Dwight Muhamed Qawi called Marvin Hagler out

[JAB5239]

lol.the fact he had to overcome an 18-18 fighter usually proves other wise.that fact that you are on the verge of tears is more telling.if he could be almost be stopped by soldier jones,i dont like his chances against real fighters

Now you're just being a troll. Any fighter can get caught, its how you react that defines greatness. I notice you still don't want to broach the subject of his fighting 4 times in a month.

Real fighters like who, Tunney, Loughran, Norfolk, Walker, Flowers, Delaney, Slettery, Both Gibbons, McTigue, Levinski, Chip, Meehan, Brennan, Miske, Smith and a host of others? Real fighters like the 18 world champions he beat in an era of 8 weight classes and 1 belt? You're getting severely owned my friend, just like you did when trying to argue Hearns wasn't a huge welterweight. Truth is you simply don't understand the era or know about the fighters. Your sole basis to discredit les on no film of Greb and grainy, off speed, black and white, shot from a distance footage of the few opponents of his you have seen. Hence, you don't know what you're talking about. Everyone here see's that except you.

[r.burgundy]

Was Valero a heavy puncher? He never knocked anyone with a legit name out.

Was Naseem Hamed a heavy puncher? He never knocked out anybody with a great name outside Kevin Kelly.

Earnie Shavers only knockout wins over major names was Jimmy Young, an old Jimmy Ellis and an old Norton. In most every other fight he had with a name opponent he ended up getting knocked out, not because he was an overrated puncher but becuase he was a poor boxer. Against better competition he couldn't land his bombs.

If you want to say that Mugabi wasn't a great puncher that's fair since his punches were wild, telegraphed and poorly setup but It's hard to deny the power behind them.

Gavilian was close to 5'11" so he started at featherweight because he was 17 not because he was a natural featherweight. Denying that Gavilan was a welterweight is silly.

Sugar Ray Robinson was a featherweight when he was 18, he won the Golden Gloves National Featherweight Championship was he a Featherweight also?

When I was 17 I fought at 141, now I fight at 165 and no one would confuse me for a natural light welterweight...

Tarver went from 218 to 175. http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/box...dan&id=2475525

At his age trying to drop 45 pounds that quickly is career suicide.

Hagler has quite a few wins better than both a weight drained 36 year old Tarver and a one dimensional Pavlik and so does Hopkins.

we'll never know.part of what makes a fighter good is his ability to take a punch.same with prince naseem.he couldnt scracth barrera and we'll never know the extent of his power.and you say you box,so you should defnitely understand matchmaking.

kid gavilan tunred pro at 23,not 17 and fought at least 20 fights well below welter limit,and that still doesnt change the fact that based off video of the 2,that fight is an absolute mismatch

tarver had plenty time to get in peak shape being as how he was wasnt exactly in apollo creed shape in rocky and by his own admission,normally walks around above 200lbs.he just got flat out took to school,and for a mw champ to get the linear belt is huge accomplishment.hopkins has linear champs which is something hagler never did

[r.burgundy]

Now you're just being a troll. Any fighter can get caught, its how you react that defines greatness. I notice you still don't want to broach the subject of his fighting 4 times in a month.

Real fighters like who, Tunney, Loughran, Norfolk, Walker, Flowers, Delaney, Slettery, Both Gibbons, McTigue, Levinski, Chip, Meehan, Brennan, Miske, Smith and a host of others? Real fighters like the 18 world champions he beat in an era of 8 weight classes and 1 belt? You're getting severely owned my friend, just like you did when trying to argue Hearns wasn't a huge welterweight. Truth is you simply don't understand the era or know about the fighters. Your sole basis to discredit les on no film of Greb and grainy, off speed, black and white, shot from a distance footage of the few opponents of his you have seen. Hence, you don't know what you're talking about. Everyone here see's that except you.

4 times in amonth would be worth commneting on if it was something out the normal.fact is,thats perfectly normal for that time.only guy outta all those stiffs you named who ive seen to be decent was bob gibbons,but even he had serious limitations being that he absolutely had to load up on his punches for them to have any effect and he was slow as mollases.if greb was a 3rd of what people say gibbons would be easy work as he would be way to slow.

owned lol.people like you act like its wrong to have an unpopular opinon.you can read 50 books on greb but his record still stays the same.whatever you have read cant change the fact that he was almost kod by a tomato can.it doesnt change the fact that the guys he fought were stiffs.let me give you something to think about logically.if theres only 1 champ and 8 divisions,and he beat 18 world champs,that should tell you 2 things.1 the t.o rate on those belts is very high,and 2,if he beats 18 champs in a 1 belt era,who the hell were these champs beating to make them great.not to mention he was blind 1 in eye.he wouldnt even be licensed in this day and age.join the 21st century dude.its nice out here.many posters have my mindset.imo the best boxers ever have came in the last 30 years.

[TheGreatA]

Gavilan turned pro at 17 and never compated at under welterweight at the age of 20.

Manny Pacquiao was a strawweight at 17
Floyd Mayweather was a flyweight at 17
Chris Byrd was a light welterweight at 20

[r.burgundy]

Gavilan turned pro at 17 and never compated at under welterweight at the age of 20.

