MWT Tourney semi - HAGLER v MONZON

Of course,i am also awed at haglers performance versus the hitmans speed,reach and power,i dont think many middles in history could beat tommy like that,maybe none but hagler could do that....BUt that doesnt mean hagler is thus the best middle of all time,its one great perfomance against a natural 154 er...
I personally think hearns was in the top league of greats in boxing history,but at 147-154 not 160....His performances against cuevas,duran leonard and benitez were fantastic and head to head he would beat a lot of great middles,but his durability,mobility and speed all suffered above 154...I dont think hearns would beat monzon at middle,hes not durable enough...

 

That was a totally biased piece of crap post Enquirer.

Take a good close look at those records before calling them great. Losses, losses everywhere. Are ten losses on a record what makes you great?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :rofl

3 losses are reasonable on a record but any more and you can see something's wrong, terribly wrong with your division.

Sibson had 3 losses before the Hagler fight but that was before he learned how to fight and went from worst to first!

Griffith had several losses both at welter, middle, and even jr middle.

Everyone beat Griffith except for those slow brutes like Briscoe. Like Manassa said, he was years past his prime. Griffith hadn't seen his prime since 1963. I don't think he was the same fighter since he faced that fellow Paret.

Briscoe had the same problem as Griffith and even lost to Griffith. I'm supposed to be impressed with Monzon because he whipped Briscoe? We all knew he would lose!

Even Valdez had 4 losses but he eventually improved like Sibbo. Sibbo had more weapons though and his jab hook would have ripped off the heads of the primitive middleweights from the early to mid 70's.

Hagler not only beat Briscoe but Vito and Minter. Not only that but Gil Clancy who trained Valdez confided that he avoided Hagler as a challenger.

Hagler had the best competition outside of Harry Greb.

And Benvenuti. Most of those wins came below the middleweight limit. And get this: I see two losses since regaining the title he lost from Griffith including a kayo loss to someone named Tom Bethea. Will you please tell me why Benvenuti is so important? Please tell me since you know so much.

 

The fact you consider sibson some great fighter speaks volumes....guys like griffiths had losses because they fought fellow greats in multiple divisions.....
Why go on about hagler beating briscoe when monzon beat him when briscoe was prime,hagler beat an old briscoe and only over ten....
The biggest laugh you gave me is when you said hagler had the best competition outside greb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What nonsense,Hagler never even fought and beat a natural great prime middle,and actually lost to welter ray leonard and drew with vito......

 

I have to laugh sometimes about the inclusion of Leonard no matter what.

 

Did US TV not show it at all? I have the 8mm copy, it's a great pity because it's such a brilliant performance, well worth watching for any fighter wanting to know how to take on a bull. I have the Majeski report, it is great and BI was a good magazine in its day- pity Ali (or Foreman) had to be the cover star every month.

 

MDWC,i know your something of a big monzon man,in your opinion how did monzon deal with speed? How would he do with roy jones at middle,or robinson? what do you think makes him greater than all other middles?

 

Mustafa Hamsho didn't have those losses and he faced nothing but great fighters, even fighters who whipped Hagler. He whipped a terrified Benitez, a petrified Bobby Czyz, Curtis Parker (twice), Wilford Scypion, Alan Minter-generation after generation of middleweights.

The only one he ever lost to was hagler. Guys like Obel were undefeated. Mugabi was undefeated, all by knockout. Hearns at 40-1, Hamsho at 33-1 losing only his first fight, Colbert also unbeaten.

I don't have any idea why you would knock Vito except out of sheer ignorance (as usual). He beat your man Griffith in just his second year as a pro! Then he whipped Corro who whipped your other man Valdez!

Great comeback Enquirer!

 

If you're great you don't lose often. Losing often means you're a journeyman. You ought to know the difference between the two Enquirer.

 

Once again you are full of **** and have no context....Corro beat vadez when valdez was on the slide,griffith was ancient v vito,how come you excuse hagler for his loss to ray welter at 32 yet discount other fighters getting old?
Mugabi had great power but lost loads of times after hagler by ko,even at 154...hamsho beat a shot benitez and all those other fighters you mentioned arent great,what did obel achieve after hagler?
Hearns was 40-1? Well leonard beat him when he was unbeaten and at a more suitable weight....
Your opinion of the quality of the 'hagler era' is woeful.....Name me one middle from haglers era who is a recognised great at 160?
Im all ears.....

 

Enquirer: On my way home in a minute. Be back later to answer your question after I do my dad bit, kids are tucked up and the missus is watching her soaps. :good

 

It nearly stayed that way after he schooled Marv for 11 rounds but ran out of steam from being weight-drained. :hi:


Later.

 

You mean until Hagler busted his jaw. :smoke

 

Hearns also beat colbert,hearns beat geraldo in one (geraldo took hagler the distance.) and beat roldan in 4 (as opposed to 10.) ,hearns beat duran in 2 (as opposed to 15) and at least drew with ray welter as opposed to losing.....
Just goes to show you that a 154 er can beat many of haglers opponents quicker than the 160 man himself....:good Maybe haglers opposition wasnt as great as you think hey? :yikes

 

Wrong again Enquirer. Valdez had just won the title for a second time and beat who else, Briscoe. He just couldn't handle Corros's style. No one could either except for Vito. Vito could handle anyone including Briscoe and Griffith. And he's got the wins to prove it.

You also said Griffith was great and now you're contradicting yourself because of the loss. Are you admitting that you were wrong? Or maybe you're more confused than ever. Maybe you need a psychiatrist.

And I don't see Wilfred as being shot either. At age 25 and with a mark of 44-2 is hardly the mark of a shot fighter. No one said before the fight that he was shot. Why would you?

 

Nobody said hagler was shot before the leonard fight either...
How old were brisoce and griffith when they fought vito?
And who cares if you think corro had valdez' stylistic number,leonard (the welter.) had marvins.....One fight in five years hey? :rasta atsch