View Full Version : Hagler/Briscoe last night on ESPN Classics


INFAMOUZ
11-02-2004, 05:39 PM
Watched it last night. Hagler won this fight moving backwards and looked good doing it against a seasoned veteren. The Hagler that fought Briscoe would have handled Leonard much better. He was slicker, harder to hit and threw a lot of combos.

I would give anything to see prime Hagler vs Hopkins. Seeing how both fighers are great counterpunchers I see Hagler pressing the action and being able to counter most of Hopkins punches. Most likely a UD for Hagler. I don't see either getting KO'd.

marvdave
11-02-2004, 10:53 PM
alot of people have a misconception that Hagler was a brawler becuase of the Hearns and Mugabi fights. At the point of those two fights, he relied more on his toughness and chin. In reality he was a master boxer and counter puncher. Everyone ignored him when he was young becuase he was so dangerous. By the time the mainstream fans started appreciating him, he was past his best. Sugar Ray was smart and waited until Hagler lost a step or two.

He definitely had some wars early on. His resume was solid before he even fought for a title.

JOM'S
11-03-2004, 04:46 AM
alot of people have a misconception that Hagler was a brawler becuase of the Hearns and Mugabi fights. At the point of those two fights, he relied more on his toughness and chin. In reality he was a master boxer and counter puncher. Everyone ignored him when he was young becuase he was so dangerous. By the time the mainstream fans started appreciating him, he was past his best. Sugar Ray was smart and waited until Hagler lost a step or two.

He definitely had some wars early on. His resume was solid before he even fought for a title.

SRL was really smart I think when he saw Hagler-Duran fight, he realized how to handle Hagler and that beating the Marvelous one can be done....

jabsRstiff
11-03-2004, 08:13 AM
alot of people have a misconception that Hagler was a brawler becuase of the Hearns and Mugabi fights. At the point of those two fights, he relied more on his toughness and chin. In reality he was a master boxer and counter puncher. Everyone ignored him when he was young becuase he was so dangerous. By the time the mainstream fans started appreciating him, he was past his best. Sugar Ray was smart and waited until Hagler lost a step or two.

He definitely had some wars early on. His resume was solid before he even fought for a title.


Marv....

I've been saying this for years.
Marvin Hagler was a COMPLETE fighter.
But, people mostly see CLIPS/VIDEO of him towards the end, when he slowed down....& relied on his strength, toughness, & best-ever chin.
They also see how he looked....& the image is that of a warrior.
He was a warrior, when necessary, but was actually more comfortable firing that awesome right jab, putting together brilliant combos, & taking the foe apart.

Dude
11-07-2004, 12:26 AM
Hagler was one of the very very few atlethes in the sports history who could do it all. Brawling, boxing, counterpunching, stalking, defending, south and northpole. He is the picture perfect fighter in his prime.

restless_438
11-07-2004, 05:33 AM
saw that, Hagler was talented

Dynamite76
11-29-2004, 02:55 PM
Marvin is an all-time great.It's his fault he lost to Sugar Ray Leonard.

paulmmv
11-30-2004, 02:43 AM
haggler's was an amazing fighter who only made one mistake he fought Leonard

jayrichardse
01-31-2005, 01:06 AM
hagler is the best middle weight ever

jreng1
01-31-2005, 08:19 PM
love this fight. How often do they show boxing on ESPn classic?

jedihillis
02-01-2005, 04:18 AM
It's times like this i really wish I had cable tv.

The Troll
05-24-2005, 06:06 PM
bumping this thread thead to reassert points I made in another thread. Some some people get educated. "ADS" "IWatchboxing" read this thread.