prime Haggler would stalk and KO prime Roy Jones

Nonsense. If he was as big as you say he'd be drained at MW. It's a miracle he ever fought there.

 

google.es/search?q=marvin+hagler&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj38I6EytfKAhXFfhoKHbXhAzAQ_AUICCgB&biw=320&bih=492#tbm=isch&q=marvin+hagler+body&imgrc=TxFtqwcc6vXOUM%3A

google.es/search?q=marvin+hagler&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj38I6EytfKAhXFfhoKHbXhAzAQ_AUICCgB&biw=320&bih=492#tbm=isch&q=bob+fitzsimmons+body&imgrc=kNp_EtpvZWxRyM%3A

Hagler look a gnomo next to fitz...

Obviously 2 natural different classes

 

I see you didn't listen.

 

he really would catch roy

 

But the evidence says otherwise doesn't it.

In a MW title fight the two men in question would not seem to be in a different division. And if the difference was that bad then surely Fitz would be too drained to beat Hagler anyways.

By your logic the only conclusion is Hagler by ko.

 

I'm a Hagler fan but prime RJJ was bad news for anybody. I'd like to think that Hagler comes in "destructo-mode" and chases RJJ down a la Hearns.

 

Of course, prime Haggler would get a better deal than Roy any day

 

Prime vs prime fitzsimmons destroys hagler he would be a drained 175 pounder fighting at 168. A guy who knocked out hws EVEN 230 POUNDERS.Too big and too powerfull for the midget Hagler

 

Are you talking about them having a fight at middleweight? Fitz was comfortably under 160 in the early 1890s, or are you talking about Hagler versing the 168 Fitz?

If your talking about Hagler vs Fitz while hes weighing over 160 at 168 etc I dont get why? You want Fitz to have a weight advantage and then have the unknown of Hagler above 160 which is a move he never made, dosent make much sense.

Fitz was 5 cm taller than Hagler, hardly a gigantic difference which would make Hagler seem like a midget

Where are you getting this from, Fitz rarely weighed 175, he was able to weigh 158 for Ruhlin at 37 and apparently 156 for Lang at 46 yrs old (although it seems Fitz gave his weight for this one, not sure if its true) but I wouldnt call him a natural 175 pounder and skin and bone at 162 as far as him being weaker and too big for that weight. If youre talking about him being lanky id agree, but just because he was lanky dosent mean he was way too big for around 160

Its not the same as Bob Foster, Foster was 6'3 and naturally heavier than Fitz


As far as the fight, Fitz had the power to KO Hagler and he was a true freak, but I dont think he would

 

Again using the absurd lógic of " he is bigger if he is taller and longer" stop talking nonsense... WERE HEARNS OR FOSTER BIGGER THAN MARCIANO,FRAZIER,TYSON OR TUA?? OR JUST LONGER? fitzsimmons was naturally bigger than hagler i would not believe these (150s pounds)cifres of more than 100 years ago. A image talk for itself
Futzsimmons had much bigger frame han hagler,look at the ****ing bones in their arms,legs and general frame, hagler was shorter muscular and still fitz looked bigger being skin and bone.hagler was muscular at 157. Fitz would look a squeleton at the same weight. Stop debating the reallity

Bob foster was taller but his frame was thiner and more fragile.

 

google.es/search?q=marvin+hagler&biw=320&bih=260&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMooO52NfKAhWK1RQKHdgkAZ0Q_AUIBigB#imgrc=YVPqw_VknIHjdM%3A

fitzsimmons.co.nz/images/gallerypics/postcardaust.jpg

celebnmusic247.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Roy-Jones-jr-running-for-mayor-0219-3.jpg

He looks even bigger than jones

Who say that they are(hagler and fitzsimmons) naturally of the same size is liying like a sick

 

What are you even on about? when did I ever use that logic atsch

I never said bigger = taller and longer

I said Foster was naturally heavier and taller than Fitz which = bigger..

Foster was a much more natural 175 pounder and went above that weight often whereas Fitz didnt seem to reach 175 pounds very often and was usually around the 168 mark, when he was younger as well in his late 20s he was usually around the 155-160 mark

Oh okay, glad youre a logical reasonable man, yeah all his weights are probably inaccurate and I would trust your ability to tell his weight by looking at pictures of him

Oh no yes, "stop debating the reality" are you the reality in this? The reality of ignoring scales and judging weight by pictures

Where are you getting that I was saying Fitz wasnt bigger than Hagler anyway? I never thought he was or wrote that, I was writing about your claims saying Fitz was a natural 175 pounder and saying he would be drained at 168

And how a fantasy fight with Hagler at 160 where Fitz weighs 168-175 didnt make much sense

 

i did answer
A guy said that fitzsimmons would not beat hagler based on he was rudimentary and open AND HE DID NOT LOOK BIGGER. Plus he picked hagler also to beat the 185pounder corbett
. if we are talking about prime vs prime hagler cant take fitz best shots because he was too powerful( he stopped even 230 pounders weighing 160) and naturally was bigger than hagler so marvin is too fragile for him. And you know the nutrition of the
Athletes 100 years ago.... A man like jefries must have been a monster... Imagine him in a moder era with better food and suplements.of course that you can say that fitzs was a natural 170-175 pounder.i think that foster had to cut some weight. I think that he was more a natural 180 pounder

 

Reallly, you saw him beating several big guys

Which films do you have..

I didnt post that so I dont know why you replied to me as if I posted it and you didnt seem to read my post properly

I do think Fitz dosent look good enough to beat Hagler, his power is his chance though, but like i said before I wouldnt favor him to do it