Jr's defense has big holes, too. Skipping backwards with your arms in the air is not ideal against a guy who's happy to chase you and stick it to the body. Indeed, I suspect much of Hagler's work would be to the body of RJJ.


The matter of size and weight is being oversold here, too. If you had a time machine, which could take you back to warn Mickey Walker about the big ask he was placing on himself by fighting guys who outweighed him, he'd likely laugh in your face.

We're talking about elite class fighters here; not protected, made-for-TV commodities.

I think the first to wilt is going be Jones Jr. He’s going to win a few of the exchanges; maybe even more than a few - but, he will still be the one who’s worse for wear by the latter third.

If Hagler hasn’t knocked RJJ out before round 10, it’s not going to take too much longer for Hagler to deliver a TKO, beyond that point.

 

Even if I accepted what you have written above as absolute truth (which I don't, because there's a fair bit of subjective mythology in all of that), I find the implication that Hagler does not carry an equalizer, at 160, quite unbelievable.

The RJJ myth has been built on the greenery of Hopkins and the ruins of a 168 Toney. Most else has been quite ordinary - and, it's easy to look exceptional, when you're very good and going in against guys who aren't. He would not have such a luxury against Hagler.

RJJ did not float down from the peak of Mt Olympus. He is just a man.

 

It doesn't matter that much as I highly doubt Hagler was under 160 pounds in his title defenses on fight night. You are aware of the rehydration process after the weigh ins.

Questions, which Machine_ Man is also welcome to answer.

Do you think Roy Jones would lose Leonard at the age Hagler was ( 32 ) and when he fought the 30 year old Leonard? Yes or No?

Do you think Jones would draw with Antuofermo? Yes or No?

Do you think Jones would lose to Watts? Yes or No?

Do you think Jones would lose to Monroe? Yes or No?

When I as theses questions, certain people do not answer them. Are you one of them?

The truth is Jones was a special boxer. Old age ( 35 ) at a weight class Hagler didn't dare venture into ( Light heavyweight ) was the reason for his first loss. Hagler never got over losing to the smaller Leonard and called it quits at age 32.

Hagler also had some close score cards, as he wasn't in Jones class as a boxer. Few ever were. Roy's chin was never an issue at 160, or 168.

 

Roy fough much tougher competition than Hagler and has waaay more longevity but for some reason people hold C level guys like Sibson Obel Scypion Mugabi Roldan and Caveman Lee(lmao) in high regard when they are at best the equivalent of guys like Tony Thornton, Clinton Woods, Lou Del Valle, Otis Grant and Eric Lucas who Roy fought

The Duran that Hagler fought didnt have anymore left in the tank than the McCallum that Roy fought. Difference is Roy made it look easy while Hagler struggled.

Not to mention they pretend guys like Julio Cesar Gonzalez and Thulani Malinga were scrubs even though after Roy beat them, they beat the guys everyone claimed Roy ducked

And for Roy's best wins Hopkins, Toney, Reggie Johnson, Ruiz and Hill people make the most ridiculous claims to discredit.

 

I’m going with Jones, at his best he was absolutely brilliant. Either white washing or sleeping his opponents. Almost every fight he was in in his Prime his opponents were just lost, they all had this look on their face that said Jesus what am I facing. Jones did noting by the book. He was combination freak show athlete with ungodly reflexes lighting speed and amazing anticipation. He knew when to punch you and when your punches were coming. It’s like he could slow down the fight in his own mind where you were just always a second behind. I’ve never seen anything like him before or since.

for the record he’s about the only one I’d pick Over a Prime Hagler. Hagler was a beast. Jones was just something else.

 

It was Hagler 28th pro fight. That doesn't sound too green to me.

In my opinion, Hagler had issue vs fast handed fighter, like Monore and Leonard.

Questions for you:

Do you think Roy Jones would lose Leonard at the age Hagler was ( 32 ) and when he fought the 30 year old Leonard? Yes or No?

Do you think Jones would draw with Antuofermo? Yes or No?

Do you think Jones would lose to Watts? Yes or No?

Do you think Jones would lose to Monroe? Yes or No?

 

The Roy Jones myth? Pretty strong language there.

Let's get some facts. Hopkins was 22-1 when he meet Jones, and been a pro for nearly 4 1/2+ years when it happened. Hopkins was a Philly fighter back when the culture meant something. Saying he was green isn't really true.

• This was the first world title fight for both boxers.
• Hopkins was ranked #1 by the IBF and Jones was #2.
• Jones landed 206 of 594 punches (35%) and Hopkins connected on 153 of 670 (23%).
• The Associated Press reported: "Jones was much too fast and much too strong for Bernard Hopkins."

