HBO Legendary Nights: "Sugar" Ray Leonard vs. "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler

[Yuzo]

if you cant speak on this im going to assume its because you cant. you cant even speak on haglers career to have on a opinion on hagler to begin with let alone to try to tell me what im supposed to think

 

[TheProfessor]

if you cant speak on this im going to assume its because you cant. you cant even speak on haglers career to have on a opinion on hagler to begin with let alone to try to tell me what im supposed to think

I can speak on Hagler's career quite fine. He was a beautiful boxer-puncher, solid footwork, solid power, excellent chin, able to dig in the trenches and also very astute as a ring general. Not sure what's overrated about that. I think it speaks more to the greatness of Leonard than it does Hagler being overrated or anything of the sort. Yes, styles make fights and Duran gave him trouble but I think Hagler gave him (and Ray) a little too much respect. Point still stands.

 

[Jello Biafra]

if you cant speak on this im going to assume its because you cant. you cant even speak on haglers career to have on a opinion on hagler to begin with let alone to try to tell me what im supposed to think

I think that everything you wrote was nonsense.

Your opinion that Hagler and Hopkins are overrated is nonsense.

The idea that "hero worship" clouds the way people look at Hagler and Hopkins is nonsense.

Claiming that people hold Duran in high regard because he "looks white" is nonsense.

I don't give two fukks what ass backwards opinions you hold at least not enough to enter into a serious debate with you about them because nothing you would contribute to said debate would matter because your overall thesis on this matter is just absolute nonsense and a true debate on the subject would be impossible to have with you.

 

[Yuzo]

I can speak on Hagler's career quite fine. He was a beautiful boxer-puncher, solid footwork, solid power, excellent chin, able to dig in the trenches and also very astute as a ring general. Not sure what's overrated about that. I think it speaks more to the greatness of Leonard than it does Hagler being overrated or anything of the sort. Yes, styles make fights and Duran gave him trouble but I think Hagler gave him (and Ray) a little too much respect. Point still stands.

i like hagler and i can say that hes overrated. nobody wants to say it its one of the things in boxing you just dont say. look at his career before the big win against hearns and who he fought. he fought some tough middleweights and some underrated mddleweights but that was a campaign a lot of middlweights would have dominated the best middleweight he fought before he got the big win against hearns was bennie briscoe. take no bones from briscoe but there are middleweights who had to fight way better fighters at 160. people credit hagler for the 10 year title reign, like they credit hopkins for the 20 defenses, for the same reason. it sounds good. if you want to talk about reigns carlos monzon had more defenses and went undefeated for something like 84 fights the only thing is monzon was a boring fighter and fought all his fights in europe and argentina and not a star in america. hopkins especially had the weakest reign ever of the big four middleweight champions who controlled the middleweight crown for a half century which were ray robinson, carlos monzon, marvin harlger, bernard hopkins in that order. hopkins best win at middleweight was trinidad or de la hoya these are two fighters who would get put in the dirt by someone like gerald mcclellan or rubin carter. name hopkins best win before he got to trinidad you will see similarities with hagler before he got to hearns. at least hagler beat bennie briscoe though.

if you want to talk about p4p then i will give you that hagler was a very good fighter. but i think he would have problems with a lot of the other big middleweights through the history of the division hagler was only 5'9 and was really a boxer puncher not a brawler like he gets remembered as being because of the hearns fight. i think he would have issues with better boxers that have more reach and more height. i think fighters like james toney and roy jones jr would give hagler all kinds of problems. youre not supposed to say that in boxing though.

 

[SuikodenII]

i like hagler and i can say that hes overrated. nobody wants to say it its one of the things in boxing you just dont say. look at his career before the big win against hearns and who he fought. he fought some tough middleweights and some underrated mddleweights but that was a campaign a lot of middlweights would have dominated the best middleweight he fought before he got the big win against hearns was bennie briscoe. take no bones from briscoe but there are middleweights who had to fight way better fighters at 160. people credit hagler for the 10 year title reign, like they credit hopkins for the 20 defenses, for the same reason. it sounds good. if you want to talk about reigns carlos monzon had more defenses and went undefeated for something like 84 fights the only thing is monzon was a boring fighter and fought all his fights in europe and argentina and not a star in america. hopkins especially had the weakest reign ever of the big four middleweight champions who controlled the middleweight crown for a half century which were ray robinson, carlos monzon, marvin harlger, bernard hopkins in that order. hopkins best win at middleweight was trinidad or de la hoya these are two fighters who would get put in the dirt by someone like gerald mcclellan or rubin carter. name hopkins best win before he got to trinidad you will see similarities with hagler before he got to hearns. at least hagler beat bennie briscoe though.

if you want to talk about p4p then i will give you that hagler was a very good fighter. but i think he would have problems with a lot of the other big middleweights through the history of the division hagler was only 5'9 and was really a boxer puncher not a brawler like he gets remembered as being because of the hearns fight. i think he would have issues with better boxers that have more reach and more height. i think fighters like james toney and roy jones jr would give hagler all kinds of problems. youre not supposed to say that in boxing though.

