Dwight Muhamed Qawi called Marvin Hagler out

[mickey malone]

you suggested hagler would beat spinks by suggesting that hagler had the tools to make it a great fight because spinks couldnt ko qawi.

No I didn't.. Somehow, you've managed to do a 3-way twist in one sentence!..

Lets not confuse matters:-

1. I have stated that Hagler would lose to Spinks in a very close distance fight..
2. If Spinks could not ko Qawi, it is my belief that he could not have ko'd Hagler..

Was Qawi's chin better than Hagler's?...

is demarcus corley somebody of note?what about cerifi who won a few belts?you know good and well winning a belt doesnt make you noteworthy,nor does constantly fighting for 1.keith holmes isnt a notable win on hopkins resume for a good reason.he had a belt but he wasnt very good.your entitled to your opinon but i strongly disagree.i feel the only note worthy fights hearns had at the higher weights were barkley,and hill

If I look at a fighters resume and he has wins over Corley, Holmes and Cherifi, all 3 of them would stand out as fighters who spent a notable amount of time in the the top 10 of their divisions.. They have all made several tv appearences, and are all clearly listed in the record books as former champions..
However, we're debating noteworthy performances, and the likes of Medal, Schuler, Roldan, Andries, etc, all getting smoked by a paper thin welterweight are rather noteworthy imo..
Barkley also had a few noteworthy performances, none more so than beating the smaller and more delicate Hearns on 2 occasions, but when Hearns beats the bigger guys, you say they are not noteworthy????.. I'd say you're somewhat confused..

i clearly mixed up hearns name with haglers lol.nice try.this is about my 8th post and i mention several times about hagler and mugabe,so stop reaching.especially being that you still dint answer the ? of who did mugabe beat beat bigger than hagler

Oh such a common error!...

Although not relevent, Mugabe ko'd Carlos Fonseca and Ricky Stackhouse at 168.. He also outpointed Pete Kinsella who was a cruiserweight, there's others too, but not one of them is what I would call a noteworthy performance..

yes,greb is a fictional character.people believe in jesus and he has books about him also.that means everything he did was real also huh?like the great ali said"t.v is exposing these bums"

Come to think of it, i've seen some of you're posts on this topic.
Pure undiluted ownage was administered if I remember rightly..

Actually, I think you'll find that Greb was a non-fictional character who had a very long and successful career as a middleweight boxer.. Fictional, means invented, or are you now going to twist the words to, "Fictional, based on a true story" lol
I wonder what Greb's relations would think about your take on this!,, Let alone the rest of the history section lol..

i rank ray rob as the best ww ever.if i ranked him as a mw i would put him #2 behind hopkins.i think he beats anybody hopkins fought but i cant see him beating the bernard that beat tito,plus sugar was abit past his best at mw.i would rank hagler atg status in the 30 range.i just dont think he should be higher than multi division champs

Agreed, if they're not cherry pickers..

I rate Robinson as good enough to be rated in 2 divisions, but i've got no quarrel with those that don't.. As a matter of interest, who would you rate higher on an ATG list, Hagler, or Bob Fitzsimmons?

[Mud]

Why would a perfectly proportioned 5'9" 160lb undisputed champion want to move all the way up to 175 when you've got greater fighters such as Duran, Hearns and Leonard, all forming a queue to fight him?.. Quawi would have been a great match, but no greater than any of the above..

Exactly. Hagler was always a middleweight. It was his natural weight. Duran, Leonard, Hearns all moved up naturally, and were big names with big pay days.
Why would Hagler force himself to put on weight that would lessen him as a fighter, to face a smaller pay day and get less recognition?


If anyone criticizes Hagler for calling out lighter men, then the same would apply to Qawi and Spinks.

[r.burgundy]

you suggested hagler would beat spinks by suggesting that hagler had the tools to make it a great fight because spinks couldnt ko qawi.

No I didn't.. Somehow, you've managed to do a 3-way twist in one sentence!..

Lets not confuse matters:-

1. I have stated that Hagler would lose to Spinks in a very close distance fight..
2. If Spinks could not ko Qawi, it is my belief that he could not have ko'd Hagler..

