Calzaghe vs. Hagler @ 168

hagler wouldn't fight at 168. period. he was a middleweight and proud of it.

he wasn't at his best cause he was fighting hopkins and no i don't think he sucks cause i think he beat calzaghe as most reasonable people thought. you can't use the wear and tear excuse when your in a fight with a 43 year old. doesn't work too well. still wondering how calzaghe came out on top in your mind without landing any punches. windmill hypnotism? we'll your in a minority with that opinion cause every poll that was on boxingscene showed Calzaghe was the winner!!!!!! plus a 43 year old Hopkins can still beat majority of top notch fighter today.

Hagler got hit by better and bigger punchers than Calzaghe. Calzaghe's slaps aint doin shit to Hagler. Plus Hagler's fought much much better fighters than Calzaghe. Hagler by bloody KTFO.

Joe barely edged Bernard. Hagler's relentless attack and stamina would beat Calzaghe. He aint fuckin wit Marvelous.

Hagler paints the crowd with Calzaghe's blood and brains.

Hagler did have a long arms for his size. Despite being about an inch shorter than Calzaghe, his reach is longer. Many of Hagler's opponents commented on how hard it was to fight him because of the length of his arms, they would believe to be out of his reach and the next they are hit with Hagler's leaping right hand. He used that punch to great effect. Calzaghe is bigger than Hagler, but Hagler fought many who were as tall/taller than Joe, no one with a bigger frame though. http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee266/paultravis09/841e.jpg http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00370/joe_calzaghe_280x39_370196a.jpg My fault, didn't know what I was thinking on the rangy part. I remember reading that Hearns's wingspan was only measured at 3-4 inches longer than Hagler. Again, you can never be sure how effective a guy is moving up in weight....one guy whom I think would've been very effective at higher weights is Salvador Sanchez. The skills, style, height, and the frame. His frame looked huge to me for a featherweight.

Hagler was more of a boxer-puncher who wore down opponents, who could brawl effectively when the time came for it. As for the matchup, well Calzaghe's chances are getting sold short here. You never really know how effective a fighter is going to be when he moves up in weight. Hagler was very skilled, but he was not exactly that tall or rangy for his division. Calzaghe would be a light-heavyweight in Hagler's prime. Spinks and Qawi publically expressed interested in fights with Hagler, and they would've made good money. Hagler (or his management) wasn't interested. Hagler did have a long arms for his size. Despite being about an inch shorter than Calzaghe, his reach is longer. Many of Hagler's opponents commented on how hard it was to fight him because of the length of his arms, they would believe to be out of his reach and the next they are hit with Hagler's leaping right hand. He used that punch to great effect. Calzaghe is bigger than Hagler, but Hagler fought many who were as tall/taller than Joe, no one with a bigger frame though. I have no idea how it would play into this fight, in my opinion despite the size difference Hagler is the bigger puncher. http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee266/paultravis09/841e.jpg http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00370/joe_calzaghe_280x39_370196a.jpg

This is a more difficult matchup than most posters seem to think. Two major things would favor Calzaghe. The weight and the distance. Hagler was always comfortable at 160 and he was definetely a 15 round fighter. The fight being over 12 at 168 is not good for Hagler. A prime Hagler was relentless with underrated boxing-skills and arguably a top-3 all-time MW. The pressure and determination Hagler possesed would surely not please Joe. But then again the volume and work-rate of Calzaghe wouldn't suit Hagler. There might be only one Marvin Hagler, but there certainly is also only one Joe Calzaghe. The popular choice according to the poll is obviously Hagler and I also think he will win. But it would be a very close decision fight that I could see go either way. Forget a stoppage. This is 2 of the best chins in boxing history. Probably Hagler, but not with as much confidence as everyone else. Calzaghe is one of my least favorite big name fighters right now, but he is indeed a very good fighter, and bigger in size than Hagler. If they were the same size, then I'd pick Hagler with no hesitation. I took Hagler as well. No KO in this fight. My response is above.

So who would you pick? Probably Hagler, but not with as much confidence as everyone else. Calzaghe is one of my least favorite big name fighters right now, but he is indeed a very good fighter, and bigger in size than Hagler. If they were the same size, then I'd pick Hagler with no hesitation.

