M. Spinks called out Hagler

[Barn]

Lol... let me give you the picture

1) I was 9yo.

2) I was the biggest Hagler fan in a few miles radius.

3) At the time I thought the Mugabi fight was a great performance showcasing the best possible Marvin (destruct and destroy is a powerful mantra for a 9yo...)

4) I was not even aware you could pick gloves and ring, and i thought rounds didn't matter.

you draw your conclusions...

Looking back I would give Leonard some chance, but at the end of the day, no one could foresee Hagler throwing away the first few rounds like that, which is ultimately what won Leonard the fight.

Everybody thought Hagler was going to walk through Leonard. Hagler thought the same and felt he didn't need to specify anything in negotiations. I think it was more Leonard's success than Hagler's loss. Certainly more than people are making out.

You always base the fact Hagler had low ring IQ or whatever and point to this example. Once can be deemed an accident, do you have any other examples?

[wmute]

Everybody thought Hagler was going to walk through Leonard. Hagler thought the same and felt he didn't need to specify anything in negotiations. I think it was more Leonard's success than Hagler's loss. Certainly more than people are making out.

You always base the fact Hagler had low ring IQ or whatever and point to this example. Once can be deemed an accident, do you have any other examples?

First Antuofermo fight (forget the scores) Hagler could have done a lot better. (given the scores he also should have)

[wmute]

Everybody thought Hagler was going to walk through Leonard. Hagler thought the same and felt he didn't need to specify anything in negotiations. I think it was more Leonard's success than Hagler's loss. Certainly more than people are making out.

You always base the fact Hagler had low ring IQ or whatever and point to this example. Once can be deemed an accident, do you have any other examples?

The Mugabi fight. How much punishment from a murderous puncher did he basically choose to withstand in that fight?

[Barn]

First Antuofermo fight (forget the scores) Hagler could have done a lot better. (given the scores he also should have)

He won it by like 6 points on my card. Not his fault.

As for Mugabi, I reckon he knew his reflexes were going and thought the best way to win was to slug it out. He did and he won.

[wmute]

Everybody thought Hagler was going to walk through Leonard. Hagler thought the same and felt he didn't need to specify anything in negotiations. I think it was more Leonard's success than Hagler's loss. Certainly more than people are making out.

Well Leonard fought a great fight, but I think switching to orthodox was entirely on Hagler, but I read all those SRL interviews a long time ago so I might have missed something.

You always base the fact Hagler had low ring IQ or whatever and point to this example. Once can be deemed an accident, do you have any other examples?

Can you reexpress yourself here? What am I basing on what?

BTW it is not that Hagler is some dumb Margarito type of fighter, just fighters like SRL or Spinks had a much higher ring IQ, but it is ok, because we are talking ATG here...

[wmute]

He won it by like 6 points on my card. Not his fault.

As for Mugabi, I reckon he knew his reflexes were going and thought the best way to win was to slug it out. He did and he won.

you are entitled to your own opinions of course.

I had it a close fight.

With Mugabi he also chose to move very little. Stamina did not leave him yet I think.

[wmute]

I'm not sure about boxing IQ, its close. But I agree for the most part with everything else.

Michael Spinks is widely believed to be one of the best light heavyweights ever, possibly top 5. Hearns above super middleweight doesn't come close.

I think boxing IQ is not close at all. Spinks was much better than Hearns (or Hagler for the matter) at adapting and at making the other guy fight his fight. Hearns was often dragged in his opponent's fight. To me that sums it up. Don't ge me wrong... Hearns boxed beautifully, but those I call skills not boxing IQ.

I find it hard to rate Spinks outside the top 5 at 175, he dominated one of the toughest LHW divisions of all time, beating everyone in it except Saad Muhammad, (who was on the way down by 82 or so), unified the belts in the process. Put a cherry on top by beating a great HW champion in Larry Holmes.

In head to head matchups, it is hard to pick against a man who could knock you out with either hand, had great ring generalship, the combination of which were a great defensive asset (let us not forget that the only man to put Spinks on his ass was Mike Tyson) which he always put to work.

My personal top 5 175 is Charles at number 1, followed by Tunney Spinks Moore in no particular order and the fifth spot for Foster. Many very honorable mentions follow...