Was Qawi's chin better than Hagler's?...

is demarcus corley somebody of note?what about cerifi who won a few belts?you know good and well winning a belt doesnt make you noteworthy,nor does constantly fighting for 1.keith holmes isnt a notable win on hopkins resume for a good reason.he had a belt but he wasnt very good.your entitled to your opinon but i strongly disagree.i feel the only note worthy fights hearns had at the higher weights were barkley,and hill

If I look at a fighters resume and he has wins over Corley, Holmes and Cherifi, all 3 of them would stand out as fighters who spent a notable amount of time in the the top 10 of their divisions.. They have all made several tv appearences, and are all clearly listed in the record books as former champions..
However, we're debating noteworthy performances, and the likes of Medal, Schuler, Roldan, Andries, etc, all getting smoked by a paper thin welterweight are rather noteworthy imo..
Barkley also had a few noteworthy performances, none more so than beating the smaller and more delicate Hearns on 2 occasions, but when Hearns beats the bigger guys, you say they are not noteworthy????.. I'd say you're somewhat confused..

i clearly mixed up hearns name with haglers lol.nice try.this is about my 8th post and i mention several times about hagler and mugabe,so stop reaching.especially being that you still dint answer the ? of who did mugabe beat beat bigger than hagler

Oh such a common error!...

Although not relevent, Mugabe ko'd Carlos Fonseca and Ricky Stackhouse at 168.. He also outpointed Pete Kinsella who was a cruiserweight, there's others too, but not one of them is what I would call a noteworthy performance..

yes,greb is a fictional character.people believe in jesus and he has books about him also.that means everything he did was real also huh?like the great ali said"t.v is exposing these bums"

Come to think of it, i've seen some of you're posts on this topic.
Pure undiluted ownage was administered if I remember rightly..

Actually, I think you'll find that Greb was a non-fictional character who had a very long and successful career as a middleweight boxer.. Fictional, means invented, or are you now going to twist the words to, "Fictional, based on a true story" lol
I wonder what Greb's relations would think about your take on this!,, Let alone the rest of the history section lol..

i rank ray rob as the best ww ever.if i ranked him as a mw i would put him #2 behind hopkins.i think he beats anybody hopkins fought but i cant see him beating the bernard that beat tito,plus sugar was abit past his best at mw.i would rank hagler atg status in the 30 range.i just dont think he should be higher than multi division champs

Agreed, if they're not cherry pickers..

I rate Robinson as good enough to be rated in 2 divisions, but i've got no quarrel with those that don't.. As a matter of interest, who would you rate higher on an ATG list, Hagler, or Bob Fitzsimmons?

you said spinks would win by the skin of his teeth in what would be by far his toiughest fight.thats the same as saying you think hagler has a shot at a decision.only george and holy ko'd qawi.i would say he had a great chin being as how it took foreman 7 rounds to get him out.at lhw he was never stopped.please dont tell me you think marvin would go the distance with foreman and holy also

thats fair enough but taking corley for instance,when were talking about floyds noteworthy wins,corley doesnt deserve a mention.same with tito and cerifi.every contender isnt a fighter of merit.corley has fought judah,cotto and mayweather.realistically,he's not supposed to win those fights.outside of 1 round against cotto,he was thoroughly dominated by all 3.same with david diaz and pacman.diaz is only noteworthy cause had a belt.if that was a non title fight who would care that pac beat that guy to a pulp

lol your pulling a jab323 here and misinterperting.i didnt mean greb was literally a fictional character,it was a reference to his superhuman feats in the ring,which conviently there is no footage of.if there is video of jack johnson and fitzsimmons,you can not convince there isnt a single match of greb on video

i put bob behind hagler.he is in the low 30 closer to 40 range.i rank him and johnson low because i dont believe they could compete in a modern era,but i do i respect them

[mickey malone]

you said spinks would win by the skin of his teeth in what would be by far his toiughest fight.thats the same as saying you think hagler has a shot at a decision.only george and holy ko'd qawi.i would say he had a great chin being as how it took foreman 7 rounds to get him out.at lhw he was never stopped. please dont tell me you think marvin would go the distance with foreman and holy also

1. Yes, I said that
2. I won't tell you that

thats fair enough but taking corley for instance,when were talking about floyds noteworthy wins,corley doesnt deserve a mention.same with tito and cerifi.every contender isnt a fighter of merit.corley has fought judah,cotto and mayweather.realistically,he's not supposed to win those fights.outside of 1 round against cotto,he was thoroughly dominated by all 3.same with david diaz and pacman.diaz is only noteworthy cause had a belt.if that was a non title fight who would care that pac beat that guy to a pulp

Corley etc were prospects, contenders, champions, gatekeepers and top 10 fighters in their divisions.. But the fighters above 147 who were ko'd by Hearns that I have labled as noteworthy are, Schuler, Medal, Hutchins, Roldan, Andries and Andrew Maynard at 190.. I havn't said a lot about Maynard, but when you consider that he won lhwt Gold at the Seoul Olympics; that puts him alongside Muhummad Ali as an amateur.. So for a welterweight to KO him, is very noteworthy indeed!

This is how Wiki described it:-

Among his remaining notable fights were a KO loss to Thomas Hearns and a TKO loss at heavyweight to Brian Nielsen. Maynard retired in 2000.

lol your pulling a jab323 here and misinterperting.i didnt mean greb was literally a fictional character,it was a reference to his superhuman feats in the ring,which conviently there is no footage of.if there is video of jack johnson and fitzsimmons,you can not convince there isnt a single match of greb on video

I havn't misinterpretated anything.. You clearly dismiss all the fighters you havn't seen film of and then use a bad choice of words to discredit them..
You should read Gene Tunney's autobiography in order to find out a bit more about Greb.

i put bob behind hagler.he is in the low 30 closer to 40 range.i rank him and johnson low because i dont believe they could compete in a modern era,but i do i respect them

So i think it's fair to say that you'd rate Greb below Fitz?

It's all down to opinions, and you're not the only poster who goes against the grain on this.. I agree that some of the old school legends have had things said about them that have been blown out of proportion over the years, but I don't let it cloud my judgement on their abilities or accomplishments, as not every source is unreliable.. Quite a few of Greb's opponents are on film, and it isn't too difficult to get a measure of his greatness by observing the greats that he fought, and then reading reliable sources that marry the two.. Wipe away the ignorance, because it isn't just you and i that are interested in boxing history, and it it isn't just us who only ever rely on the truth.. There were people just like us, sitting at ringside and writing things as they happened, and here's us, still discussing it in 2010!!.. Greb was one of the finest ATG's, no doubt about it, and casting him off due to lack of footage is not only insulting the history of boxing, but more so it is insulting yourself as a follower of something you don't believe in.. This is simply because you have no trust in anyone but yourself and only believe what you have seen.. Top marks if it makes you feel secure, but it's a big fail if you're claiming not to be ignorant..

[r.burgundy]

you said spinks would win by the skin of his teeth in what would be by far his toiughest fight.thats the same as saying you think hagler has a shot at a decision.only george and holy ko'd qawi.i would say he had a great chin being as how it took foreman 7 rounds to get him out.at lhw he was never stopped. please dont tell me you think marvin would go the distance with foreman and holy also

1. Yes, I said that
2. I won't tell you that

thats fair enough but taking corley for instance,when were talking about floyds noteworthy wins,corley doesnt deserve a mention.same with tito and cerifi.every contender isnt a fighter of merit.corley has fought judah,cotto and mayweather.realistically,he's not supposed to win those fights.outside of 1 round against cotto,he was thoroughly dominated by all 3.same with david diaz and pacman.diaz is only noteworthy cause had a belt.if that was a non title fight who would care that pac beat that guy to a pulp

Corley etc were prospects, contenders, champions, gatekeepers and top 10 fighters in their divisions.. But the fighters above 147 who were ko'd by Hearns that I have labled as noteworthy are, Schuler, Medal, Hutchins, Roldan, Andries and Andrew Maynard at 190.. I havn't said a lot about Maynard, but when you consider that he won lhwt Gold at the Seoul Olympics; that puts him alongside Muhummad Ali as an amateur.. So for a welterweight to KO him, is very noteworthy indeed!

This is how Wiki described it:-

Among his remaining notable fights were a KO loss to Thomas Hearns and a TKO loss at heavyweight to Brian Nielsen. Maynard retired in 2000.

lol your pulling a jab323 here and misinterperting.i didnt mean greb was literally a fictional character,it was a reference to his superhuman feats in the ring,which conviently there is no footage of.if there is video of jack johnson and fitzsimmons,you can not convince there isnt a single match of greb on video

I havn't misinterpretated anything.. You clearly dismiss all the fighters you havn't seen film of and then use a bad choice of words to discredit them..
You should read Gene Tunney's autobiography in order to find out a bit more about Greb.

i put bob behind hagler.he is in the low 30 closer to 40 range.i rank him and johnson low because i dont believe they could compete in a modern era,but i do i respect them

So i think it's fair to say that you'd rate Greb below Fitz?

It's all down to opinions, and you're not the only poster who goes against the grain on this.. I agree that some of the old school legends have had things said about them that have been blown out of proportion over the years, but I don't let it cloud my judgement on their abilities or accomplishments, as not every source is unreliable.. Quite a few of Greb's opponents are on film, and it isn't too difficult to get a measure of his greatness by observing the greats that he fought, and then reading reliable sources that marry the two.. Wipe away the ignorance, because it isn't just you and i that are interested in boxing history, and it it isn't just us who only ever rely on the truth.. There were people just like us, sitting at ringside and writing things as they happened, and here's us, still discussing it in 2010!!.. Greb was one of the finest ATG's, no doubt about it, and casting him off due to lack of footage is not only insulting the history of boxing, but more so it is insulting yourself as a follower of something you don't believe in.. This is simply because you have no trust in anyone but yourself and only believe what you have seen.. Top marks if it makes you feel secure, but it's a big fail if you're claiming not to be ignorant..

i think any former welter knocking guys out at 160+ lbs is incredible.hearns is my #3 welter of all time behind srr,and srl.even though fights arent won on paper,there arent many top mw,lhw,or cruisers i would favor hearns over.of all the fighters you call notable i think schuler was the guy who couldve been a really great win down the road.i think it couldve been a win like gonzalez was for jones.gonzalez wasnt a popular jones foe but ended up beating michalskwi,a guy who many clamied jones ducked.clinton woods also gave jonhson some very tough fights,even though some claim home cooking was involved in his win.

as far as greb,i believe he was a great fighter,but how great is the issue.ive only seen footage of tunney,gibbons,and walker and its far from impressive.thats not fair to greb because you can only fight who is put in front of you.i like the gibbons win but judging by tunney,walker fights greb didnt have a transcendent skill set.here are some boxrec quotes about grebs fights

gene tunney:" Greb was made to observe the rules closely and this undoubtedly curbed his usual free-wheeling style."

johnny wilson:"The Pittsburgh Post reported that Greb did not fight in his usual cyclonic style. Evidently fearing disqualification he boxed in orthodox style."

quotes like that make me wonder what the hell was going on in these fights and how many fights did he win by not being made to closely observe the rules.

but really the most telling is his fight with soldier jones who was 18-18.
"After one minute of action Greb was caught by a right hook and floored for "8." Harry was "wobbling like a drunk" when he got to his feet and Jones dumped him again with a right. Greb appeared out when he got to his feet, pale and shaken, but backpedalled and lasted out the round. Harry started well in the second round but after a minute Jones landed two lefts and Greb was in bad trouble again."

granted that fight is closer to the end of his career than his prime,it leads me to believe he wouldnt stand a chance with great mw's like hagler,hopkins,and monzon,jones etc,especially if made to observe the rules.but almost getting ko'd by a guy who retired 20-28 with a 34% ko ratio is inexcusable for a supposed top 10 atg,especially in the weight class your ranked in.

theirs ignorance on both parts.in sports,seeing is believing.how much of your thoughts are your own if their all based on other peoples eyes and opinions?

[DeepSleep]

This thread has more strange arguments in one thread than than most of the threads made in the History section in the last few weeks. Some of the highlights:

- Hearns was not a big WW, and apparently has no good KO wins above WW

- Hagler picked on only smaller men and isn't an ATG, also he was a huge MW.

- Iran Barkley wasn't a big MW.

- Mugabi can't punch

- Greb = False

- Ali's win over Foreman is better than any of Ray Robinson's wins.

My favorite point was the part about Hagler only fighting smaller men, than shortly after claiming the Hopkins is the best MW of all time. Hopkins fought people smaller than him his entire career and his best wins are against WW's and a JMW.

[mickey malone]

i think any former welter knocking guys out at 160+ lbs is incredible.hearns is my #3 welter of all time behind srr,and srl.even though fights arent won on paper,there arent many top mw,lhw,or cruisers i would favor hearns over.of all the fighters you call notable i think schuler was the guy who couldve been a really great win down the road.i think it couldve been a win like gonzalez was for jones.gonzalez wasnt a popular jones foe but ended up beating michalskwi,a guy who many clamied jones ducked.clinton woods also gave jonhson some very tough fights,even though some claim home cooking was involved in his win.

