Roy Jones Jr. versus Marvin Hagler

Yea, I see what you are saying.

 

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. No middleweight in history beats prime Hagler comfortably. Too dismissive of a remarkable fighter.

 

No matter how fast you are, you're always gonna get tagged and Jones got hit too. Hopkins landed his best right hand several times and nothing happened. Toney, dito. Sosa, lightheavyweights, etc.

Lightheavyweights who were around 185lbs come fight night, by the way. Jones stood up to the firepower of a lot of fighters who would've been classical heavyweights. It is only after the muscle-weight loss at age 35 (when Hagler was 3 years in retirement) when his body deteriorated badly.
Byrd was knocked out by a non-hitting lightheavyweight journeyman. Does that mean he had a glass chin when he took punches from both Klitschko's, Ibeabuchi, Golota and Tua? Dehydrating to go down in weight class when in your late 30's is suicide and durability suffers badly.

If he had such a glass chin at middle than why was he never even wobbled? Nor at SMW? Why only down once against 185lbs'er in over 10 fights against the best in the world? Why did he even take punches from a legitimate 230lbs heavyweight?? Do you seriously believe Heans would've taken those and stood upright?

As much as a i like Hearns, his durability was weak at middleweight. To say that Jones' chin is not better is pretty deluded.




If you want to say "Jones has a glass chin", then you're only looking at what happened when he was 35 years old. It's like saying "Well, Ray Leonard was a welterweight who has been retired and had no fight for 3 years except for one where he looked horrible against a journeyman when he fought Hagler, and despite not being able to hurt him, he outboxed him and humiliated him. Hagler showed very poor tactics just like he did against Duran."

Just like no fighter in history would beat an undefeated Hopkins comfortably or an undefeated Toney easily?

 

I always liked Hagler pre 1980, but looking back I have changed my opinion.

Hagler, pre 80, finds a way to lose to Jones; Hagler, 80 to 83 finds a way to win.

But whether you agree with me or not, I think you got to agree Roy Jones Junior does better than Senior did against the Marvelous One!

 

You're comparing apples with oranges: Hopkins wasn't at his peak when he fought Jones (I think peak Hops finds a way to beat Jones); Toney is not in the same bracket of greatness or ability as Hagler.

 

I'm in your boat, tho obviously Hagler would be dangerous all the way to the end. Jones incredible speed and reflex would limit the damage he took and he certainly wouldn't be taking accumulation type wear. As you hint, his chin seemed quite respectable at 160 and he hit like a ton of bricks himself. I could see a 9-6 or 8-4 type decision with the possibility Jones slashing punches and Hagler's scar tissue could well open the possibility of a fight ending cut.

 

I'm not saying that Jones never took any punches at all at middleweight, just nothing like the punches Hearns recieved from Hagler and Barkley. I was talking about Jones' chin at middleweight. His fights with Jones and Sosa were at 168 and 175. And none of those guys hit Jones where you would have said to yourself "woooow he took that well" Obviously all fighters take punches to a certain extent, no matter how good ones defense is throughout a fight.

Who said he had a glass chin?, certainly not me. It's impossible for his chin to be graded with Hearns' considering it was hardly tested at the weight. When the comparison was done, I stuck to the criteria of punch resistance at middleweight. You did state what Jones had over Hearns for a fight against Hagler at 160.

Jones' chin passed the test when he was hit, but as I said, it wasn't tested the same way in which Hearns' was at 160. The stats don't lie, Jones was never down or badly hurt at 160, Hearns on the other hand showed vulnerability with his punch resistance. I'm not disputing that.

Jones' speed, ring generalship, and athleticism were primarily the reasons why he managed to avoid the canvas at 160. And obviously his chin held up when he needed it, eg; the Hopkins fight. But IMO, his chin was somewhat untested at the weight compared to Hearns'.

 

Jones wasnt at his peak either and he was injured. What does peak have to do with power? You missed his point entirely.

 

I dont know if the craftier and more careful Hopkins who shifted his style to deal with his ageing physical state would fair any better then the athletic and more aggressive version that Jones met.

Nard won rounds just by throwing punches in that fight, especially late if my memory serves me...He he tried to battle Roy at range he was convincingly beaten by a guy only really using one hand.

 

Chris. How would you see Jones' chin holding up against Hagler if he recieved a significant amount of blows for it to be tested in a similar manner to the way Hearns' was?

IMO, it's a tough one to guage and come to a conclusion on.

 

Roy's chin was not really as proven IMO simply because he didnt get hit back then...Especially not by any of the punchers he faced.

 

Now that's good. I'm thieving it.

I noticed that you seemed to be qualifying your argument, however, my mentioning your name particularly was also a lure. It was also a nod to the strength of your argument. I believe that sound argument is usually sound precisely because it stands on principles without being rigid.

Yes, and I'd agree. Speed kills, but more often when that cheetah is targetting the oldest or the youngest or the crippled of the prey. Prime Hagler may be the lion to Roy's cheetah.

Jones is right up there with Ali in terms of atheticism... the timing, the coordination, then you gotta add the thunder and the lightening... I'd favor Jones over 12 against 1987 Hagler. But 1980 Hagler? In wars between athletes and technicians in the ring, the technician usually wins. Now some may dispute this, but that is only because they are looking at supreme technicians...

The truth looks wider.

Hagler's technically grounded aggression would be the difference here.

John Thomas has been the most eloquent on ESB about the faults of Marvin and Goody and Pat in terms of adaptation. I tend to believe that prime Hagler was a different beast and although he had a couple of burps, he was enormously difficult to beat. Vito Antuofermo's strategy was okay, and Duran's was quite good. Leonard's was also sound (based largely as it was on Duran's strategy), although Hagler was little more than half-a-Hagler by then.

