The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling topics such as middleweight Hall of Fame great Marvin Hagler, Roman 'Chocolatito' Gonzalez, Juan Francisco Estrada, Terence Crawford vs. Vergil Ortiz, and more.

Well I hope I’m the first one to come up with the answer of your question about the fighter who you believe will be #1 and champion at 147-154 and 160 and that’s Ennis. I haven’t really seen much of him. At the time of writing this email we just learned about the suddenly dead of Marvin Hagler, can you give us your thoughts on his career and in a mythical fight how a fight with Carlos Monzon would have gone?

Thanks, Francisco from Rockford Illinois

Bread’s Response: Being alive in the Hagler era and not having to go back and read and watch video I can tell you how I felt about him. But as we often do, you gain a better perspective when you can look back and the person you thought highly of, still has that lofty status. Hagler.

I was more of a Ray Leonard guy. But Hagler was the guy who was more relatable to the “Common Man”. There were more guys working 9 to 5s and driving a Ford, than there were guys who drove Lamborghinis. Hence Hagler had his loyal legion. When thinking of Hagler I always felt he couldn’t be hurt. He didn’t seem to feel punches. As you get older you realize that all punches hurt, he just took them better than just about anyone EVER. 

If Hagler fought today they would call his matchmaking poor. He fought too many tough fights in his opponent’s hometown. He fought 4 Great Philadelphia Middleweights, in Philadelphia. He lost 2 of those fights as a rising contender and he went back 3 more times. He was a REAL killer. 

The word that comes to mind the most with Hagler is HONEST. If you look at his record you see 3 losses and 2 draws. Well here is why I think of the word HONEST. He suffers his first 2 career losses in Philadelphia vs Bobby Watts and Willie Monroe. Then he comes back to Philadelphia to fight Bennie Briscoe and Cyclone Hart. He was honest with himself. He knew who and what he was. He insisted on the adversity of coming to Philly which was the toughest fight city in the world at the time. He beat both Briscoe and Hart but never rested on his laurels. He also chose to get the men back who beat him in Monroe and Watts. Knocking Watts out in a rematch. And knocking Monroe out twice in the rematch and trilogy. 

Again I think of the word HONEST or maybe FAIR because he fought the rematch with Monroe in Boston and the deciding trilogy fight he went BACK to Philly. I can’t make this up. Hagler seemed to give his opponents an honest chance to beat him. 

People speak highly of Hagler’s trek to Philly which was great but they overlook his 3 fights with Olympic Gold Medalist Sugar Ray Seales. When Hagler was 14-0 he fights and beats Seales in Boston. Seales was 22-0 and from Seattle. So what does Hagler do? He didn’t take his win and run. He ran it back in Seales’s hometown area of Seattle Washington and gets a draw. Hagler says  “fine” and settles the trilogy with a 1st rd ko. 

Hagler gets a draw in his 1st title fight vs Vito Antuofermo. He goes on the road to fight Alan Minter under some very harsh racial circumstances and in his 2nd title defense he runs it back with Antuofermo just to set the record straight. Stops him. In Hagler’s first title defense he fights an undefeated fighter named Fulgencio Obelmejias. Hagler stops him in 8 rounds. Obelmejias becomes the #1 contender again so Hagler gives him another shot this time in Italy and stops him again. Mustafa Hamsho was a rough contender in the 80s. He extends Hagler some rounds in their first fight. Hagler stopped him in 11. So a few years later, Hamsho runs his mouth and works his way back up. Hagler runs it back in NY where Hamsho was living and stops him in 3. It’s just what he did. 

We all remember the BIG names of Duran, Hearns and Leonard. But if you were around in the 70s and 80s you know that Hagler had that hardcore real resume. As Hagler got older he became inactive but he didn’t shy away from REAL fights. Hearns was red hot coming into their 1985 battle and had just outperformed Hagler vs their common opponent Duran. Hagler knew he couldn’t outbox Hearns so he "fought" him. In his biggest moment up until that time, he came up the biggest. If you were around at the time you know that Hagler received lots of criticism for not stopping Duran. So Hagler made up for it by stopping the guy who stopped Duran. The Hearns gameplan was the riskiest in boxing history. There is no way Hagler could have kept that pace up. He had to get Hearns early and he got him.