You've gone wandering off on to another thread again..

gene tunney:" Greb was made to observe the rules closely and this undoubtedly curbed his usual free-wheeling style."

johnny wilson:"The Pittsburgh Post reported that Greb did not fight in his usual cyclonic style. Evidently fearing disqualification he boxed in orthodox style."

quotes like that make me wonder what the hell was going on in these fights and how many fights did he win by not being made to closely observe the rules.

When there's 299 fights to chose from, it does get a little confusing.. He may have gotten clumbsy in a few of them, but what do you expect from a man with one eye?... He was still beating 90% of those put infront of him, not to mention that many of them were world champions or ATG's at LHW.. The fact that he could adapt to so many different styles is fundumentally what made him so great..

but really the most telling is his fight with soldier jones who was 18-18.
"After one minute of action Greb was caught by a right hook and floored for "8." Harry was "wobbling like a drunk" when he got to his feet and Jones dumped him again with a right. Greb appeared out when he got to his feet, pale and shaken, but backpedalled and lasted out the round. Harry started well in the second round but after a minute Jones landed two lefts and Greb was in bad trouble again."
granted that fight is closer to the end of his career than his prime,it leads me to believe he wouldnt stand a chance with great mw's like hagler,hopkins,and monzon,jones etc,especially if made to observe the rules.but almost getting ko'd by a guy who retired 20-28 with a 34% ko ratio is inexcusable for a supposed top 10 atg,especially in the weight class your ranked in.

Well, there's been plenty of ATG's who have been cold ****ed in the first round, or have suffered a freak ko by a journeyman, but here we have one who after over 200 fights, got back up and won.. Another sign of greatness!

theirs ignorance on both parts.in sports,seeing is believing.how much of your thoughts are your own if their all based on other peoples eyes and opinions?

But you're happy to go with the opinion of Boxrec to discredit his win against Jones!..

[mickey malone]

This thread has more strange arguments in one thread than than most of the threads made in the History section in the last few weeks - DeepSleep

- Hearns was not a big WW, and apparently has no good KO wins above WW
- r.burgundy

- Hagler picked on only smaller men and isn't an ATG, also he was a huge MW
- r.burgundy

- Iran Barkley wasn't a big MW - r.burgundy

- Mugabi can't punch - r.burgundy

- Greb = False - r.burgundy

- Ali's win over Foreman is better than any of Ray Robinson's wins - r. burgundy

My favorite point was the part about Hagler only fighting smaller men, than shortly after claiming that Hopkins is the best MW of all time - r.burgundy

Hopkins fought people smaller than him his entire career and his best wins are against WW's and a JMW -Deep Sleep

[r.burgundy]

This thread has more strange arguments in one thread than than most of the threads made in the History section in the last few weeks. Some of the highlights:

- Hearns was not a big WW, and apparently has no good KO wins above WW

- Hagler picked on only smaller men and isn't an ATG, also he was a huge MW.

- Iran Barkley wasn't a big MW.

- Mugabi can't punch

- Greb = False

- Ali's win over Foreman is better than any of Ray Robinson's wins.

My favorite point was the part about Hagler only fighting smaller men, than shortly after claiming the Hopkins is the best MW of all time. Hopkins fought people smaller than him his entire career and his best wins are against WW's and a JMW.

tall,yes,big no

who did he fight bigger?

what notable fighter has mugabe ever ko'd?never said he couldnt punch,just said he was an overated puncher

greb was almost ko'd by a guy who was 18-18.alotta his feats sound fictional to me

what win does srr have that trumps foreman???this oughta be good

hopkins best wins are against tito,the linear lhw champ tarver,which is somethin that trumps anything hagler did,and beating the undisputed mw champ in pavlik at age 43

[JAB5239]

tall,yes,big no

who did he fight bigger?

what notable fighter has mugabe ever ko'd?never said he couldnt punch,just said he was an overated puncher

greb was almost ko'd by a guy who was 18-18.alotta his feats sound fictional to me

what win does srr have that trumps foreman???this oughta be good

hopkins best wins are against tito,the linear lhw champ tarver,which is somethin that trumps anything hagler did,and beating the undisputed mw champ in pavlik at age 43

Ron, you're in denial. Everything you have claimed has been disagreed with by the overwhelming majority and debunked. Why would you even keep posting the same old crap over and over?