From same guy that did the Duran breakdown posted here a while ago
That sucks
martinburke - "This video is not available in your country."
home of the brave, land of the free
that's lame. must use a snippet of someone's music in it
martinburke - "This video is not available in your country."^^
home of the brave, land of the free
:(
Are you a Hagler fan? How highly do you rate him?
You prefer Monzon , right?
100%
There are more people in the world around the size of middleweight than the likes of heavyweight so larger talent pool
martinburke - I like both of them. I think Hagler is over-rated but I think Monzon is, too.
The middleweight division has always been the toughest division: the fighters are big enough to have the punch of the higher divisions and yet small enough to still retain the speed of the lower weight classes.
Throughout it's history, there have been scores of great, skilled fighters. It was hard enough to climb to the top of the division, let alone stay there for very long. The division was always deep and filled with fighters who had the qualities of a champion.
Think of all the great fighters starting with Ketchel. Then you had that great forgotten group just after: Papke, Goorty, Klaus, Gibbons, O'Dowd etc. And then Greb, Flowers and Walker. You'd think there'd be a down period in there somewhere, but then you have that era in the 1930s- early 40s with all those guys who just cannibalized one another: Gorilla Jones, Marcel Thil, Lou Broulliard, Teddy Yarosz, Freddie Steele, Fred Apostoli, Al Hostak, Ceferino Garcia, Ken Overlin, George Abrams... not to mention guys like Holman Williams, Charley Burley, Archie Moore.
It picked right up after WWII - Tony Zale, Graziano, Marcel Cerdan, Jake Lamotta, Bert Lytell, Eddie Booker, Ezzard Charles...just tons of great, great fighters all fighting for ONE belt.
And then you had the Ray Robinson era and all the guys who would take turns with the title: Turpin, Bobo olsen, Fullmer, Basilio, etc.
And what did all these guys have in common? Not one of them could hold on to the title for more than 3 years.
Not a single one.
And then boom-boom, one right after the other, Monzon and Hagler have these long record-setting title reigns. Was it that they were so much better than all those other fighters in history?
Or was it that the talent pool just got shallow as hell? Monzon sure seemed to defend against a lot of guys coming up from welterweight. And Hagler's group of challengers didn't impress me very much; certainly not as much as the guys he had to fight on the way to the belt.
Both of them would have probably snagged a title in another era, but hold it for as long as they did in their own eras?
Not a chance in hell.
well stated. similar to the greatness of hopkins run at middle. he gets too much credit. if roy jones doesn't leave the division he never wins a belt. he finally gets a blet in 94 and deosnt face a decent challeneger until 97. john david jackson who was a career 154 guy on the tail end of his career. he could still fight a little, but he was head and shoulders over hopkins other challengers. he fights glen johnson who was pretty good durable fighter and then literally goes years before he actually fights someone who can fight.
i give bernard props for his being able to still get in there and compete and he is highly skilled. but when he took the title in 94, all the toughest guys were fighting at 168. i can't call him an all time great becuase there were too many guys competing at close to his weight that would have beat him when his reign started
"...I think Hagler is over-rated …".
Disagree completely - MMH fought some machines and tough mf'ers and people consistently neglect his excellent boxing skills in combination with his conditioning & toughness. He fought his way up from the gyms and then the clubs, he dug his way out of the trenches and was probably 5-7 years older than he was claiming to be.
Overcame lots of obstacles to get to the top and stay there; also he only fought 1-2 times a year in the last few years of his career, which undoubtedly helped prolong his reign. Many of the 'old school' MW from bygone eras were tough pugs, but had average/poor boxing skills - they were fit and could take beatings, which made them appear better than they were.