After Hagler fights Hearns, there was another red hot fighter ascending named John Mugabi. You guys may look back on Mugabi now as just a puncher with the usual criticism. But in 1986 Mugabi was viewed as the future. He was a silver medalist in the 1980 Olympics and was 26-0 with 26 kos. Mugabi also faced some tough Philadelphia contenders just like Hagler did before him. Hagler did NOT have to fight him in 1986. But he did. Mugabi hit Hagler with the hardest counter uppercut I have ever seen a fighter get hit with and not get dropped or badly shaken. An uppercut is a punch you don’t usually see as a counter. And in the 5th or 6 th round Mugabi hit him on the MONEY with one and Hagler ATE it. I was there LIVE at the Philadelphia Spectrum watching on Closed Circuit. The whole crowd made that ooohh sound. Hagler eventually wore him down and stopped him in a WAR.

Obviously Hagler’s last fight was with Sugar Ray Leonard. Honestly I felt he lost and I still do. But Hagler stood on his rock and never came back. He didn’t allow himself to be USED up by boxing. Again that takes something on the inside to NOT bite on the temptation. 

For the record…There is a MYTH that surfaced a few years ago that Hagler ducked Mike McCallum. Hagler didn’t duck anyone. It wasn’t in him. There was never a viable time to make that fight. Ask any matchmaker or promoter of the 80s and they will all tell you no one was clamoring for Hagler vs McCallum. Hagler cleared out a whole era of contenders and champions who challenged him. McCallum another great fighter didn’t move up to middleweight until 1988. Hagler lost his title to Sugar Ray Leonard in April of 1987. Hagler didn’t know how to avoid WORK. It’s disrespect on his name to say he avoided anyone especially a fighter who never fought in his division while he was the champion.

Hagler had it rough so many years in boxing he made out big time once he became champion. He made BIG money. In his last fight vs Leonard he made a 13 million dollar guarantee. He also took the majority of the Closed Circuit. Some say when it was all said and done and the money was all counted up, Hagler walked away with 25 million. That’s insane in any era but in 1987 it’s hard to fathom. However much he really made, Hagler EARNED every penny of it. Hagler was honest with himself and he always said that it’s hard to wake up at 5am when you’re sleeping in silk pajamas. Well Hagler had just made a mythical 25 million and he was TRUE to himself again.

Speaking of the business side. This side of boxing usually produces the least amount of honesty. Hagler wore the same trunks his entire career. Blue or Burgundy velour trunks nothing flashy to gain more mainstream attention. He stayed in the same division his entire career. Middleweight. He wasn’t that tall and he knew he wasn’t a light heavyweight. And he stayed with the same trainers/managers his entire career despite a couple of set backs. Fighters today think they don’t owe the person who invested in them anything if that person made a return on their initial investment. What fighters owe them is the gratitude of investing their time and money in them in the 1st place. What if the fighter didn’t turn out to be Marvin Hagler? There was only one. 

The Petronelli Brothers invested their time and money in Hagler. They loved him like a son and when Hagler became a 7 figure fighter, they offered to take a flat rate instead of their usual handshake %. Hagler became offended and told them they would take the same % they always took. And if they suggested anything less he would fire them. In boxing that is simply unheard of. In fact it’s suggested to cut a trainer’s purse once you make over 7 figures. Hagler was NOT having any of that, he wanted his guys to eat just like he was eating. 

Speaking of Monzon, Hagler’s era started as Monzon’s ended. They fought a few of the same fighters. It would have been a terrific fight. Off the top of my head I say they would have had to fight 3x to settle it. I don’t think either would have stopped the other. Hagler along with Joe Louis has a case for being the best rematch fighter in history. He literally stopped every single fighter he fought more than once. That’s incredible. Seales, Watts, Monroe, Antuefurmo, Hamsho, Obeljemijas all got kod and/or all got ko'd earlier in rematches. It’s insane when you think about how good Hagler was in rematches. 

