Actually he was. Mugabi never beat anyone of note at MW. Trinidad destroyed Joppy (a good champion, who also accomplished more at MW than Mugabi ever did) for a MW belt. Get your facts straight. Again, if you see Hopkins - Johnson and Hopkins-Trinidad or Hopkins-De La Hoya to compare, you would see the difference quite easily. So you are now saying he wasn't shot, just a bit past his prime, but not good enough to adapt, like Hopkins has, yet an equally past his prime Leonard, who relied more so on his speed and reflexes than Hagler ever did, was still able to employ those attributes and beat Hagler. That doesn't make sense at all. Your whole argument holds no weight.
Can you actually watch someone fight and analyze their skills? We're talking in terms of who was a more difficult opponent, not who accomplished more on paper(as Hagler ruined Mugabi). True, in terms of what style he implied, the difference was apparent, but not in terms of how effective he was as a fighter. The Hopkins who fought Trinidad was one of the most effective versions(especially against that type of fighter) of Hopkins, even if he wasn't as versatile offensively as the version that fought Johnson. With Hagler, there is simply no comparison of the version that fought Leonard to the younger version. What does this whole point have to do with anyway? No, way past prime, but not shot, as he was still a very effective fighter, just nowhere near as good as he once was. That's exactly what I was just about to write in response to that pile of rubbish written above. In English this time, please.
Resumes don't fight Trinidad doesn't have the stylistic edge in a fight at middleweight with the Mugabi that lost to Hagler.
First off thats a highlight reel. Post an actual fight, which is MUCH more conclusive Secondly, his movement on his feet and even upperbody in that video were decent, but not great. I could put together a video of Miguel Cotto showing some nice foot movement around the ring, and counter punching in spurts. Doesn't mean that he has movement anywhere near the level of Hopkins or Mayweather. Highlight reels are the worst ever for proving a point, its short clips designed to show brilliance.
Here's his entire fight against Tony Sibson. I consider this the best Hagler that ever stepped into the ring. Notice the superb right jab (which is clearly superior to Hopkins' jab), great lateral movement, changing of direction, subtle upper body movement, usage of feints, and counter punching ability. Hagler had a highly underrated defense and it wouldn't be easy for Hopkins to time him over and over with the straight lead right hand. [yt]RIGzQEEbecI[/yt] [yt]toD-fj78q10[/yt]
You know what's funny about that...........I actually believes both of their best weights were 154. I just can't see Tito working enough to get inside to throw them beautiful compact hooks....I don't think it's ANY doubt he could knock Hearns out, I just think Tommy would jab the **** out of Tito while mixing in some very good right hands in the process...
Great point. I didn't think of that, but I agree 100 percent. Tito would have to find a way to effectively get inside Tommy's jab. If he could get in close, he could capitalize on his main vulnerability. But like you said, he would get outjabbed and take some big right hands.
Brooklyn, think about this one: The determined Tito that wouldn't be denied against Vargas (@154) against The Hitman who blasted Roberto Duran:scaredas: (@154)
What a fight! The combined amount of power that the two have is scary! And why not have Duran-Vargas on the undercard
I think what needs to be taken into consideration is the media attention that surrounds boxing these days. Back in the day, the cats just had to prepare themselves to tear another mans head off. Nowadays we're doing 5 week open top bus tours spanning various cities and countries. The media hype is huge, the amount of people working behind the scenes, promoting events, TV advertising, billboards, even internet websites like this one, all play a role I believe. SnR