Roy Jones Jr vs Marvin Hagler @ 160lbs

Let's not forget that Hagler was a bit cautious with Mugabi because at the time Mugabi seemed like a killing machine. Nobody had gone the distance with him. It wasn't until after Hagler beat him that people realized that Mugabi had some flaws. Hagler showed that it could be done. Being the first person to beat someone who seems unbeatable is always harder than being the second or third guy to beat him. Hagler was probably a bit more cautious than he needed to be, but at the time it was reasonable caution.

 

Spinks became a big deal when he moved to HW and won the title in 85, the same year Hagler had basically cemented his legacy beating Hearns, The Middleweight division was the centre of the universe at the time not the HW division which was so average a LHW was champ, not sure why Hagler would be looking for Spinks as Marvin was the P4P man ,not Spinks. From Haglers point of view was the risk worth the reward? He was ready to bail out and was only hanging around for the media darling to come out of retirement.

 

Actually, this is what I said…

Do you think Hagler was prime when he met Mugabi? Because, it seems that you are hinting at this being the case.

Can you provide a source that categorically states that Mugabi was ahead, at any time in his bout against Hagler, and at what stage in the fight this was?

I knew you’d get to this point eventually. I have not stated that I think any such thing and you have again demonstrated, as you have done so repeatedly in the past, how easy it is for you to turn to misrepresenting the position of the posters you debate with.

Whenever I ask you to clarify one of your sweeping statements, you seem to imagine an argument I've made; spin-off another entirely false and opposite sweeping statement, which reflects this imagined position; then attribute the same to me. This happens too often for it to be by accident and is both backhanded and unwelcome, as far as I am concerned. Unless... ...you really are just that inept?

More distraction from the points at hand and another indication that you can’t argue, without the use of misrepresentation, rather than admit that you are wrong.

Do you think Hagler was prime when he met Leonard? Because, it seems that you are hinting at this being the case, as well.

If you have understood the position I have put forward, why have you elected to strawman my argument, rather than acknowledge the points I actually made?

'Facts' like Duane Thomas accidentally thumbed Mugabi, which caused the stoppage? And, as always, you ignore the context of certain facts, e.g. Hagler was not in his prime and had slowed up significantly by the time he faced Mugabi and Leonard.

What 'film' are you referring to?

What 'numbers' are you referring to?

Whilst I think your apparently careless behavior on this forum is deliberate, on your part, I’m also quite sure that you do not understand the difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’.

Really? I've noticed that you frequently offer up platitudinal compliments to the great boxers that you either have just crapped on or are just about to crap on. You should spare the flattery, because it’s patently obvious you have no respect for them; particularly, through your casual treatment of the evidence.

If you were at all objective, you would interpret the evidence fairly. You don’t, as you have demonstrated here and I have explained for you.

This real issue here is that what could be a reasonable debate gets ruined by you acting like an insidious little twerp and giving the impression that you are as stupid as the day is long.

 

You get it. Machine _Man is full of excuses...

 

Machine_Man questions on Hagler.

1 ) If you think Hagler was past his prime by 30, list the tough fights he was in. It's not a hard request.

2 ) Are you saying Hagler wasn't a slow starter or at times gave his opponents too much respect at times? Yes or No.

3 ) Do you think Mugabi took a good punch or not? He was stopped quite a bit, 3 times very early.

4 ) Just so I see where you are coming from, do you think Hagler beat Leonard, and if the answer is yes, do you have a scorecard of rounds to provide?

Instead of going in circles, just answer the above questions, then we chat around defined parameters, and please stop with the excuses.

 

Your questions are another irrelevant diversion, but you could probably have a stab at answering them yourself. They’d likely be easier for you to answer than the questions I’ve already asked you (but you’ve dodged), because you can make up your own pretend facts, without challenge - so give it a go.


By the way, Hagler beats Jones Jr, by late TKO.

 

Thats what I call a quadruple duck.

Easy questions to answer. You'd make a fine punter.

I sense you know i’m right and you only move is not to play!

 

You can call it what you like. As I’ve alluded, you’re better off answering them yourself (as you’d quite likely end up doing, anyway).

You’d make a fine Dodgeball Player.

I’d say that your sense is about as defective as your integrity, with the deficiency in the latter having run this discussion into the ground.

 

It would have been very difficult for him to have done so with Roy's unorthadox style and athleticism.

 

Marvin didn't have the frame of a guy like Roy.

I couldn't even imagine Marvin at LHW.

He often used to weigh-in at around 157 pounds in the days of same day weigh-ins.

There's JMW's today that would have been heavier than Marvin was on fight night.

He was a natural MW.

The jump was just too big.

There was no SMW division back then.

According to Mackie Shilstone, Spinks was a natural 190-200 pound guy who had to train down to make 175. He was just too big for Marvin.

 

Says the guy who dodged questions by calling them irrelevant.

If you had intergrity you could at the very least answer my questions.

By switching to insults, your character is in question, not mine. I treated you failrly.

One last chance to reply back to the questions on Hagler.

 

I've pointed out, with justification, how crooked your approach to this debate has been and what it helps to make you appear to be. And, it's not the first time you have taken such a transparently troll-like approach to discussion, which is invariably laced with bias, often lacks logic and resorts to lying about the position, of the poster you're debating with, has taken.

You purposely ignore facts presented to you, as well as ignore the context of the 'facts' you put forward as 'proof' and you strawman the arguments of others. Again, I have now experienced you do this on several occasions and can now only conclude that it's no accident. This is you and it's what you do.

These are not insults. They are verifiable aspects of your behavior and my opinions of that are valid. If you find them insulting then change your approach to debating with me (or debating in general).

I am neither your research assistant nor someone to whom your ultimatums will ever carry any weight. I was quite serious, when I suggested that you answer your questions yourself. After all, you consider yourself a 20-years time-served boxing 'Researcher' so go do some research.

To me, you come across as a pig ignorant liar, whose ugly conduct is steeped in your own agenda. I am not sure if you are actually capable of conducting yourself honestly, because you have regularly given me cause to believe otherwise.


As for my own integrity, it is more at risk by continuing to entertain your self-indulgent puerility, from which you obviously take much glee. And, in case you haven't realized it yet, your "One last chance" applies to you; not me.

 

Crooked? You can't even engage in a debate and answer easy questions before going ad hominem with personal attacks! Is that how you conduct yourself in life or is it only here when you're completely outflanked, gunned, and lack the foundation to formulate a proper reply to the debate?

A debate is two ways, you seek to opt out and insult. The weakest form of debate is to insult and duck questions by the way.

It's pretty transparent. This " I am not your researcher " is just a pitiful run for cover when the conversation bothers you.

You " think " your above people here, saying their questions are invalid, and you're lamely attempting to claim the higher ground while being the first to cast stones.

If one last chance doesn't apply to you, then why do you feel the need to keep replying back ??? I bet you can't answer that one either. I suggest you skip my posts with boxing content, facts, and film as you simply can not keep it civil.

 

This, I can live with.

Good day.

 

Fair enough.