Obel in his prime is definitely an oft-forgotten\underestimated fighter, though he's one of the rare Hagler challengers that didn't deserve a shot the first time he got one.Good old Venezuelan WBA stuff there. Some strong tools and real physical presence, a more naturally talented fighter than recent champs like Pavlik and Taylor but he didn't fight enough contenders to get a good measure of him.The glass chin Park always had that glaring weakness against big punchers, not that beating him was an easy feat mind you.
this thread has made me realize that modern middleweights dont have very deep records eg monzon, hagler, hopkins, jones compared to guys from the earlier eras lot of spinning and storyline crafting being done in here
yeah a whole lot of storyline crafting in those mostly one or two line posts and quick lists of names. Bunch of ****ing politicians in here.
As unaccustomed as I am to defending Hagler I find these truths to be self evident that Hagler, heretofore referred to as the Marvelous One, or simply Marvelous, had several most excellent wins among them Monroe, Watts, Minter, Obeljimas, Sibson, Duran, Hearns, and Mugabi. To guard against the danger of factions the list shall be trimmed according to the separation of boxers: Hearns, Duran, Obel, Monroe, Mugabi. This bill of goods is not perfect, or perhaps even correct, but in order to make it more perfect we turn it to the house. Political enough?
how do you think things would go if charley burley had fought hagler's opponents and hagler had fought burley's
Burley would most probably be champ' in Hagler's era (assuming Marv' has been sent back in time and isn't there) Marv' would struggle for opportunities in Burley's era.
I have no footage of The Ol' Mongoose at 160. I'll take the more reliable durable package to grind out a win here, Hagler on points. Charles and Hagler would be a great battle of jabs. Charles was bigger, and can come through to win a hard-fought points decision. Wouldn't argue either way.