Tommy Burns vs. Marvin Hagler

Hagler comfortably made middleweight adding 8lbs to him will do jack **** except maybe slow him down a tad.

 

The point is that he might or he might not.

We certainly can't assume that he would have done, but we know that Burns did.

Haglers reluctance to step up to light heavyweight in his own era, leads me to suspect that he probably would not have challenged Marvin Hart for the heavyweight title.

 

Burns vs Braxton would be an interesting fight.

 

Lol.

 

The level of delusion here both baffles and humors me.

 

Burns is going to win this for sure.

 

Oh yeah Hagler would slaughter him... if he was allowed to fight Burns with meat-axes

 

An ESB Classic all time statement!!!!...and Hagler punches Burns silly and bloody.

 

Burns would be fodder today at heavyweight ( and would be by some predecessors, and most successors ) , but he's being matched vs. a middleweight. A great middle weight.

Hagler and his fans might not like this, but he was a poor tactician and gave smaller guys in Leonard and Duran way too much respect while shutting down the chance to move up to 175 pounds, which is pretty much where Burns was at his best weight. Hagler almost looked scared vs Mugabi too.

I think Burns hit a little harder, Hagler had more skill. Both men took a good punch. But where Burns gains separation is his heart/mental toughness. If you watch a Burns vs someone else besides Johnson ( who was way too big for him ) he'll surprise you with his skills and tenacity.

I see a split decision here, or even a draw. I'd favor Burns by a very small margin.

 

I agree with you 75% of the time, but sometimes degrade a man in the time when he fought without film study, and that's just wrong. Rate the man, not the timeline he fought in or the shoddy film he can be seen on.

Burns actually had some defense and countering ability. He bounces around well, had good hand speed and for his size can hit. While I think he's overmatch vs. nearly every way champion after him, except for say Braddock, he's a decent enough 175-pound boxer, fighting a man at 160.

Spend 3 minutes and you can judge for yourself.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUDIXdef9rU[/url]

 

Burns was a hell of a fighter .. he had speed, strength, stamina and power on Hagler and had at least the same chin .. as far as as a heavyweight , of course he was too small but I can see him having beaten Corbett, been competitive with any of the inconsistent group post Tunney - pre Louis and taken Ingo ..

 

Burns was game to the core and feared no one. Despite my attempts at humor, I have a lot of respect for the guy. But he was exceedingly one dimensional. He had a couple nice tricks and a ton of bad habits. And he was at best a supermiddle in size. Hagler boxes him, tames him and wins going away.

 

Hagler would put an ass kicking on Burns. Burns never beat anyone at middleweight or super middleweight for that matter.

This is an example of confusion where some people think that the old timers are immediately better. They fought under far more brutal conditions such as starvation but that doesn't make them better fighters.

 

Hagler was robbed against Antuofermo.

This quote is how you know that Hagler was an ATG fighter. When people use his wins against him

"Oh he beat Duran so he sucks" or "It took him 3 rounds to knock Hearns out"

 

I do appreciate the humor.

One dimensional is not fair either. For his size, he hit hard. He was only stopped once ( Johnson ) in a long career so this proves he can take a punch from pretty much anyone at 160 pounds.

Burns moved in and out well and had a good right hand. His hand speed was decent. Also, he was very game. Hardly one-dimensional. He had several assets.

At 175, he's very decent, and if he's fighting a guy 160 he has an edge, even with those hips!