Comments Thread For: Photos: Golovkin, Rubio Have First Face To Face!

[dray435]

And you're still talking nonsense. You cannot provide any evidence at all that the general consensus was that Hagler was robbed against Monroe. Goody Petronelli never had any problem calling the Watts fight a robbery, but he never did with regards to the Monroe fight - why do you think that is?

Thanks for making my point for me I never said it was a robbery I said many observers felt it was a robbery Im speaking about both the watts and monroe fights. Robbery never came out of my mouth in terms of me stating it was a robbery, but many felt hagler won and others didn't. But all that is irrelevant because hagler almost killed both of them in rematches via brutal stoppages.

[dray435]

It did come out of your ****** mouth though, not Ray's, see that quote he was responding to. What he said is, nobody really thought it was a robbery. I think I'd go with him, cause you seem wrong every time.

In your heart you don't believe that yourself, but who cares what you or him think because neither of you are authorities on boxing that's obvious.

[HeroBando]

Who cares what you or him think because neither of you are authorities on boxing thats obvious.

Alright, sleep well, clueless. Come back soon, i'll slap you around some more

[Ham Porter]

Thanks for making my point for me I never said it was a robbery I said many observers felt it was a robbery Im speaking about both the watts and monroe fights. Robbery never came out of my mouth in terms of me stating it was a robbery, but many felt hagler won and others didn't. But all that is irrelevant because hagler almost killed both of them in rematches via brutal stoppages.

You keep repeating this assertion with nothing to back it up with. Nobody from Hagler's camp ever disputed the decision, and the select few who actually covered and reported the fight certainly didn't portray anything less than a clear Monroe decision:

Willie Monroe pummeled a bleeding Marvin Hagler Tuesday night to win a unanimous dcision in a 10-round bout. Monroe, a 160-pound Philadelphian, came out strong against Hagler, a 160-pounder from Brockton, Mass., with left jabs and right hooks. In the 2nd round, Hagler suffered a nose bleed from a short left hook and a straight right hand. In the 5th, Monroe came out with three consecutive uppercuts and Hagler lost his mouthpiece and his nose started to bleed profusely. Hagler tried desperately to battle back and returned with a series of body punches. Monroe picked his opponent apart in the 7th with the jabs and the nose continued to bleed. But in the 8th, Hagler returned with rights and lefts to the body. In the 10th, Monroe took command and put too much pressure on Hagler." - United Press International

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Ma...e_(1st_meeting)

[dray435]

You keep repeating this assertion with nothing to back it up with. Nobody from Hagler's camp ever disputed the decision, and the select few who actually covered and reported the fight certainly didn't portray anything less than a clear Monroe decision:





http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Ma...e_(1st_meeting)

This article snippet below is from wikipedia clown in terms of historical accuracy a more reliable source than boxrec. It clearly states here that the fight was so close that monroe gave hagler a rematch and was dispatched in 12 and then koed in 2 rds in the third fight, like I have been saying all along. Because no one in haglers camp disputed the decision doesn't necessarily mean that they agreed with the decision, many times trainers and fighters will keep their feelings to themselves and be respectful so as not to jeopardize the possibility of a rematch something they obviously petitioned for and eventually got and cleared up any doubts as to who the better fighter was with hagler stopping monroe in subsequent meetings.

So that ****** argument suggesting that monroe won the first fight because no one disputed it carries no weight. Hagler also took the fight on two weeks notice in other words he didn't even train for the fight but still the fight was close and could have gone either way in the eyes of many observers, like I have been saying all along. Close means either fighter could have gotten the decision I don't know where you got that biased article, may be from the philadelphia times or something, home of the philadelphia fighter monroe. I'm sure that's an accurate unbaised account of how the fight really went, yea right. I'll stick with wikipedia in terms of historical accuracy.

Hagler took the fight on two weeks notice against a very skilled and tough fighter in monroe and it was still close,when its a close fight in the fighters hometown that usually means the visiting fighter won. You dont expect the hometown judges to give the decision to the visiting fighter do you? If anything that's a testament as to how great a fighter marvin really was taking the fight on two weeks notice in the hometown fighters backyard and making it a close fight? He proved it by knocking monroe out in the subsequent meetings. Like I said learn boxing and about the history of all time greats before you come on these boards and try to argue what you obviously know very little about, and make yourself look more ignorant in the process.
And marvin hagler was the best MW to lace up the gloves in terms of skill toughness and versatility no other MW was better not the fourth best or the fifth best the best period hands down.


Article Source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvelous_Marvin_Hagler

Hagler was a # 1 ranked middleweight boxer for many years before he could fight for the title. Hagler struggled to find high profile opponents willing to face him in his early years. Joe Frazier told Hagler, 'You have three strikes against you, "You're black, you're a southpaw, and you're good.'[7] He often had to travel to his opponents' hometowns to get fights. His first break came when he was offered --on 2 weeks' notice-- a chance against Willie 'the Worm' Monroe, who was being trained by Frazier. Hagler lost the decision but the fight was close, so Monroe gave him a rematch. This time Hagler knocked out Monroe in 12 rounds. In a third fight, he stopped Monroe in two rounds.