Monzon is equally as great but it’s very hard to imagine someone beating Hagler 2 out of 3 times considering how good he was on the RUN BACK. A few years ago I was asked to do a list of top 10 middleweight ever. I thought Monzon would be ranked over Hagler. But when I looked at their resumes very closely. I thought their title runs were about dead even. Monzon had his HOF in Benvenuti, Griffith and Naploes. Hagler had his in Duran, Leonard and Hearns. They both had tough #1 contenders. But Hagler actually had a better pre title run which gave him the edge. When I looked at what they did before they won the title, I realized that Hagler’s resume was better and his wins were better. So I rated Hagler the 3rd best Middleweight ever behind Robinson and Greb.

It’s sort of cool to say that either Pernell Whitaker or Manny Pacquiao are the best southpaws ever. But if you are from the 80s. You will most likely say it’s Marvin Hagler and you won’t get an argument from me. Here is where Hagler ranks overall for me. He’s the 2nd best fighter of the decade of the 80s. He’s 3rd ever at middleweight. He’s a top 3 southpaw ever. I don’t know who has a BETTER chin. I know some fighters who’s chins are AS good. But I don’t know anyone with a BETTER chin. He’s a top 30 to 40 fighters ever. So millenials can get a better perspective Hagler is a mix of GGG with Errol Spence. Hagler was a Man’s Man and he deserved every word I said in this answer. Thanks for asking me about him. I got to see him while he was fighting and he was a BAD DUDE.

Hi Bread,

It looks like that Vergil Ortiz wants to fight Terence Crawford if he gets past Hooker. It might just be a doable fight as well considering TR and GB have a history of working with each other. My question to you is - Should Crawford take this fight? Of course, he will be favorite but if he loses his legacy will take a major hit. People will question his whole legacy by saying that he was only good till he was fighting at 140 lbs and the moment he faced good opposition at 147 lbs, he lost. He does not have access to PBC fighters and hence Ortiz might be the only good fight for him out there but it is a huge risk if he loses.

What do you think?

Regards, Saurabh

Bread’s Response: Of course Crawford should take the fight. He’s a fighter right. Real fighters don’t think about what will happen if they lose. That’s up to management and promotion to think about. But if you’re asking me what Crawford should do, he should fight. Listen Crawford should be applauded if he fights a kid that young and talented. 

If Crawford is who we say he is, he fights him. When Jermaine Taylor came breathing down Bernard Hopkins neck. What did Hopkins do? He fought him. When Riddick Bowe came breathing down Evander Holyfield’s neck, what did Holyfield do? He fought him. Similar scenarios. In this era it seems as if there is an age limit on when a fighter can get a title shot. I don’t get that. If a young fighter builds himself up and wants the work, let him have the work. Sometimes they win like Taylor and Bowe. Sometimes they lose like Lubin did. It’s boxing. If Vergil Ortiz thinks he’s ready for Crawford let him find out. I didn’t like when the powers that be held Jaime Muguia back from fighting GGG. If Munguia and his team wanted the work, give them the work. I respect your opinion and question but this is bizarre to me. No fighter should think like a manager. Vergil Ortiz and Jaron Ennis are young guns. Those kids want to fight. They shouldn’t have to wait until they are 27 years old to get title shots considering how advanced they are right now. In fact it will hurt them to wait that long. So what if they lose. They make adjustments and come back better. 

In boxing timing is important. If you go too early you will struggle and lose confidence. If you go too late you will have not only the fighters in front of you to deal with but fighters younger than you ascending pass you because you waited too long and became stale. But you don’t know unless you fight and these decisions are based on instincts and the individual fighter. Some are ready and some aren't. I would love to see Crawford take a fight like that instead of waiting on other fights that won’t materialize. Crawford will be 34 this year. He still seems to be in his prime. He should take the biggest and toughest fights he can before he starts to slip and really have to take business fights instead of hardcore fights. All fights are REAL but you get what I’m saying.

