Primes: Hagler versus Pavlik?

Oh yeah, in that round that was scored 10-9 for Hagler.

 

atsch

 

Nah, he has a right to his opinions. They're weird, but there's nothing innately offensive about them.

 

Now that's the best reply yet, instead of saying Hagler kill anyone/everyone..YOU make sense.:good

 

What a bunch of ****ing tools ! So now its insane to think HAGLER would have a hard time with a current champ !atsch Un****ing beleivable ! And for the record HAGLER did struggle with fighters that wernt as good as PAVLIK !:deal

 

No.

Yeah, and Pavlik almost got knocked out by a fighter who wasn't as good as Hagler. Just because a fighter has trouble once in a while does not mean that Pavlik could beat him...especially since Hagler feasted on guys like Pavlik.

 

atsch Neither MUGABI or HEARNS were better punchers then PAV and neither were even close to being as durable ! And your trying to claim that having a size and reach advantage over HAGLER when your other skills are quite competent isnt an advantage ! :rasta

 

But I never claimed PAVLIK would beat him ! I clearly said its a hard fight to call and HAGLER also posed a considerable number of advantages over PAV ! Why in hell do you guys always have to claim I said soemthing I didnt ? atsch Its a hard fight to call based on the styles ! :deal PS the fighter that almost koed PAV is a better puncher and a bigger guy then MARV ! And for the record ALI almost got koed by FRAZIER and COOPER ! neither FORMEN or LISTON could even stun him however ! Styles ?

 

Mugabi was at least as durable as Pavlik.

...And Hearns was definitely a better puncher. No question, really. He was more accurate and produced many more knockouts against contenders. He continued to consistently score knockouts all the way up to cruiserweight.

Umm....no. I said he never had trouble with fighters like that. And he didn't.

You were the one who said Hagler had trouble with tall, two-fisted punchers with good jabs. You never said which fighters they were. Who are they?

 

It's starting to get amusing now

 

It's not a hard fight to call. On one hand, you have a fighter who beat a wide range of opposition over a long period of time, displaying great skills in the process. One of his opponents fought like an improved version of Pavlik, and Marvin destroyed him. On the other, you have a fighter who's beaten a grand total of two ranked fighters, and nearly got knocked out by one of them.

Pavlik doesn't have the power to hurt Marvin (who faced a variety of huge punchers and was never hurt). He doesn't have the technical skill to box with Marvin, or the chin to take Marvin's best punches. And Marvin beat all of the fighters who were similar to Pavlik rather easily. How does Pavlik win?

Jermain Taylor is not a harder puncher than Hagler.

 

Because he's taller :rofl

 

Hearns, by contrast, was very short for his height.




Interestingly...

Klitschko beats everyone because he has skill, despite his lack of a chin.

Pavlik beats everyone because he has a chin, despite his lack of skill.


It's very lucky for both of them that they don't have their physical attributes reversed.

 

So now MARVIn fought a bunch of 6-2 power punchers who had prety good BEARDS ? And for the record LISTON beat plenty of fighters over a long carreer before he fought a novice called ALI who had been dropped by a much lesser puncher then LISTON and so on and so forth ! Your argument is so weak you resort to making false claims on my behalf ! Its pathetic !:hi: The larger powerful fighter would be a handful for MARVIN win or lose and it would be a hard fight to pick ! :bbb

 

Again I never claimed either ! And again its pathetic for you to resort to this bull**** to win your weak argument !:hi: