WHICH ONE was the better FIGHT?

[jabsRstiff]

Fights and fighters are just like wine, they get better as the years go by in the eyes of the public.

Give the Castillo v. Corrales fight 5 or 10 years to ferment, let the tale/legend grow...also after 5 or 10 years have gone by and no one has seen a better fight then it will really ring true as to how great the fight actually was.

Hagler/Hearns was a benchmark as you said and it was an unfair one because it was almost impossible to equal, Castillo/Corrales is the new age benchmark and fans will slowly realize that this fight is not going to be equaled anytime soon.

Tough too pick but 10 rounds of war is 10 rounds of war.

Scap.....

Hagler-Hearns was an instantaneous benchmark. No marinating necessary.
It was remembered as fondly in '85, '87, '93....as it is today.

But, yes....Castillo-Corrales will look even better (is that possible) years down the road.
Good point.

[TheEvilSaint]

castillo/corrales was great, but it was just a lot of infighting. hagler/hearns was a lot of SLUGGING, outfighting, and all at a vicious pace. castillo/corrales was nowhere near as fast as hagler/hearns.

[SonnyG8R]

It has to be Hagler v Hearns for me, might have been just three rounds of boxing but WHAT three rounds of boxing they were.

The BB22 is correct again.

The right answer is Hagler v. Hearns.

Spitting out the mouth piece twice was what tainted Castillo v. Corrales, and quite frankly turned an otherwise awesome fight into a bit of a sham.

[PapiShasho]

first of all, in my opinion, hagler-hearns is overrated. yeah i said it, OVERRATED. its a 3 round vicious fight, but theres been many of those, and ive seen worse street fights last longer. everyone gets their panties wet over less than 6 minutes of action.

now as far as castillo-corrales, it was already a GREAT fight, but the whole mouthpiece **** made it memorable. it added drama, let us witness a great comeback within a round, allowed for a rematch, and maybe sets up one of the best trilogies of all time.

ps. im not mexican, but both of these guys are on my favorite fighters list now.

[PapiShasho]

or in other words, hagler-hearns was a quickie, castillo-corrales was an all-nighter.

[uncle_rico]

both great fights, but let's make it black and white:
let's assume none of you guys have either of these fights on tape,dvd,
whatever and one of these fights was never to be shown again.
which one would you can you live with never seeing again?
when i saw this thread i immediately thought, well, c/c was 10
rounds, so i thougt c/c was the better fight.
but, if i had to pick one, of which i'd never see again?
i'd have to let c/c go...
i need to pop the hagler hearns fight into the old vhs every now and then.

[{BrownBomber}]

i gave all you ****ing morons a well deserved dose of bad karma. im gonna jet to goto breakfast, later.


the reason hagler hearns was better is

nobody pussied out at the end spitting out their mouthpiece

way more elite moves were used, check out hearns using the ropes for leverage in round one,

hearns broke his right hand on haglers head in round one, that was an epic punch and proves he had an epic chin..not to mention add hella drama to the fight and show how brave and great hearns was for continuing to throw that right hand even after it was broke


it was war from the opening bell very much on a different level than jlc castillo

and finally i will add its mostly latino ****heads voting for jlc -corrales..you chumps are only voting because you want a mexican fight to go down as the all time great fight, you guys are morons.. you dont see me voting for the lesser fight just because their skin is lighter do you?

hey slip not only was it more rounds of action it was to evenly matched opponents. As for Hagler Hearns they were evenly matched in some areas and both had different weapons but the thing that stuck out significantly was Hearns galss jaw.You have to be a very big fan of Hearns or Hagler to pick their fight over Castillo Corrales, Im trying to as honest and as unbiased as I can. Their it is plain and simple not only more rounds but more evenly matched guys in (key words) every department.

[riz]

they were both good, but i guess i could go either way. but the corrales fight u dont c as good fights now as u did then, so with that being said i guess i'd pick that

[scap]

hey slip not only was it more rounds of action it was to evenly matched opponents. As for Hagler Hearns they were evenly matched in some areas and both had different weapons but the thing that stuck out significantly was Hearns galss jaw.You have to be a very big fan of Hearns or Hagler to pick their fight over Castillo Corrales, Im trying to as honest and as unbiased as I can. Their it is plain and simple not only more rounds but more evenly matched guys in (key words) every department.

Exactly! It was the lack of a Hearns chin that makes Castillo vs. Corrales better...Hearns is not the type of guy that is going to eat big punch after big punch. His weak Chin made the fight look pretty damn brutal. Castillo vs. Corrales was just as brutal, I think more brutal the difference being that both guys ate big punch after big punch. Hearns eats a big pnch and then goes into his patented chicken dance, man I loved it when Hearns would get wobbled!

[mikefromstu]

if i was a mod, id delete u asshats accounts for saying castillo corrales just because it was more rounds

silly ****ing novices..

Dude, your an idiot. Do you even watch boxing. I mean reading some of your posts is like listening to a conversation in a special ed class.