prime hagler top ten?

B,when we compare great fighters of different era's,as we do Harry Greb
against Marvin Hagler, i mull things over in my mind and dissect them...
Such as these points you make ...
1- Yes Greb did tackle and whip great big men such as tunney, loughran, Gibbons, Dillon,Levinsky,etc, while he scaled a few pounds over the 160 lb mark.True. But why would you or I train ourselves to 160,when we could come in a few pounds heavier to fight lightheavies,and not be penalized for it.? Doesn't make sense to torture yourself for nothing.
2- Harry Greb ,past his peak, still trained down to 158-9 ,when he put on a whipping to the great PRIME Mickey Walker, just before Greb's unfortunate
death. So Greb was ,and did fight as a middleweight til the end of his 300
bout career. B, do you honestly think that if Marvin Hagler,fought another
TWO HUNDRED and THIRTY bouts,as Greb did, he would be as successful
after all these weekly bouts against the likes of Harry Greb's bigger and
stronger opponents ? For gosh sakes ,Hagler was winding down in his 65th or so bout with Ray Leonard. Greb on the other hand fought more bouts in TWO years than Hagler did in Marvin's ENTIRE career !!!And against better opposition, for certain.
3-If Hagler ever, BOLDLY took on lightheavies ala, Mathew Saad and company
[wisely he refrained], Hagler would have come in at 165lbs or more, which is closer to his walking around weight, and still be able to defend his 160 pound crown.
4- So B ,Hagler was a great middleweight, whilst Harry Greb ,accomplished ever so more in his truly astounding career, and with only one orb in the last part of Greb's career... Cheers...

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akMXidwyyfg[/ame]

Ali sucks.

 

The funny part is Burt, all these young people nbot from Haglers era think of him as some great puncher. He was not! I saw all those great fights in Philly in the 70s and Hagler was a boxer puncher. Hagler NEVER brought the fans in New England. With Hagler it was an accumulation that ko'd guys. I think Marvin was great but the fact remains that he lost his title to a welterweight that had fought 1 time and poorly at that in 5 years. Whether you think Leo. won or not (and I don't) is irrelevant. The fact is that the fight was super close and shouldn't have been. Hagler was psyched out by both Duran and Leo. and would have been intimidated by punchers like Walker or legends like Greb and Robinson. He was terrified of an old Briscoe (I was in the crowd that night) and ran like a scolded dog when cut. Briscoe in his prime kos Marvin I think. Put Marvin in Philly w/ Briscoe, Hayward, Watts, Monroe, Hart, Griffith, etc. in the early 70's and he is beaten as often as the others. Monroe and Hart DID beat him, and if he fought the others continually, they would maybe too. And remember that Eddie Gregory was fighting middle in Philly then too. Antuofermo took oyt Hart brutally in 5, before Hagler stopped him on his stool in 8 years later. Vito also beat Briscoe first. Hagler was greatbut to me, nowhere near a Monzon or Greb or Walker. I think a prime LaMotta would put sufficating pressure on Marv and w/ his bodypunching and subtle boxing skilld, run him out of the ring. What do you say Burt.

 

Burt, is this kid in 5th or 6st grade?atsch

 

Mor, i agree with you that Marvin Hagler was great, but i truly believe that he was not on the scale of a Greb, Walker, Freddie Steele, Cerdan,LaMotta, certainly not Ray Robinson. Marvin had an advantage over these fighters in the sense he was a southpaw, and with his shaved cranium, projected a
menacing figure. All of the above fighters had almost twice as many bouts
as Hagler ,who in his 67th and last fight against a bulked up welter Ray Leonard,was already on t6he downside. Hagler was great for his time, no doubt, but for example how would he have fared against the likes of a
Freddie Steele, Fred Apostoli, Tony Zale, Solly Kreiger, Billy Conn, Ken Overlin, Teddy Yarosz,Charley Burley,Georgie Abrams, Lloyd Marshall,
a young terror Ezzard Charles[pre Barouidi],Al Hostak, Marcel Thil,etc of the talent rich 1930-40s era ? As I posted before, with all due respect to Vito Antefuermo, Vito would be cannon fodder to this group above, and yet Hagler had his hands full with the brave, but limitted Vito.
So yes M, Hagler was a great middleweight, but if he tackled a Harry Greb,or the Mickey Walker of the Tommy Milligan ko in London, Hagler wouldn't be as "marvelous". Cheers M....

 

Fair dos, but at least he doesn't fight like a ******ed octopus having a seizure.

 

I think he is the second best Middle ever, just behind Greb! Robinson was the best Welter, but he was as effective as a Middle.

1 Greb
2 Hagler
3 Robinson
4 Monzon

 

that's a pretty good description of him

 

I remember people saying this in the early part of his reign, that he was good but....and then start comparing him to Holly Mimms, etc

Then you bring up the Leonard fight at the end of his career like he's in the prime of his career!

But all the guys you mentioned Briscoe, Hart, Lamotta etc, how many losses do they have?

Robinson lost his title on the first defense-to Turpin!

Hagler wasnt running from Briscoe b/c he was terrified of him. His corner just told him to box and stay away to protect the cut. It was an easy fight for him so why take chances?

Briscoe was just a plodder, no footwork, no versatility

 

Burt thanks for the first hand accounts of fighters from the past!

 

Have you ever tried to fight a ******ed octopus having a seizure? It's tough.

 

Many, many times. I have scars to prove it. It's an initiation into manhood for the people of my clan.

 

my mom is a ******ed octopus and i find this conversation insulting

 

WOW!Where the **** did you get that?

 

Yeah, that film proves that he is overrated -either that or he had blind luck (make that half-blind luck).

And what of those 12 world champions and 13 Hall of Famers he beat? They're just tomato cans who fooled everyone.