Greetings Breadman!

Hope you're hanging in there. The pandemic is almost over, and the fights are coming back.

A return to "big time" boxing was Saturday night's instant classic between Chocolatito and Estrada. There were mulitple swing rounds, but I thought Chocalitito did enough to win 7 rounds. I'm also a huge fan, so I had no issues with the fighters splitting two of the cards being 115-113. I'm biased and like Chocolatito's style more than Estrada's.

I don't know how anybody could score that fight 117-110. Which brings me to my question. How do you become a boxing judge? I remember when I umpired Little League as a 12 year old, we had to attend two or three training sessions, but it seems the guy who scored the fight 117-110 didn't even have that...Also, if someone asked your input, what kind of schooling do you think a judge should have?

Thanks!

Nick

Bread’s Response: I thought Chocolatito won also. I am actually pretty sure he did win. There were a few swing rounds but I feel like you have to bend over backwards to give Estrada more than 6 rounds. Consensus is either a draw or Choc 115-113 or 116-112. People are excited about the trilogy. But in boxing a great fight deserves a fair decision. And it’s the judges job to decide close competitive rounds. I’m tired of hearing the same cliché lines. It was a great fight, everybody wins. Well Choc didn’t win. He deserved the official decision, not just the moral one. Tell Mauricio Herrera that official decisions don’t count. Choc is older and he has more wear and tear. In the trilogy he may not have anything left. He’s already out performed his expiration date considering his age, style and brutal ko loss a few years back. He’s HUMAN. So now he has beat a fighter equally as good as him, who’s younger more convincingly. Get out of here with that crap. He beat Estrada twice and he shouldn’t have to do a tie breaker with a guy he beat twice already. Eventually Estrada is going to beat him convincingly or ko him. Choc earned that win. As you can see I’m not happy about what happened to Chocolatito. 

The schooling I think the judges should get, should be stringent. I feel like they should have to score historical fights. Not just one or two but a variety of fights and styles. There score cards should be on point with the consensus outcome and more importantly opinion. Then they should have to turn in scorecards for current fights as they happen and also these scorecards be graded by higher authority. The judges who have the most accurate scorecards need to be appointed the best jobs. Also the discipline of judges who turn in bad scorecards has to be more harsh. Usually the bad judges leave a trend behind. Usually they set a trend for how poor their scorecards are. Once a scorecard is so far off that it’s unfathomable, that judge needs to be indefinitely suspended. The reason being is because the fighter’s record will always show that loss. So a judge should have a more strict punishment then a simple reprimand. These judges have to LOSE their JOBS. It’s that simple. CJ Ross screwed up Manny Pacquiao vs Timothy Bradley. But she was also allowed to judge Floyd Mayweather vs Canelo Alvarez. She cost Manny his titles and almost cost Floyd his perfect record. Poor judging is a very serious thing and it seems as though the only people that it affects are the poor fighters. These judges have been able to ruin multiple careers and legacies.  Everyone knows who the bad judges are. But because of fear of retaliation it’s hard to say too much. No one should fear retaliation because once a horrible scorecard gets turned you should never have to see that judge again. This needs to STOP! It’s ruining legacies and careers. Also props to Choc for handling it with class. He knew he won. What a fighter!

Boxing should be called "fistic financiering" Really. They want to build up the lighter weights on a young guy who beat Cuadras, SSR, and now Choco. I see too many fights where the outcome is, "well, yeah I can kind of see how the A side won" to help people justify why the A side won.85% of the time, you put your money on the guy who is top billing (face on left side of poster, or name on top of poster). It's easy money. It's slow money, but about as guaranteed as you get in this world.