Would Hagler stand off of Roy like he did Vito or Duran? I say that he wouldn't. He'd look at Roy as an upstart and treat him as a trespasser. Would Roy fight Hagler in close? Hell no. Roy was no in-fighter. Too risky for his mentality. Roy would potshot from outside and try to counter him and stay away like Ray. But that wouldn't have worked so well against prime Hagler. It would against late Hagler.

I think that you may be seeing too much of Ray in Roy and that isn't tenable. Ray had more than Roy because Ray's athleticism was grounded in fundamentals and bolstered by a warrior's heart. Roy had one of those 3 assets.

And I also can't agree with the Leonard gameplan statements for this simple reason: Ray was and Roy was not a strategist. Roy did not adapt against Griffin in I. He got frustrated and couldn't understand how or why he was getting hit. He didn't adapt against Tarver in II or III. Some will want to chime in and say "age" or "weight issues". I say that it reflected that Roy was not a strategist.

Ray's plan was painstakingly detailed. Angelo and he worked for months on probing for weakness and capitalizing on mistakes. Ray had an excellent command on the fundamentals. Roy didn't. He never bothered because he, like everyone else, was infatuated with what God gave him. He didn't invest in the foundation that Ray did, and Hagler did. And that's a major difference.

Did you here Hopkins on Friday Nights last week? I think he's been reading posts out here. He said in effect that the reason why he is able to compete at his age and Roy isn't is because he had a strong foundation in fundamentals and Roy did not. Athleticism fades and that is when we see who had the firmer foundation...

Roy will fight Hagler as he fought everyone.

Hell, I'd say both. The first half will see Roy twisting in and twisting out of range, landing shots. Hagler may time him once to often and Roy will become less willing to take risks. Hagler is underrated in offense. He timed guys very well and would enhance the effect of his shots by landing on an incoming chin. And remember that Hagler was complex. He's smoothly change stances in the middle of combinations and if Duran couldn't read him, Roy won't either. I see Roy in corners getting pounded every time before he spins out. But then the hunt will resume.

You've seen what I've seen but few others appreciate. Hagler had good timing, distance negotiation, that enhanced his jab. I dont see these mattering for at least 4 rounds if not more. Roy would impress everyone while Hagler is taking measurements and finding his timing. I honestly think there is a possibility that Hagler will not be able to "get there" in these terms. Roy's speed and rythym will be a problem because he varied it. He's hard to read himself although for different reasons. Not having a strong foundation may work for him here to an extent because he relied on reflexes and instincts... and was not bound by rules and expectations.

I see Hagler realizing that he's got to make a fight of it, rely on sound technique, but he'd have to disrupt Roy's rythym which Roy will establish by the 4th or 5th. To do that, Hagler will take risks and start banging him and pinning him. Or Hagler may just jump on like he did another guy who he knew would outbox him but who was also vulnerable ... Hearns.

No. Hagler will do what he must to establish his domination. A 28 year old Hagler was far more established and experienced than a 24 year old Jones. Jones will not be respected by Hagler, in my opinion.

I see Roy being Roy. Roy will be mobile, and try to keep Hagler turning, counter him, beat him to the punch and avoid corners and close fighting. If Hagler attempts to just box him -even a prime Hagler will lose.

Yes, but I'd qualify it. If Hagler is aggressive he will win and probably stop Roy late. Even aggressive, Hagler was still pretty much technically sound. He was no Nigel Benn in there. I watch Hagler-Hearns and Benn-McClellan and I see one technically sound brawl and one technically careless brawl.

Yes, but only if he brings it. Again, if Hagler fights Roy the way he did Vito, he won't beat Roy. If Hagler fights Roy the way he did Minter, Seales III, Monroe II, Hearns, etc, then he will.

No. Monzon will always be. Greb's style is another potential foil. Robinson would be exceedingly difficult. Had Hearns boxed more and brawled less, that would have been more difficult than Roy too, in my opinion.

 

It's boxing so anything can happen, but i'd be pretty confident in Jones' chin holding up, as it always did at that age and at any weight before he went down and lost 20lbs of muscle at age 35.


At any rate, whether he can or not, we both know Jones is a smart fighter who during his prime has never been forced a fight he didn't want to fight; he always was the ring general because his hand- and footspeed gave him control. He won't exchange with Hagler the way Hearns did. If for whatever reason he does fight, then Hagler's chances increase exponentially; but it won't happen.

Well he not only took those punches at 160, but also at 168 and 175 (with day-before weigh-ins).

Can you imagine Leonard having Jones out on his feet?

Toney is not in the same bracket as Hagler, but at the same time, he didn't even win a single round.

Plus, Jones wasn't at his own peak against Hopkins, and his right wasn't 100%.

 

Agreed with everything here. Jones aint going to have a war with Hagler, he'd fight in a manner which would present the polar opposite. Thought I'd just throw in if he was to take a signficant amount of blows like Hearns, would his chin hold up? Thats where I'm just unsure myself. Logic says he doesn't take bunches of punches early like Hearns did, although down the stretch it's a distinct possibility. Jones would always try to avoid exhchanging with Hagler for lengthy spans where he puts himself into risky territory.

 

Jones is ALL wrong for Toney's counterpunching style, so let's put that one aside (it was also at supermiddle by the way). I realize Jones wasn't at his peak for Hopkins (as Hopkins wasn't either). Jones didn't hit his peak at middleweight (remember, this matchup is at 160 - Hagler's ideal weight, not necessarily Jones' ideal weight). Peak Hops and peak Hagler both have the versatility to deal with Jones.