Tommy Burns vs. Marvin Hagler

Utter ****.

Burns was a soft, pear-shaped 170. Hagler was a shredded beast at 160 and was easily pushing 170 on fight night. Hagler was 3 inches taller and an inch longer in reach and had the full arsenal of punches backed by real ferocity. Not only does Hagler destroy Burns, but Duran and Hearns both beat his ass , too. Carl Froch would beat his ass. The division was horrible post Jeffries and Jeffries was no great shakes either. Like I said , heavyweight boxing was invented by Jack Johnson and Joe Louis.

 

I just did. Burns 5-7, Hagler 5-9 1/2. Burns 74", Hagler 75". Burns 42" hips.

Like I said, shitty era. It doesn't take Einstein to win a game of Tiddly Winks.

Firstly, some did say it. Secondly, many were afraid or unwilling to say it. Physicality on a scale not seen since John L but combined with more comprehensive skills.

 

No need to. I already said it.

What "heavyweight" did Burns beat who would be remotely world class in Hagler's era? And if you say Hart, you disqualify yourself from further comment.

Game. Set. Match.

 

So that we can memorialize your ignorance:

1. You rank based on body bone structure. So Larry Holmes must have been average fighter to you .

2. Boxing hadn't been invented in 1906 ? So Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries, Langford, Johnson, Gans, Blackburn, Walcott and a hundred other men knew nothing about the port ?

My response is you know nothing about the sport. There is nothing wrong with picking one guy over another but when such nonsense is vomited out it's good to make sure the spewer is on the record.

 

Correct on all points. Just heard about the sport this morning. Seems like a grand game.

Since we've lustily concluded I know ****-all regarding this fistic-stuff, take a tape of Burns (what lil' there is of it) to your local yeoman heavyweight and ask his thoughts.

 

This thread is better than I taught it would be.

 

Interesting matchup to say the least but I'll go with Hagler here. The little footage I've seen of Burns leads me to believe Hagler would outbox him to a decision. Burns was a tough SOB but appears to be lacking in boxing ability...at least compared to Hagler's. No snapping jab or fast combinations. Burns appears to stalk his opponents with hands low looking to land a big shot without setting it up first. And while we're on the subject, Tommy's wins against HW fighters is somewhat noteworthy but lets be honest...how good were those HW's? Drop Burns in the 70's, 80's and 90's and he'd be destroyed if he ever took on the likes of an Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield or Tyson. Johnson at 190lbs toyed with him. Foreman at 220lbs would've put him in the hospital....and I'm what some posters would term a "nuthugger" for the oldtimers but even a "nhugger" like me can be realistic. Hagler by decision based on his skill, speed and concrete chin

 

Honest and erudite.

 

Hagler is listed as 5'9", I doubt he is anything over 5' 8" Marvin did not put weight on after weigh -ins its pretty well documented.

 

This also applies to Hagler does it not?
Burns did actually face heavyweights and ko them Hagler never did.Hagler never even went near the lhvys of his time.

 

You seem fixated on Burns hips,whenever his name comes up you remark on them,does anything else "come up " when you talk about those hips?:think