James Toney was 26 in his prime for Jones. He lost badly

[url]Roy Jones Jr[/url] 168 lbs beat [url]James Toney[/url] 167 lbs by UD in round 12 of 12

• Date: 1994-11-18
• Location: MGM Grand, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
• Referee: [url]Richard Steele[/url]
• Judge: [url]John Stewart[/url] 119-108
• Judge: [url]Glen Hamada[/url] 117-110
• Judge: [url]Jerry Roth[/url] 118-109

• Unofficial AP scorecard: 119-107 Jones
• [url]International Boxing Federation[/url] Super Middleweight Title (4th defense by Toney)

IMO Hopkins and Toney, are two top all time 20 middle weights, and better than any natural middle weight Hagler beat. You could argue Leonard was in their class a middle, but Hagler lost that one.

 

Whilst I appreciate your reply, (which I will reply to) you need to take your own advice.

Look at the language you use.

You aren't in any way objective.

Myth?

What myth?

The ruins of Toney?

Most else was quite ordinary?

Really?

Going 15 years unbeaten, across 4 weight divisions, whilst barely losing rounds?

Yes, Roy was only a man. He didn't float down from the peak of Mt Olympus.

Guess what? Neither did Marvin Hagler.

Quit building him up as though he was the Terminator who couldn't be beaten.

 

I lean towards Hagler but I’d never bet on this fight with confidence.

 

Whilst I'm playing the ball and not the man, I can use any language I choose to.

If you don't agree with my point of view, that's fine. But, implying that someone is "ignorant", based on something they did not do; words they did not iterate - which is precisely what you did in your post before last, in reference to myself - is, in itself, plain ignorant and I'm going to call you out on it.

Yes, really. It's called a point of view and it was in response to a different set of points made by another poster, in which you are once again interjecting, without having grasped the context of the exchange. And, asking me to confirm if I meant it, isn't an argument.

I haven't suggested he did and I find it quite funny that you have chosen to reply to a post of mine, which was in response to some utter hyperbole in regards to RJJ, in order to make your point above...

"

This content is protected

"

So, according to the this^, RJJ never misses (and would hit Hagler with the hardest punches he's ever taken, if you see the next quote, below), all while losing a shutout. You don't find that a touch extreme?

As a side-note, I also find it funny that you seem unable to acknowledge RJJ's loss to Griffin, 8 years in to his career. Still an exceptionally good run, but I guess it doesn't read as well or sound as good as "15 years unbeaten".

I haven't and, if you can find anything that I have posted on this topic in all seriousness, which compares to the following Roy Boy Fanboy copy, I'll be sure to tone any such commentary of my own down, a fair bit, in future...

"

This content is protected

"

Errrr - I think this^ is more akin to a description of a 'mythical', unbeatable Terminator - Wouldn't you agree?

Seriously! I have no problem debating with you but, if you're going to reply to posts, which were not directed at you specifically, at least try and gather the thread and context of that particular discussion, before taking on the role of the language police.

 

Seriously man, your posts are just absolutely exhausting.

Honestly, I love debating on this forum, but debating you is so tiresome I don't get any pleasure out of it at all.

I haven't taken on any roll. I never said you weren't free to use the language of your choice. But when discussing Roy, everything you write is in a negative manner. You have been completely biased all throughout the thread. Go and reread your posts.

Although I'm obviously a huge fan of Roy's, I can envisage that Marvin could have beaten him. And I have no issue with anyone picking Marvin. But your posts on here and the other biased posts which you've liked just tell us all that you don't want an objective debate.

You make ridiculous posts and then when you're called out on them, you try to wriggle out of your stance by deflecting.

Context blah, blah.

Give it a rest.

You know exactly what you've written.

I've read every post on this thread more than once and I can see perfectly well the context in which things have been discussed. And every other knowledgeable poster can see them too.

You started out by saying that Roy wouldn't have beaten Marvin even in an alternate universe.

Then it was a joke.

Next up, Marvin was at least as mobile as Roy, which is nonsense, especially as the guy you were debating said that Roy would get off first because he was faster.

Then more deflection.

You then told me not to go all 'Roy boy' on you, implying that I was biased, before telling Mendoza to 'stop crying'

You then say that Roy was a myth where you pull down his wins, telling us all that he fought the ruins of Toney and that most of what he did was ordinary. Ordinary? Ha! Yeah, most of Roy's career was ordinary, yet Marvin's was amazing, right?

You then have the audacity to tell us that he was only human, whilst all throughout the thread you've been hyping Marvin as some unbeatable monster.

You need to recap Marvin's career and go and analyse your contribution to this thread.

I now have absolutely no desire whatsoever to take this any further with you.

Your posts and your argumentative posting style just sap my enthusiasm.

We'll agree to disagree and I'll leave you to debate the other members.

Have a nice weekend.

 

Roy Jones was kinda quick too.