Chocolatito ain't coming back from that job. He put it all out there. He's the volume guy who lost. He is probably dead now (as far as the vampiric boxing world is concerned).Sorry to bother you. You probably don't even recognize my email. This isn't about a mailbag.

Take care, bud.

Jay

Bread’s Response: You know something man. I bet Choc and the draw for this fight. But something scared me. Estrada’s name was 1st on the billing. He walked 2nd. I don’t know if that was part of the negotiations because reportedly Choc made more money. But it concerned me. It really did. I kept saying to myself, Choc won the 1st fight and they both are champions. Who made Gallo the A side?....This A side, B side stuff in boxing has to stop. The red corner, blue corner stuff has to stop. Judges can’t consider who is supposed to win. They have score on 12 individual rounds of what and they see going by the Criterion of Clean punching, Effective Aggressiveness, Defense and Ring Generalship. I am very disappointed in this decision. I also agree with you. I doubt if Choc will come back from this. Mentally that will be hard to overcome. 

Hello breadman.

Big fan of David Benavidez and just watched his dominate win over Ronald Ellis.  What impresses me about Benavidez is his ability to put the gas pedal down as the rounds click over.  Benavidez is you're typical slow starter no doubt but no one has been able to impose themselves early. Benavidez is still only 24 I believe so it's still early but do see any of Monzon in there ? . I say that with the similar body type and the same calm approach Monzon used that Benavidez uses, also Benavidez has that same punching out put that looks slow but it's actually deceiving to the eye as it's more calculating and timed than actually slow. Another thing is the ever smiling on Benavidez face when a punch lands and it's not one of those smiles you see when a fighter is obviously stunned,  Benavidez is a cold calculating sob IMO.  Do you see comparisons with Monzon and Benavidez? . Also do believe Alverez will need to be at his absolute best to beat Benavidez especially with Benavidez late rounds Gas Tank ?. Thanks Breadman.  

Bread’s Response: I never thought about the Monzon comparison for Benavidez. I can see it somewhat. Both are mean and nasty. Both are sort of straight legged. Both sort of walk stalk you. But because Benavidez fights in modern times his punch sequence is different and more extensive than Monzon’s. Monzon was sort of a jab and right hand fighter. Benavidez flows better with his punches and he’s faster. Not necessarily better but he’s faster and he attacks a little different. Nice call. 

You know I think Canelo Alvarez is the favorite over everybody but that doesn’t mean he’s going to beat everybody. Fights are won in the ring and not on paper. Benavidez is live vs Canelo. Let me tell you something, we see that Canelo’s stamina has improved. But I wonder if it’s because he dictates the pace better these days or is it because of increased energy capacity. David would test his gas tank in a different way. He would also try to go to Canelo’s body which no one ever does. That’s a REAL fight and Canelo knows it. Right now I say Canelo 60-40 but I want to see it. 

Hi Bread,

Hope you and your family are well. I know you like a small stable so with that in mind if you could pick any 3 fighters in history to train and have as your stable who are the 3 and why?

Thank you for your time.

Bread’s Response: Sugar Ray Robinson, Roy Jones Jr and Roberto Duran. Robinson so to see if I could win titles with him from 135 to 175. We all know that he almost won the light heavyweight title in a fight he was clearly winning but had to stop because of heat exhaustion. But many forget that he fought his 1st 20 fights close to the lightweight limit and that he beat the reigning lightweight champion Sammy Angott in a non title fight. 

Roy Jones to see if I could go 50-0 with Jones. He got very close. But he had the DQ lost to Montell Griffin and then the Tarver fight which turned his career. I believe he was 49-1 at the time.

Roberto Duran to keep him from getting lazy after the 1st Leonard fight. 15 of Duran’s 16 career losses came after his best career performances. Each of these guys would give me the most to work with considering athleticism, skillset and size respective of their divisions. All had great chances to retire undefeated under different circumstances. And all had cases for being the best ever at their peaks.