Manny Pacquiao was a strawweight at 17
Floyd Mayweather was a flyweight at 17
Chris Byrd was a light welterweight at 20

i thought his wiki bio said 23.might have misread.but either way,he didnt have a snowballs chance in hell of beating srr.would you say he had a chance?

[DeepSleep]

we'll never know.part of what makes a fighter good is his ability to take a punch.same with prince naseem.he couldnt scracth barrera and we'll never know the extent of his power.and you say you box,so you should defnitely understand matchmaking.

kid gavilan tunred pro at 23,not 17 and fought at least 20 fights well below welter limit,and that still doesnt change the fact that based off video of the 2,that fight is an absolute mismatch

tarver had plenty time to get in peak shape being as how he was wasnt exactly in apollo creed shape in rocky and by his own admission,normally walks around above 200lbs.he just got flat out took to school,and for a mw champ to get the linear belt is huge accomplishment.hopkins has linear champs which is something hagler never did

Don't change the argument. I'm not arguing whether Mugabi was good, I'm arguing about the idea that Mugabi couldn't punch. I understand you question the opposition but It takes serious power to behead most every fighter put in front of you in under 6 rounds even if they aren't elite fighters.

Julian Jackson is often labeled the hardest puncher P4P of all time, yet his only KO wins over really big name opponents are against Herol Graham and Terry Norris but I highly doubt you would question his power.

Gavilan turned pro at 17 not 23.

Ray Robinson was the same weight as Gavilan at the age of 17 so what's your point? So where is the mismatch?

Per Boxrec:
Ray Robinson - 5'11" 72" Reach
Kid Gavilan - 5'10" 71" Reach


Take a look for yourself:

[TheGreatA]

i thought his wiki bio said 23.might have misread.but either way,he didnt have a snowballs chance in hell of beating srr.would you say he had a chance?

Gavilan was a great fighter in my opinion, one of the top 10 all-time welterweights. He would be a difficult opponent for anybody at 147.





He would have been a champ a lot sooner if not for Robinson but regardless he defended the title 7 times until the powers that were took it from him.

[Southpaw Great]

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

4 times in amonth would be worth commneting on if it was something out the normal.fact is,thats perfectly normal for that time.

So it shouldn't be that hard for you ton dig up all the fighters who fought an average of almost twice a month over a 13 year career should it?

only guy outta all those stiffs you named who ive seen to be decent was bob gibbons,but even he had serious limitations being that he absolutely had to load up on his punches for them to have any effect and he was slow as mollases.if greb was a 3rd of what people say gibbons would be easy work as he would be way to slow.

Exactly who have you watched that fought Greb and what is it that makes them "stiffs"? Funny how your novice opinion doesn't even come close to jibing with thiose who actually have seen thesev fighters up close and those who study the sport much more closely than you or myself. But hey, they're all biased and nostalgic and could possibly know more than some clown with a computer who think Tommy Hearns wasn't a huge welterweight, right?

owned lol.people like you act like its wrong to have an unpopular opinon.

An unpopular opinion would be saying that Greb shouldn't be a top all time p4p fighter. An unpopular opinion would be to discredit his opposition without knowing all the facts. Your opinion is down right ****** as you claim Greb was a "stiff" and only fought "stiffs".

you can read 50 books on greb but his record still stays the same.

Absolutely. A fighter who was only stopped twice in almost 300 fights, only losing 20 times compared to 260 wins. A fighter who beat 18 world champions and sports arguably the greatest resume all time. Yeah, we can agree on that.

whatever you have read cant change the fact that he was almost kod by a tomato can.it doesnt change the fact that the guys he fought were stiffs.

You dwell on this one fight while dismissing the possibilities I suggested, and are quite reasonable, but you still can't change the fact he won. As far as your claim that Greb fought stiffs....we'll see about that. Experts and historians as well as people who actually saw these fighters disagree with you. We'll see what the history section thinks.
[QUOTE]

let me give you something to think about logically.if theres only 1 champ and 8 divisions,and he beat 18 world champs,that should tell you 2 things.1 the t.o rate on those belts is very high,and 2,if he beats 18 champs in a 1 belt era,who the hell were these champs beating to make them great.

Wrong again. More fighters, plus less weight classes, plus one title equal tougher competition. That is an indisputable FACT.

not to mention he was blind 1 in eye.he wouldnt even be licensed in this day and age.

What exactly does that have to do with his greatness, accomplishments and who he fought?

join the 21st century dude.its nice out here.many posters have my mindset.

Ok, we'll see. Care to wager some of those phony e-points that if I put up a poll at least 70% of the posters will agree with my take on this and not yours? You can afford it, I let you off the hook last time if you remember correctly. You give me ALL your points if I win. If I lose I'll double yours. Fair?

imo the best boxers ever have came in the last 30 years.

Thats an easy opinion to have when you don't know boxing or its history.

Sig that bet so I can put up a poll.

[JAB5239]

i thought his wiki bio said 23.might have misread.but either way,he didnt have a snowballs chance in hell of beating srr.would you say he had a chance?

What does that have to do with whether he was a better p4p fighter than Foreman?