Marvin Hagler Overrated Legacy?

[ßringer]

Another thing related to Hagler ; I often wonder if HBO has influenced many of his younger fans whom I've conversed with on occasion in areas like NSB.

It would seem to me that they have because modern Hagler fans don't even seem to completely understand what type of fighter Hagler was.

Sure they talk about how he got robbed against Leonard, and how he's the greatest Middleweight of All Time, and all that other jazz.

But there seems to be a serious misconception with him when it comes to his style because a lot of fans I've talked to haven't a clue as to what Marvin's real style was ; they often consider him to be a plodding, power punching, iron willed, "Margarito type" who takes 6 to land 1 and just wears you down over the course of the fight.

I can tell this by the way they discuss "fantasy fights" involving Marvin. It almost always seems predicted that Hagler will eventually "outwill" his opponet, when in reality he couldn't even outwill Leonard.

In reality he was a much better boxer than ever given credit for and he had a solid counterpunching game to go along with it.

Anyway ; I attribute this to HBO's pundits' discussing of hagler during his episode of "Legendary Nights". Larry Merchant, in particular.

[Dynamite Kid]

Another thing related to Hagler ; I often wonder if HBO has influenced many of his younger fans whom I've conversed with on occasion in areas like NSB.

It would seem to me that they have because modern Hagler fans don't even seem to completely understand what type of fighter Hagler was.

Sure they talk about how he got robbed against Leonard, and how he's the greatest Middleweight of All Time, and all that other jazz.

But there seems to be a serious misconception with him when it comes to his style because a lot of fans I've talked to haven't a clue as to what Marvin's real style was ; they often consider him to be a plodding, power punching, iron willed, "Margarito type" who takes 6 to land 1 and just wears you down over the course of the fight.

I can tell this by the way they discuss "fantasy fights" involving Marvin. It almost always seems predicted that Hagler will eventually "outwill" his opponet, when in reality he couldn't even outwill Leonard.

In reality he was a much better boxer than ever given credit for and he had a solid counterpunching game to go along with it.

Anyway ; I attribute this to HBO's pundits' discussing of hagler during his episode of "Legendary Nights". Larry Merchant, in particular.

Yeah id agree with that to. Threadstealer was forever putting people straight on that.

I see Hagler that same way you do a solid methodical counter puncher. The criticism i heard about Hagler during the telecasts is that he did not like be pressured and i think when he did get pressured he tended to throw down and get involved more than he should of, it happened with Vito in the 1st fight imo, and he was pressured by Roldan and Roldan seem to be doing okay in the fight untill he could not longer see.

[ßringer]

Hagler fought an awful lot of "small" men in his day. His two biggest wins are over a Lightweight in Duran and a Welterweight in Hearns.


I hear you there but by the same token i think he aslo fought a lot of big MW's to.............. Roldan, Obell, Sibson were very big Middleweights particularly Sibbo who looked more like a Cruiserweight to me rather than a Middleweight.

Roldan didn't look that much bigger than Hagler to me (if at all), from what I recall. If memory serves me correct he was jst a little "thicker" than Marvin, but he also wasn't in the shape that Hagler was, either.

You are right about Sibson ; he was rather large for a Middleweight. Any idea of the weight that night? He dwarfed Marvin.

The Obell fight I haven't seen in many years, so I cannot comment on it at the moment.

I just find it interesting that Hagler has been the one constant fighter throughout history to get credit for career defining wins over smaller men, when most other fighters who've had career defining moments over smaller men live to see their accomplishments diminished and picked apart by fans.

[Dynamite Kid]

Roldan didn't look that much bigger than Hagler to me (if at all), from what I recall. If memory serves me correct he was jst a little "thicker" than Marvin, but he also wasn't in the shape that Hagler was, either.

You are right about Sibson ; he was rather large for a Middleweight. Any idea of the weight that night? He dwarfed Marvin.

The Obell fight I haven't seen in many years, so I cannot comment on it at the moment.

I just find it interesting that Hagler has been the one constant fighter throughout history to get credit for career defining wins over smaller men, when most other fighters who've had career defining moments over smaller men live to see their accomplishments diminished and picked apart by fans.

Yeah fair play.

Nard beats this cat anyway imo

[ßringer]

Yeah id agree with that to. Threadstealer was forever putting people straight on that.

I see Hagler that same way you do a solid methodical counter puncher. The criticism i heard about Hagler during the telecasts is that he did not like be pressured and i think when he did get pressured he tended to throw down and get involved more than he should of, it happened with Vito in the 1st fight imo, and he was pressured by Roldan and Roldan seem to be doing okay in the fight untill he could not longer see.

I agree with that.

Especially the bit about Hagler often being drawn into a "gunfight" when often times it wasn't to his advantage.

It's amazing how fans can sometimes see a fighter do certain things, and then somehow attribute that as being their "style".

