Comments Thread For: Marvin Hagler, Terence Crawford, and the importance of knowing when to settle down

[SUBZER0ED]

I'm sorry but weight only becomes an issue if you gas out or slow down and neither of those happened. Any issues with brain damage show up in a lack of punch resistance and I didn't see that either.

What I did see were two things, one,Spence got caught a lot off balance and went down and got right up. Two, Errol Spence had a plan A and when that it didn't work there was no plan B because plan A never failed. By the later rounds the accumulation of punches eventually took effect but that would happen to anyone.

I always said the fight would play out exactly the way it did. Styles make fights and nobody, not even Canelo Alvarez can just walk straight in think they can just power through a guy like Crawford or Jaron Ennis. Power alone is not enough, not until they are very old..

Spence himself said that he wants to rematch Crawford at 154lbs. As for brain damage, see my post #58.

[wrecksracer]

Before we digress too much, let's return to the original discussion. Again, I have given Marvin Hagler full credit for his accomplishments, and I regard him as a great in the sport. My main point before you began to redirect the discussion was that his PRINICPAL claim to fame is having fought three other SMALLER great contemporaries. Do you argue this point? Without those fights on his record, he doesn't get mentioned past the 80s. You yourself bring up Mustafa Hamsho and John Mugabi as, ostensibly, his next most significant fights. WHAT THE HELL did midget Mustafa Hamsho ever do in this sport to make you jump up and down and declare him to be some legendary win (twice) for Hagler?!? Never a champion, not even close (unless you count champ of Syria). What did the 'legend' John Mugabi ever do but lose (mostly by KO) every time he stepped up to world level competition?

You have the gall to state that those guys would not only last more than 5 rounds with GGG, but actually beat him. I should ban you for insolence. GGG ruins ever fighter Hagler ever beat, in half the time. As far as Hearns fighting at Cruiserweight. Yes he did; a decade after he fought Hagler. His first ever fight at MW was when he moved up to fight Hagler.

you sure have a high opinion of GGG lol. His best win is a draw. GGG ruins Heans in half the time Hagler did? I think we're done here.

[SouthpawRight]

Arum said that while he was under Top Rank, Bud demanded more money than he could draw. Then once he left, he did little until he landed the fight vs a damaged Spence. Yet, he's "the best p4p in the world". That ego doe!

great fighter but no draw

an occasionally angry monk outside of the ring

His persona doesn’t sell

[SUBZER0ED]

Bud didn't demand shyt, that's not even how contracts work. Arum signed Bud to a multi fight deal with a minimum...period....once it's signed there is no negotiating.

Bob got the fights he could but none of the 147 names at the PBC were willing to fight Crawford. Keith demanded 10 million then fought Manny for a guaranteed 2.5 million, Arum offered Danny Garcia 5 million and Danny instead fought Granados for 1 million. Arum couldn't get fights for Crawford so Terrence Crawford left. Crawford fought Shawn Porter for a guaranteed 6 million + PPV, then successfully sued Top Rank, Fought Avanesyan for $10 million and Spence for 25 million.

https://www.badlefthook.com/2021/12/...xing-news-2021

[SUBZER0ED]

great fighter but no draw

an occasionally angry monk outside of the ring

His persona doesn’t sell

Like when he strong-armed his car back from a mechanic, breaking his hydraulic lift in the process. That incident turned me off about Crawford.

[SouthpawRight]

Like when he strong-armed his car back from a mechanic, breaking his hydraulic lift in the process. That incident turned me off about Crawford.

TBud WAS a hood n igga

he got shot in the head at 20 following a dice game

God was watching out for him because the bullet didnt handicap him at all

[billeau2]

I absolutely disagree. In fact, there is a comparison to be made. There is a stark similarity between Hagler and Crawford in their approach, ethic, mindset and of course, switch-hitting ability. If anything, Bud might have two great performances left in him before Father Time takes from him. He'd be well advised to not fall into the unification trap, but rather go for middleweight. If he can stay lower in weight (like Ray Robinson) and annex a major World title at 160lbs, a Canelo bout may make sense as a card-on-the-table final career bout. But if I'm anywhere near right, Crawford has to fight again within six months.

As a writer I have noticed certain tropes: One of them being, when someone compares some attribute, regardless of whether it is, or, is not independent, of the actual fighters, many readers assume the fighters are being compared... It becomes frustrating to careful readers lol. The writer did make a case for the comparison, though his attempt to weave the "silk PJ's analogy was somewhat "whoeful" lol.

Good points about Bud. I would also say similar things about "father time" and Canelo... who also has to be careful when... IF he takes a fight with Crawford.

[billeau2]

Who is Marvelous Marvin Hagler without those three fights? Every fighter's record is subject to scrutiny, especially those who would claim ATG status. Hagler was objectively a great fighter, but it is important to put his record and wins in context. He is primarily famous for fighting smaller greats of his day.

Yes but to characterize his entire career based on this fact is also wrong. Doesn't Monzon get accused of similar things, including the very thing you characterize Hagler by?

[billeau2]

People who hate fighters that are dominant in their division demand that they move up, so they can lose to someone who is naturally bigger than them. Then the haters can say, "See, I told you he was a hype job!"

That is indeed the mentality. And, when a champion stays in their lane, people also tend to look at any traits that persist amongst their opposition. For example, Monzon particularly, and to a lesser extent Hagler, were both a good size for middle weight. Hence it must follow that any opponent coming up in weight must be smaller and at a disadvantage. This despite how the actual fights look... and again, an example, sure with Naples he looked older and smaller than Monzon... in this particular case there is truth... But Ray Leanard? Thomas Hearns? Did these guys look smaller and frailer than Hagler? Or am I missing something? And if you say (missing something) "a brain cell" its on the cobbles!

[TheOneAboveAll]

Yes but to characterize his entire career based on this fact is also wrong. Doesn't Monzon get accused of similar things, including the very thing you characterize Hagler by?

I don't mean to diminish any fighter, but, as I said in my initial post, no fighter's resume is above scrutiny. Every single great fighter's resume can be inspected, disected and found to be full of asterisks, if we are inclined to look and point them out. I have said multiple times that Hagler had a great career, but it is eminently true that his fame is based principally on his fights with bigger name fighters moving up. The rest of the Fab 4 moved up to fight him. Without those fights his record is pretty lean on highlights. Those who would attempt to argue that names like Hamsho, Mugabi, Minter or Antuofermo were greats of the day need to be reminded that those guys are only remembered in history for LOSING to Hagler. That's it. Many of the same people who would hold up Hagler as an unassailable ATG argue that that equally or more dominant MWs like Bernard Hopkins and GGG were posers. All three of these guys faced and mostly beat the best competition of their respective eras.