Hagler's best win before Hearns............was Bennie Briscoe?

Roy at middleweight was superman, Toney was really good, could compete in any era.....most people tend to put older boxers over the newer ones due to the 15 round fights that we just don't know if newer fighters could compete in. We assume who we think could or couldn't, but that's all we can do, that's why I don't even like comparing the two

 

[SuikodenII]

I think that everything you wrote was nonsense.

Your opinion that Hagler and Hopkins are overrated is nonsense.

The idea that "hero worship" clouds the way people look at Hagler and Hopkins is nonsense.

Claiming that people hold Duran in high regard because he "looks white" is nonsense.

I don't give two fukks what ass backwards opinions you hold at least not enough to enter into a serious debate with you about them because nothing you would contribute to said debate would matter because your overall thesis on this matter is just absolute nonsense and a true debate on the subject would be impossible to have with you.

He's not saying they're bad, just not ATG p4p or even at middleweight due to their level of competition, same criticism Tyson gets. He's not bashing the guys...


though the Duran looking white comment got me like

 

[King P]

You call that White?

 

[Yuzo]

Hagler's best win before Hearns............was Bennie Briscoe?

Roy at middleweight was superman, Toney was really good, could compete in any era.....most people tend to put older boxers over the newer ones due to the 15 round fights that we just don't know if newer fighters could compete in. We assume who we think could or couldn't, but that's all we can do, that's why I don't even like comparing the two

bennie briscoe might be the most underrated never famous fighter ever he fought a lot of great fighters he had a lot of losses but he fought everybody and he gave everyone hell. carlos monzon said in an old sports illustrated that his fight with bennie briscoe was one of the hardest fights he ever fought even though he dominated him. hagler's career and reign was mediocre relative to many of the great middleweights and the middleweights they had to fight. some of the best middleweights that hagler ever fought were guys like alan minter, vito antofuermo, and mustafa hamsho but hagler was stopping a lot of these guys and it looked good. i think if you put a lot of really good middleweights in there with guys like caveman lee and willie the worm and these kinds of guys hagler was fighting they look really good too. that was my issue with hagler. i dont think that saying that should create a controversy. but hagler was a good fighter. now pound for pound and head to head is a different thing i think hagler was a little small for a middleweight he was 5'9 the same height of marcos maidana to put it in some perspective and he was a boxer puncher not the brawler he is thought of because of the hearns fight. i think he beats a lot of guys but i think the kind of fighters like carlos monzon and michael nunn are horrible for hagler. they say he was old but hagler had a lot of difficulty with ray leonard who was not any kind of all time great middleweight. i wouldnt rank hagler as a top 3 middleweight but most rank him number 1 but it cant be because of who he fought because theres guys out there who had to fight much worse. thats why i say people look back with a little hero worship on hagler

duran looking white is something i picked up from someone older than me who i respect about boxing and was around then to know something about duran the latinos loved duran and whites had a fighter they could relate with

 

[TheProfessor]

i like hagler and i can say that hes overrated. nobody wants to say it its one of the things in boxing you just dont say. look at his career before the big win against hearns and who he fought. he fought some tough middleweights and some underrated mddleweights but that was a campaign a lot of middlweights would have dominated the best middleweight he fought before he got the big win against hearns was bennie briscoe. take no bones from briscoe but there are middleweights who had to fight way better fighters at 160. people credit hagler for the 10 year title reign, like they credit hopkins for the 20 defenses, for the same reason. it sounds good. if you want to talk about reigns carlos monzon had more defenses and went undefeated for something like 84 fights the only thing is monzon was a boring fighter and fought all his fights in europe and argentina and not a star in america. hopkins especially had the weakest reign ever of the big four middleweight champions who controlled the middleweight crown for a half century which were ray robinson, carlos monzon, marvin harlger, bernard hopkins in that order. hopkins best win at middleweight was trinidad or de la hoya these are two fighters who would get put in the dirt by someone like gerald mcclellan or rubin carter. name hopkins best win before he got to trinidad you will see similarities with hagler before he got to hearns. at least hagler beat bennie briscoe though.

if you want to talk about p4p then i will give you that hagler was a very good fighter. but i think he would have problems with a lot of the other big middleweights through the history of the division hagler was only 5'9 and was really a boxer puncher not a brawler like he gets remembered as being because of the hearns fight. i think he would have issues with better boxers that have more reach and more height. i think fighters like james toney and roy jones jr would give hagler all kinds of problems. youre not supposed to say that in boxing though.