Hey Mr Edwards,

I swear if one peeped inside your head it would not be at all surprising to find that your brain is shaped like a boxing glove with a corner specifically dedicated to a million boxing formulas and computations. I don't need to re-read your prediction on Gonzalez-Estrada to know that it was uncannily accurate as with most but also almost stupefyingly prophetic.

Here is the thing though. Don't you feel, as I strangely do, that the chapter in this unforgettable rivalry should end here and now? Trilogies are great but I want to pick that amazing brain of yours on why in this instance the bell ringing for the 25th round is going to take away from the all-time magic of these little great warriors' epic two contests.

I know many consider Ali-Frazier III to be the greatest heavyweight title fight in history but no it wasn't.  The greatest exhibition of human courage and endurance perhaps yes but there is no way that fight even comes close to Holyfield-Bowe I. This is so because the skills and application of both men had waned considerably by the time of the " Thrilla in Manila".

I'm not saying Gonzalez and Estrada have lost as much as Ali and Frazier had when they fought a third time but they are certainly a step or two slower. For example, a prime Gonzalez closes the show in that final round. Fighting eight years after they first met was certainly far superior than Leonard and Hearns fighting for the second time in roughly the same period but I think there should be no trilogy for the same reason that there wasn't one between Leonard and Hearns which is that a third fight would not sit well on the first two. Do you have any memories of Leonard-Duran III? Holyfield-Bowe III?

Which trilogy fight would you say sincerely matched the first or second or both punch for punch, skill for skill, sweat for sweat and blood for blood? I'm talking about the whole package and not the exciting but bar-room brawl stuff of Zale-Graziano and Gatti-Ward. MM. Gonzalez v Khaosai Galaxy, Estrada v Khaosai Galaxy. And how would Gonzalez and Estrada each fare against the little iron man from Argentina, Santos Laciar? Galaxy and Laciar would be a war for the ages, dont you think?

Keep punching Mr Edwards.

KatlholoJohannesburg, South Africa. 

Bread’s Response: Galaxy is very very similar to SSR. Almost a carbon copy. Choc and Gallo are more skilled but it may come down to physicality. I say they all split fights.

Thank you on my prediction. Yes I did predict controversy in a Choc win. But more importantly I felt that Choc’s right hand would be the story of the fight. It was. I don’t care what those official scorecards said. I feel you on the TRILOGY. We are in the minority but I think it sucks that Choc has to fight a guy again that I watched him beat twice. But because Choc is a GUN and he hasn’t made a boatload of money I feel as though we will see a 3rd fight. It really bothers me that he has to go through that again with a younger fighter who is just about equally as good. Critics are so dismissive about what fighters have to go through in order to get ready for a fight. They keep saying we ALL win by getting a trilogy. Well Choc doesn’t win by getting a bad decision and he has to fight Gallo again. Choc doesn’t win by having to torture his body in order to get into that type of shape again which he may not be able to. It’s ridiculous and I’m tired of arguing about it. What’s even more troubling is people will justify Estrada winning this fight. If you go round by round, I’m telling you it’s almost impossible to give him more than 6 rounds. It’s not impossible to give Choc 7 or 8. You would have to give Estrada the benefit of doubt in all of the swing rounds which isn’t quite fair is it. Let’s just hope Choc can get into great shape again. With everything I know about the business of boxing. Choc vs Estrada will happen in the fall. Follow the money. 

Skillful trilogy fights. I think Pac vs Marquez showed great skill in their trilogy fight. I also believe Pac vs Bradley was contested at a high skill level. So was Duran vs De Jesus. Gatti vs Ward and Barrera vs Morales was also very high in skill. But the best trilogy fight that I have seen at least recently was Vasquez vs Marquez III. That was tremendous. Perfect blend of skill and savagery. 

Do you think Roman Gonzalez has a skillset that people can’t grasp? He gets criticized for not having defense and he’s been on the short of the stick on two decisions more people think he won than think he lost. If he wins those fights he’s most likely undefeated because he wouldn’t have fought SSR in a rematch. What are your thoughts on Gonzalez’s style, specifically?