Watts was a good Philly fighter, Hagler was just learning his trade around that time, he also avenged the Watts loss in 2 rounds a few years later. That was also the controversial loss I think. I have it but haven't got around to watching it and scoring it. I think Wille Monroe was the clear loss, which he later avenged. Whatever Hagler's first loss was to, that was the controversial one.

This shouldn't even be a question it's whether Hagler wins by Decision on KO. I think Calzaghe's chin in his prime is good enough so Hagler walks Calzaghe down to an easy UD.

Hagler was more of a boxer-puncher who wore down opponents, who could brawl effectively when the time came for it. As for the matchup, well Calzaghe's chances are getting sold short here. You never really know how effective a fighter is going to be when he moves up in weight. Hagler was very skilled, but he was not exactly that tall or rangy for his division. Calzaghe would be a light-heavyweight in Hagler's prime. Spinks and Qawi publically expressed interested in fights with Hagler, and they would've made good money. Hagler (or his management) wasn't interested. So who would you pick?

depends on how much hagler respected calzaghe. hagler was mediocre against duran and leonard because he was in awe of their fame and celebrity. I think Hagler got too much flack for the Duran fight. He maybe was too respectful of Duran, but I thought he won clearly. The judges were drunk. I had it 10-4-1 for Hagler. With Leonard, Hagler had slowed down. He had looked slower and more hittable post-1983. Leonard was probably at a bigger disadvantage though. Past his prime also, having been away for so long, a smaller guy, etc..

I said that I wasn't a Calzaghe studier remember? But from what I've seen Joe's chin is unquestionable. If you think Hagler was a big puncher then, no offense but, you're very wrong. Hagler was a brawler who wore down his opponents. Don't get caught up in numbers because then you might think that even Joe has a decent whack by looking at ko%. Hagler was more of a boxer-puncher who wore down opponents, who could brawl effectively when the time came for it. As for the matchup, well Calzaghe's chances are getting sold short here. You never really know how effective a fighter is going to be when he moves up in weight. Hagler was very skilled, but he was not exactly that tall or rangy for his division. Calzaghe would be a light-heavyweight in Hagler's prime. Spinks and Qawi publically expressed interested in fights with Hagler, and they would've made good money. Hagler (or his management) wasn't interested.

The real question is "HOW LONG DOES CAL SURVIVE" lol. Completely agree.

Hagler was a monster back in his prime middle weight days. He broke a lot of guys down over time in a fight, but he wasn't a big puncher. I don't see Calzaghe winning.

yes plenty. sobot the ref stopped the fight when calzaghe was doing one of his pitty patty flurries on the ropes and landing nothing very similar to manfredo. on his feet. sheika was actually punching calzaghe when the ref jumped in. on his feet. byron mitchell stumbled and the ref stopped it. on his feet. also a bunch of other fights i have seen but can't place a name to the no name opponent. bottom line is he can't punch and gets stoppages based on pity. you seen hagler knock someone out? they are on the ground hurt badly and sometimes don't get up. You're not seriously trying to present a case for Hagler being a big puncher???

yes plenty. sobot the ref stopped the fight when calzaghe was doing one of his pitty patty flurries on the ropes and landing nothing very similar to manfredo. on his feet. sheika was actually punching calzaghe when the ref jumped in. on his feet. byron mitchell stumbled and the ref stopped it. on his feet. also a bunch of other fights i have seen but can't place a name to the no name opponent. bottom line is he can't punch and gets stoppages based on pity. you seen hagler knock someone out? they are on the ground hurt badly and sometimes don't get up. You're talking shit. Byron Mitchell was seriously injured, had no idea where he was and took weeks to recover from the beating he took. Sheika was done as well. Those were good stoppages. Manfredo is a funny stoppage, but that's not Joe's fault. Manfredo froze and didn't fight back. It wasn't about being hurt, but he didn't belong in the ring that night and he realized it. You can't fault the ref too much, only the matchmaking

Hagler was a small middleweight. How is he going to knock Calzaghe out? He wouldn't be among the fifteen biggest punchers Joe has faced. Pound for pound Hagler is better, but fights don't take place pound for pound. Joe is too big and fast, and wouldn't be hurt by anything Hagler could land.

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll67/barobinson1/hopcalz-1.gif?t=1218784000 the ko artist himself