He's overrated? In terms of middleweight? So who should be rated higher than him.
And I don't understand your second paragraph. I said he was a boxer-puncher.

 

[Majestic Pape]

he fought him at end of his career but ray at 160 was the best man he ever fought at middleweight and ray is no middleweight. hagler might have beat ray here but he had a lot of problems against him stylistically. hagler never fought a true all time great middleweight and middleweights like joey giardello fought and beat much better fighters at 160 like dikk tiger and rubin hurricane carter but nobody ever talks about middleweights like that. hagler would never beat monzon and the problems with the jab and movement and size he had against a middleweight ray leonard tells me that. he also had issues against duran and that was a very close fight. duran is another fighter who doesnt belong at middleweight and would get killed by the top middleweights of history. hagler is a guy who like duran benefits from hindisght and nostalgia because he looked and fought the way you want a fighter to look people liked duran because he looked white and hagler because he was that tough guy hard worker with a trademark the bald head they just looked like they could fight and they got a little hero worship from that. hopkins at 160 is another fighter who gets that hero worship credit hes his own hypeman and everyone just accepts it and gives him credit despite not doing anything substantial at the weight

This is like one bundled statement, and I see plenty of blatant lies in here, but I'm going to focus on one... Did you say Bernard Hopkins did nothing impressive at 160?

 

[Ultimate Warrior]

Haggler gave way too much to Sugar Ray in negotiations... The bigger ring, the 12 ounce gloves, 12 rounds instead of 15...even with all that I still think Marvin won that fight.

***snorts 28seconds***

He didn't even know Ray had JD Brown spying on him, Ray knew what Marvin was gonna do before he was gonna do it,Ray had a close gym, Haggler fukked up not fighting his fight as well,

 

[Yuzo]

He's overrated? In terms of middleweight? So who should be rated higher than him.
And I don't understand your second paragraph. I said he was a boxer-puncher.

i rank on a pound for pound metric because career achievement is just too misleading but the drawback is that this more subjective. if you rank on career achievement you get a top four of ray robinsonn, carlos monzon, marvin hagler, bernard hopkins, in any order. some middleweights i think are better than hagler are ray robinson, roy jones, carlos monzon, joey giardello and some middleweights that had more glory at light heavyweight and heavyweight like archie moore and ezzard charles are also superior to hagler. i rank hagler on a pound for pound metric a little closer to fighters like emille griffith, and rubin hurricane carter very very good fighters but not truly A level.

 

[Yuzo]

Did you say Bernard Hopkins did nothing impressive at 160?

tell me what hopkins best win was

 

[TheProfessor]

i rank on a pound for pound metric because career achievement is just too misleading but the drawback is that this more subjective. if you rank on career achievement you get a top four of ray robinsonn, carlos monzon, marvin hagler, bernard hopkins, in any order. some middleweights i think are better than hagler are ray robinson, roy jones, carlos monzon, joey giardello and some middleweights that had more glory at light heavyweight and heavyweight like archie moore and ezzard charles are also superior to hagler. i rank hagler on a pound for pound metric a little closer to fighters like emille griffith, and rubin hurricane carter very very good fighters but not truly A level.

Without career achievements how can you judge a fighter? Just guesswork? Alrighty then. At least you admit that based on what he accomplished, he's top four. Nothing else needs to be said, really.

 

[Yuzo]

you have to look at career achievement but that cant tell you everything. i'll give you an example mike mccallum was a great fighter and a great middleweight but he did not accomplish the things at middleweight like a fighter of marvin hagler's stature but yet hagler was not fighting fighters as talented or as dangerous as james toney or julian jackson. mike mccallum doesnt have the same accolades and glory as hagler but how would hagler look vs fighters like james toney and julian jackson. you got to go on a pound for pound argument there. i wouldnt be too pressed to argue that hagler was not a very good pound for pound fighter with anybody but its when you start to look at it like this and not on career achievements that you start to see hagler may have had a little hero worship when we rank him all time