MMH was a complete package.
to add to what marvelous martinburke is saying ablut the skill level of today's fighters. wilder threw a correct left hook in one of the rounds and the announcers were raving. his hook looked good! that's the best i've ever seen it!
i'm like wtf, this guy is in his 32nd pro fight, a former olympic medalist and and he's just now throwing a proper hook? hearns ego got the best of him, if hearns would have boxed like he did in the first leonard fight he would have beat hagler. duran had hagler looking silly a few times, he just didn't have the firepower at middle to really do much but be clever. hagler was a good solid champ, but he fought in a down era. sort of like holmes. good champ, bad era. if hagler comes along in the 90's where there were several full size middles who were kind of slick, does he hold the undisputed belt nearly the whole decade? what if he has to defend against nunn, hopkins, jones, toney, mccallum, benn, mclellan. i could go on, but there was a superior crop of talent in the early to mid 90's fighting at middle than the crop in the 80's. to be honest 80's middles sucked badly.
Having Burke, Pharochuck and Buddie on this forum save me time and enable me to soullessly focus of my job free from forum based distractions by making the very arguments (in a more eloquent fashion) than time permits me to make.
"marvelous martinburke "
lol! That's his new name
and don't get me wrong, i think hagler was a very good fighter. i just dont think if his reign starts in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1990 that he would have been the champ for 7 years. he benefitted from fighting in an era, the 80's, that blew.
why was the 80's so bad? i don't know. i guess if salvador sanchez doesn't die early, if sugar ray leonard doesn't begin his first retirement. if cocaine doesn't wipe out nearly the top 10 at heavy then it would have been something.
"...if hagler comes along in the 90's where there were several full size middles who were kind of slick, does he hold the undisputed belt nearly the whole decade? what if he has to defend against nunn, hopkins, jones, toney, mccallum, benn, mclellan. i could go on, but there was a superior crop of talent in the early to mid 90's fighting at middle than the crop in the 80's. to be honest 80's middles sucked badly. .."
Point taken but disagree - MMH would have churned through them all mentioned above, especially Nunn, Benn, Toney & McClellan.
Jones, BH & MM would have been interesting match-ups though.
You forget he could take a punch and was relentless - there's some serious 90's revisionism going on there; entertaining era but no way better than the 80s - they're on par.
with all due respect, you need to go back and rewatch nunn. hagler would have literally never laid a glove on him. nunn was a 6'1 middle with very good power and was close to unhittable. nunn toyed with guys. he doesn't get the recognition for his skills because he's one of the bigest assholes to ever lace up a pair. but he beats hagler and he does it easy. after the loss to toney he prety much went from being a part time gangster on the side to a full time one.
mccleelan-hagler is a toss up, i think hagler was better, but keep this in mind. gerald would have knocked out every fighter hagler defended his belt against. at 160 he would have walked through hearns, duran hamsho.
nigel benn had murderous power and just like mcclellan, these aren't former welters coming up. guys like benn and mcleelan are full size middleweights with extreme power.
toney beats him as well
hopkins he could beat. but it would be tough, bernard isn't a small middle either. bernard doesn't have the flat out punching power of these other guys
each one named had speed, which bothered hagler, and power beyond anyone he faced. once again, not trying to act like he's a scrub but you have to admit that he fought in a down era. the era right after him produced at least 6-7 guys who would have blown out anyone hagler beat and clearly were better fighters at 160 than anyone he fought
judomf - "...if hagler comes along in the 90's where there were several full size middles who were kind of slick, does he hold the undisputed belt nearly the whole decade? what if he has to defend against nunn, hopkins, jones, toney, mccallum, benn, mclellan. i could go on, but there was a superior crop of talent in the early to mid 90's fighting at middle than the crop in the 80's. to be honest 80's middles sucked badly. .."If Mclelan was handled and trained properly his career would have been a lot different? I don't mean the tragedy, I mean with focused training could he have posed serious threats to Hopkins and jones Jnr?
Point taken but disagree - MMH would have churned through them all mentioned above, especially Nunn, Benn, Toney & McClellan.
Jones, BH & MM would have been interesting match-ups though.
You forget he could take a punch and was relentless - there's some serious 90's revisionism going on there; entertaining era but no way better than the 80s - they're on par.
Didn't RJJ start as light middle/super welter for his first couple of pro fights?