[Ham Porter]

This article snippet below is from wikipedia clown in terms of historical accuracy a more reliable source than boxrec. It clearly states here that the fight was so close that monroe gave hagler a rematch and was dispatched in 12 and then koed in 2 rds in the third fight, like I have been saying all along. Because no one in haglers camp disputed the decision doesn't necessarily mean that they agreed with the decision, many times trainers and fighters will keep their feelings to themselves and be respectful so as not to jeopardize the possibility of a rematch something they obviously petitioned for and eventually got and cleared up any doubts as to who the better fighter was with hagler stopping monroe in subsequent meetings.

So that ****** argument suggesting that monroe won the first fight because no one disputed it carries no weight. Hagler also took the fight on two weeks notice in other words he didn't even train for the fight but still the fight was close and could have gone either way in the eyes of many observers, like I have been saying all along. Close means either fighter could have gotten the decision I don't know where you got that biased article, may be from the philadelphia times or something, home of the philadelphia fighter monroe. I'm sure that's an accurate unbaised account of how the fight really went, yea right. I'll stick with wikipedia in terms of historical accuracy.

Hagler took the fight on two weeks notice against a very skilled and tough fighter in monroe and it was still close,when its a close fight in the fighters hometown that usually means the visiting fighter won. You dont expect the hometown judges to give the decision to the visiting fighter do you? If anything that's a testament as to how great a fighter marvin really was taking the fight on two weeks notice in the hometown fighters backyard and making it a close fight? He proved it by knocking monroe out in the subsequent meetings. Like I said learn boxing and about the history of all time greats before you come on these boards and try to argue what you obviously know very little about, and make yourself look more ignorant in the process.

And now you've gone from stating that most observers thought it was a robbery to most observers thought it was close and could have gone either way. Ignoring the fact that you've still not provided a shred of evidence to support such a claim, you can't even maintain any consistency in your own feeble argument, you silly old fart.


And yeah, I'm sure Goody Petronelli was real worried about jeopardising the possibility of rematches decades after they've actually taken place.

I'll stick with wikipedia in terms of historical accuracy

[shoe]

Stop comparing this hype job with the great marvin hagler, a prime hagler would have ran him out of the ring.

haglers biggest wins were against hearns, duran and mugabi, moving up from welter, lightweight & jmw respectively and gave him all he wanted. plus leonard moving up from welter was roughly even, same as duran fight. marvin was great but let's not turn him into a god.

[dray435]

haglers biggest wins were against hearns, duran and mugabi, moving up from welter, lightweight & jmw respectively and gave him all he wanted. plus leonard moving up from welter was roughly even, same as duran fight. marvin was great but let's not turn him into a god.

Hagler was past his prime when he fought mugabi Im convinced the hearns fight took a lot out him, but he still battered mugabi he was just a shell of himself when he fought leonard the mugabi fight took soo much out of him he had no legs in that fight no reflexes leonard even said the only reason he fought him was because he saw how much hagler had declined but he still beat leonard. Hagler convincingly beat duran in their fight a dominating performance the only person calling that fight right was al bernstein.

I dont know what fight the other announcers were watching come to find out later hagler carried duran in that fight so as not to scare away potential big money bouts with leonard and hearns and we all know what happened in the hearns fight, destruction. And they had all grown and matured into bonafied MWs so can that argument about they were smaller fighters none of them could even make junior middle without killing themselves at that point, they were all years removed from their initial fighting weights at that point all campaigning at higher weights for some time with the exception of leonard.

In all honesty hagler was past his prime when he fought them all he peaked early much of the foot movement and reflexes he displayed earlier in his career was absent when he faced all the above mentioned fighters. Not to mention they all went on to win titles in higher weight classes leonard as far as light heavy, hearns at light heavy, and duran winning titles at MW they were all bonafide MWs and Light Heavy Weights and simply bigger fighters at that time, all naturally growing into the bigger weight classes and winning titles in those divisions they were far removed from their initial fighting weights and were no longer lightweights and welterweights respectively, but much bigger stronger and accomplished fighters at the higher weight classes.

[dray435]

And now you've gone from stating that most observers thought it was a robbery to most observers thought it was close and could have gone either way. Ignoring the fact that you've still not provided a shred of evidence to support such a claim, you can't even maintain any consistency in your own feeble argument, you silly old fart.


And yeah, I'm sure Goody Petronelli was real worried about jeopardising the possibility of rematches decades after they've actually taken place.

Do yourself a favor keep quiet and stop embarrassing yourself idiot, because you have been exposed as ignorant and clueless and owned. Acting silly, harassing, and posting ****** emoticons don't make you right imbecile.

[HeroBando]

Do yourself a favor keep quiet and stop embarrassing yourself idiot, because you have been exposed as ignorant and clueless and owned. Acting silly, harassing, and posting ****** emoticons don't make you right imbecile.

He's not embarrssing himself, you are. You keep backtracking on what you'd just said, are consistently wrong and clueless