Hearns I have in the top 5 at 154 (obviously, maybe at #1 but 154 has a very short history when compared to 175) and top 10 at 147 (not his fault... he was just too big to make 147 and fight 15 consistent rounds against top opposition) as for the other divisions he does not make the top 10 at 160, and is completely off the radar above that (well maybe at 68 he ranks, but in all honesty, who gives a damn about 68 it's less than 30yo).

The problem is everyone loved Hearns and Hagler (rightfully so, and so do I), and everyone remembers Spinks-Tyson instead of the rest of his career.

ooophh what a rant...

[jabsRstiff]

Spinks was too big, way too powerful, too awkward, too intelligent, and just too damn good for Hagler to move up 15lbs and beat.

Very few people at the time even discussed such a match. The 168lb division came about after Hagler had been champ a while, so that wasn't even there for him to do a steady climb to 175.

[Barn]

Well Leonard fought a great fight, but I think switching to orthodox was entirely on Hagler, but I read all those SRL interviews a long time ago so I might have missed something.

That's what I'm saying essentially, Leonard pulled off the upset spectacularly and wow'd the judges spectacularly. Credit needs to be given to him for that and I feel not enough is. It was to do with the psychological nature. Hagler wanted to beat the orthodox boxer by boxing orthodox to prove he was the better man. He also tried to counter the fact Leonard would be preparing for a southpaw. It wasn't a ****** move, more an egotistical one which you may render ****** if you want but, I wouldn't considering the circumstances. Hagler had to come in and win - or so he and everyone though. When fighting greats though things don't always work out.
Also about the negotiation thing Hagler wanted Leonard in the ring from his interviews. He just wanted to make sure the match would go through. He felt he'd lived in Leonards shadow for years and wanted to crush him. He didn't want to let the match slip due to glove size or something.

Can you reexpress yourself here? What am I basing on what?

I've seen you post that Hagler was not a low IQ fighter quite a lot, and I feel it's an adjective he does not deserve.

BTW it is not that Hagler is some dumb Margarito type of fighter, just fighters like SRL or Spinks had a much higher ring IQ, but it is ok, because we are talking ATG here...

Well that's fair enough but it doesn't appear that way sometimes.

I had it a close fight.

I'm not going to dwell on it but, I can't see how it could be scored close. Every punch Hagler landed was hard and landed with venom. That couldn't be said of Vito which was the main difference maker in the fight.

I think boxing IQ is not close at all. Spinks was much better than Hearns (or Hagler for the matter) at adapting and at making the other guy fight his fight. Hearns was often dragged in his opponent's fight. To me that sums it up. Don't ge me wrong... Hearns boxed beautifully, but those I call skills not boxing IQ.

If you're subtly referencing Hagler Hearns was it Hearns choosing to box or Hagler making him. (A smart move by Hagler.) Everyone is guily of getting dragged into their opponents fight though/

I find it hard to rate Spinks outside the top 5 at 175, he dominated one of the toughest LHW divisions of all time, beating everyone in it except Saad Muhammad, (who was on the way down by 82 or so), unified the belts in the process. Put a cherry on top by beating a great HW champion in Larry Holmes.

Yeah Spinks was good.

In head to head matchups, it is hard to pick against a man who could knock you out with either hand, had great ring generalship, the combination of which were a great defensive asset (let us not forget that the only man to put Spinks on his ass was Mike Tyson) which he always put to work.

I'm not saying Hagler would beat Spinks. I rate Spinks highly H2H he was very good.

My personal top 5 175 is Charles at number 1, followed by Tunney Spinks Moore in no particular order and the fifth spot for Foster. Many very honorable mentions follow...

Out of intrest where does Greb go roughly?

Hearns I have in the top 5 at 154 (obviously, maybe at #1 but 154 has a very short history when compared to 175) and top 10 at 147 (not his fault... he was just too big to make 147 and fight 15 consistent rounds against top opposition) as for the other divisions he does not make the top 10 at 160, and is completely off the radar above that (well maybe at 68 he ranks, but in all honesty, who gives a damn about 68 it's less than 30yo).

Not sure Hearns is Top 10 WW. It's arguable IMO.

The problem is everyone loved Hearns and Hagler (rightfully so, and so do I), and everyone remembers Spinks-Tyson instead of the rest of his career.

I like all three fighters. I'm never said I don't like Spinks.

[jabsRstiff]

I don't think Hagler had a low boxing IQ, but there was evidence he could over-think things going into a big fight-

He should have handled Antufermo (1st fight), Duran, and Leonard easier than he did.