Bread’s Response: I think people who say Choc has no defense don’t understand the small nuances of what he’s doing. You have a judge a fighter’s defense in context with his style. Choc is a pressure fighter who throws about 80 punches/round. He also boxes going forward for the most part. There is no way you compare his defense to a Floyd Mayweather or Shakur Stevenson. The style context has to be considered. 

Choc does get hit but so has every elite pressure fighter in history. Including the best we have seen in Duran and Armstrong. It’s literally impossible to fight that style and not get hit. An elite pressure fighter will get hit more than an elite pure boxer. If you don’t realize that look what happened when Floyd Mayweather changed his style somewhat vs Emanuel Augustus and Zab Judah. He got hit. Choc quells punches. He catches them. He rides them. He leans off on them. But he doesn’t OVER MOVE his feet to avoid them because he wants to stay in position to get his offense off. It’s the most demanding style in boxing and instead of appreciating it you have people who make surface level comments like, ”he gets hit too much.” It’s ridiculous. Choc overall has solid Defense. And for a pressure fighter his defense is very good with Duran and Chavez’s being the best I have seen for fighters who employ that style. 

Hello Bread.

I know you’ll be inundated with the tragic passing of Marvin Hagler but I just wanted to talk you about my all time favourite fighter. I’ve heard the term hard nosed technician, stiff backed, mechanical but to say this is a little ignorant of one of boxing’s most misunderstood practitioners. He’s one of the greatest southpaws of all time even though he was right handed, he was as adept a switch hitter that ever lived and he did this seamlessly creating angles that made it nearly impossible to pick what was coming at you. He had an all time tungsten chin, he trained like an animal because he lived and breathed combat. Hard work works and the will to be the best.

He had a short amateur career 50 odd fights but he wanted the heat so he and the Petronellis headed to the hotbed of Philly in the 70’s to toughen him up  up against some killers that many middleweights avoided. He took a coupIe of losses but came back vanquished them in rematches. I’ve purposely left  the Leonard fight out because I want to celebrate Marvins life and accomplishments and others on here will probably argue for me.   I’d like to hear from you Bread as to what made him one of the best to ever do it?  From 78-82 I believe he could’ve hung with any middleweight in history. I just hope in his tragic passing he finally gets the recognition he richly deserves.

Sam from Australia 

Bread’s Response: Often times the media can be lazy, accurately describing a style. Often times a fighter is associated with his style in his most famous performance. With Hagler people confine his style to the Hearns and Mugabi fights. He was “Destruction and Destroy” like he T shirt said in those fights. He has 52 kos and his 62 wins and rarely did he go the distance twice in a row. He scored 11 kos in his 12 title defenses. He had a bald head and menacing physique. So Hagler is confined to being a destroyer. He actually was when had to be. But accurately describing him will take more. 

Hagler was a heavy handed, hard nosed technician. He could box at every range. He boxed going forwards and backwards. He was fundamentally sound and he adjusted well. He heavily relied on a hard jab and an active rhythm. He was a very hard puncher but what made him more of a puncher was his CHIN. My logic says the puncher in a fight is the fighter who takes the better punch. Hagler was always less affected by his opponent’s punches than his opponent were by his. Hagler was always doing more damage. Therefore he was the puncher in every single fight.

Hagler was sort of a hybrid boxer/fighter. He was a chameleon. Hagler was whatever he had to be. If he needed to be right handed, he would be right handed. If he needed to be left handed, he would be left handed. If he needed to swarm like he did vs Hearns, he would do it. If he needed to be a puncher like he was vs Mugabi he would do it. If he needed to be a boxer like he was vs Duran, he would do it. If he needed to stick and move like he did vs Bennie Briscoe he would do it. Hagler has won fights in every single style you can imagine and he was also an excellent finisher. You see I couldn’t just say, Hagler was a destroyer. It wouldn’t do him justice because he was much more than that.

Send Questions to dabreadman25@hotmail.com