How does Calzaghe vs Hagler play out at SMW?

[CarlosG815]

You never said you disagreed with it either. In fact, you said his post was a "well-constructed argument demonstrating logical thinking, evidence and plenty of effort"


And I don't recall shedding any tears over this. Did you?

Mugwump again trying to intervene in a thread to defend his beloved Eurofraud fighters by using big words and trying to sound intelligent, only to again sound like a buffoon.

Don't try to backtalk Mugwump, the kid is an idiot and you agreed and commended his idiocy.

[jjbj2]

I know reading back in my posts. I jumbled up a lot of information without really revising any of it. The way I wrote my opinion was the way I would have probably said it.

Now, let me get back to the topic.

Here is Sugar Ray Leonard's opinion in how to beat Marvin Hagler as mentioned in the Ring Magazine's website:

******.com: Your thoughts on the action in Hagler's third-round knockout over Hearns?

RL: Listen, man, if Tommy would have used that jab, he would have won that fight. But the reason that I also knew that Tommy was vulnerable was that he also had a kamikaze mentality. It was a do-or-die situation for Tommy.

So Tommy would go in there without even thinking about, you know, "by the way, I'm 6-foot-2," or, "by the way, I'm very fast," or, "by the way, my jab is a thing of beauty and a thing of art."

Then you have, "my height," and, "my reach." It was like he would forget about those things that were so apparent in his skills and his dimensions. If he would have used that jab, then he would have won that fight.

I normally don't go with the hypothetical, but in that fight, it was so apparent. If Tommy Hearns had boxed Hagler, then he would have beaten Hagler. Fact. Fact. Because of his hand speed, his height.

******.com: Why was there such a contrast in the way that Hearn fought you and the way that he fought Hagler?

RL: Tommy would have beaten Hagler, but he got into this exchange mentality. You can't win against Hagler if you stand toe-to-toe and go with him punch-for-punch.

Although I thought about fighting Hagler that same way, that was my first fight plan, because I knew that Hagler had been cut a few times and I was going to use that and try to bust him up.

But Tommy would have won that fight if he had resorted to boxing. Looking back also, having seen that fight a thousand times, it looked as though Tommy's legs were not holding up against Hagler.

Tommy seemed a little off balance as if his legs couldn't hold him up. I think that Tommy knew something that we didn't know. But who is to say. His legs, remember, they just kind of folded beneath him.

I know someone mentioned that "height" is overrated in boxing. However, many boxers like Sugar Ray Leonard believes "height" plays a factor in any boxing match.

Look at how Leonard insist that Hearns would have won the fight if he just moved on the outside utilizing jabs, not get to a toe-to-toe war, use his reach and use his "height" in the fight against Hagler.

So, really my opinion is similar to Leonard's opinion that beating Hagler is all about fighting from the outside and not get suckered in a brawl. I might even have a point that Leonard did watch those two fights that Hagler lost.

Anyway, people need to be more open-minded in debates and stop the name calling because it doesn't get the discussion anywhere if people just focus on the ******ity rather than the boxing aspect of the debate.

Going back to the discussion a lot of you guys don't even consider Calzaghe as a toe-to-toe fighter but rather as a boxer fighter.

Anyway, I promise next time I post here the opinions and facts are going to be better presented. I will take my time rather than post what I am thinking right now.

Peace out, also I still like the History Section.