Pernell Whitaker is another one who has that problem, historically.

Most fans generally consider him to be nothing more than a defensive guru who liked to clown his opponets ; which he did on multiple occasions.

However he also loved to scrap. Pernell was not a defensive master who used his skills to avoid a good dust up.

He was more than willing to exchange in the pocket with guys like Pineda, Mayweather, and Hurtado on occasion as well.

But people see that defensive wizardry, and that instantly becomes his "style" when in reality his game was multifaceted.

[mickey malone]

It should also be noted that only with the exception of SRL, Hagler avenged both of his draws & defeats with clear victories..

[Dynamite Kid]

I agree with that.

Especially the bit about Hagler often being drawn into a "gunfight" when often times it wasn't to his advantage.

It's amazing how fans can sometimes see a fighter do certain things, and then somehow attribute that as being their "style".

Pernell Whitaker is another one who has that problem, historically.

Most fans generally consider him to be nothing more than a defensive guru who liked to clown his opponets ; which he did on multiple occasions.

However he also loved to scrap. Pernell was not a defensive master who used his skills to avoid a good dust up.

He was more than willing to exchange in the pocket with guys like Pineda, Mayweather, and Hurtado on occasion as well.

But people see that defensive wizardry, and that instantly becomes his "style" when in reality his game was multifaceted.

100% agree

It annoys me when people talk about Whitaker like a boring mofo or compare him to Mayweather for entertainment value, because he was far more entertaining than Mayweather and im not saying that because i dislike Mayweather, even though i do lol, i am saying that because ive seen a lot of his (Whitaker's) fights and Mayweathers and its true, Whitaker had more heart that Mayweather. In a way i can see why people say that though, because in his biggest fights he fought from long range and it did look like he was doing too much moving rather than sticking, but if are you gonna stand infront of Chavez, Nelson, DLH you are gonna get hammered. Whitaker did what he had to do in those fights to win and admit those were probably his least entertaining performances but its a case of needs must against that quality of opposition.

If you want to watch "beautiful Boxing" displays you watch Whitaker vs Haugen, Brazier, JLR 2, Cardona.

If you want to watch a World class technical Boxing match you watch Whitaker vs McGirt 1+2

If want to see Whitaker in aggressive mode you watch him against Mayweather.

Whitaker would stay inside and **** with you where as Mayweather would pull out. Im glad you recognized Whitaker's aggressive side because not many people give him credit for it imo. I love watching his fights he was a master.

[ßringer]

100% agree

It annoys me when people talk about Whitaker like a boring mofo or compare him to Mayweather for entertainment value, because he was far more entertaining than Mayweather and im not saying that because i dislike Mayweather, even though i do lol, i am saying that because ive seen a lot of his (Whitaker's) fights and Mayweathers and its true, Whitaker had more heart that Mayweather. In a way i can see why people say that though, because in his biggest fights he fought from long range and it did look like he was doing too much moving rather than sticking, but if are you gonna stand infront of Chavez, Nelson, DLH you are gonna get hammered. Whitaker did what he had to do in those fights to win and admit those were probably his least entertaining performances but its a case of needs must against that quality of opposition.

If you want to watch "beautiful Boxing" displays you watch Whitaker vs Haugen, Brazier, JLR 2, Cardona.

If you want to watch a World class technical Boxing match you watch Whitaker vs McGirt 1+2

If want to see Whitaker in aggressive mode you watch him against Mayweather.

Whitaker would stay inside and **** with you where as Mayweather would pull out. Im glad you recognized Whitaker's aggressive side because not many people give him credit for it imo. I love watching his fights he was a master.

No doubt that defensive wizardry was a healthy part of Pea's game, but I just get tired of people acting like it was the only thing he could do. Same way with Hagler and his "brawler" label, and various other fighters who never got credit for the other aspects of their game.

Whitaker was highly entertaining to me. He could do it all.

[Dynamite Kid]

No doubt that defensive wizardry was a healthy part of Pea's game, but I just get tired of people acting like it was the only thing he could do. Same way with Hagler and his "brawler" label, and various other fighters who never got credit for the other aspects of their game.

Whitaker was highly entertaining to me. He could do it all.

Yep.

Its like im a Cotto fan and ive always saw him as a Boxer/puncher but not really a pressure fighter, where as some people seem to think of him as a pressure fighter.

He can adapt that approach Judah, Quintana but he is not what i would call a seek and destroy fighter, if you watch him from his early days he actually shows an excellent ability to roll and slip with punches and picks his spots when to attack.

I think Cotto chooses to be a pressure fighter when it suits the opponent he is facing like Pinto, Quintana, Quintana, Judah.

The Mosley fight is a perfect illustration of the kind of fighter Cotto is and has been for the majority of his career.

[princemanspoper]

Pretty good post actually.

Had I not referenced James Shuler as a title contender,I don't think your post would have had the same compliment