why is hagler rated sooo highly?? :/

[Tony Trick-Pony]

[QUOTE=Kigali;17038387]That's the most overrated point that could ever be made.

Fighters today SHOULD be much better than they are if ANY of that were true.

Training techniques that produced greatness are long forgotten...that's why we are left with a shell of what boxers used to be.


Fighters in the past had pure water and food without pesticides..chemicals...and lord knows what else...they didn't need to take supplements.[/QUOTE]

Great point. I'm not sold on modern fighters having so many advantages.

[Kagami Taiga]

So you're telling me Duran, Leonard, and Hearns were great MWs?

I never denied Hagler wasn't an ATG/HOF, just overrated in greatness.

Fact, Hagler never beat a great MW. He lost to a WW coming off a long layoff.

Another fact is your double standards. I bet you even if Golovkin were to beat a great WW/MW, you won't give him credit.

i said that, where???? Hearns is considered a very good MW historically tho. And you are still going on with this charade. No matter how you might not like it, Hagler is a great fighter. He's not overrated and hes considered a top 5 talent in MW history by most, if not all, historians. I'm not even sure what you are trying say anymore. You want to talk about facts, but you clearly gloss over anything you dont want to accept. You know why??? Agendas. Coming in this thread and even trying to argue Hearns is somehow overrated already put you on the level of these other cretins in this thread. No need to keep up the fight.

[Mr.Fantastic]

i said that, where???? Hearns is considered a very good MW historically tho. And you are still going on with this charade. No matter how you might not like it, Hagler is a great fighter. He's not overrated and hes considered a top 5 talent in MW history by most, if not all, historians. I'm not even sure what you are trying say anymore. You want to talk about facts, but you clearly gloss over anything you dont want to accept. You know why??? Agendas. Coming in this thread and even trying to argue Hearns is somehow overrated already put you on the level of these other cretins in this thread. No need to keep up the fight.

How I may not like it? You're having problems understanding me. I know he's an ATG, just not as great as people like you make him out to be. I already explained how MWs depend on smaller guys to up their resumes. It's the same thing Golovkin did with Brook.

Where did I say Hearns is overrated? Did you not comprehend where I put I'm a huge Hearns fan? Jesus man! You're running out of things to make up.

What fight? This is like taking candy from a baby debating with you.

[deathofaclown]

I didn't see boxing in the 80s. I'm thirty and I still think I was too young for the nineties to remember things clearly but why in every sport when people compare past great to today's team/athletes for any sport people act like it's crazy to think that athletes these days can win?

It's just natural that human evolves and we're getting stronger, smarter, bigger, faster and I can't imagine any athlete in the 70's will do better than any athlete these days. I mean look at the football players the lineman back then probably is the same size as a safety these days or on basketball where 7footers now can jump and run with small guys.

I think Ali wouldnt be that special in this era and watch all the angry historians of boxing crucify me. I mean the hw these days are like 6'7 and above why is it crazy to think he can beat a 7ft klitchkos in their prime.

It's something i've said for a while. In almost every sport where greatness can be measured by numbers, distance etc. such as athletics, pretty all much records are broken as time goes by, the records now are in a different realm to the 70's and 80's. There might be the odd exception but very rarely.

The fact is, athletes today are far far better than 30 years ago. It would be ****** to think boxing isn't the same, it's just that it cannot be measured on record as proof like other sports, so all we have is opinion. Of course opinion makes a good talking point but still.

I think there's no way a top fighter from a few decades years ago or whatever could live with a top fighter today. They can't do it in sports where it can be measured or timed, so why would boxing be any different? - If you strip nostalgia and history and emotion away from it and look at it objectively, i think it's true.

They might look great on video, but it's all relative isn't it. Watch a video of Carl Lewis running and he looks lightning quick. Put him in a 100m today and he won't have a shot at winning with the times he was running then. Boxing would be the same if it were possible to measure it.

One would have to be very ignorant or in denial to think otherwise.

[cork]

And no matter how people pretend otherwise, humanity has not changed that much in 30-40 years. The best basketball players of the 70s and 80s would be just as athletically freakish now as they were then. Most of the advancement is in training and nutrition, not humanity itself. There's some, but not so much that people 30 years ago couldn't compete.

Then you add in that the whole "bigger and stronger" thing doesn't apply to a sport with weight classes and the argument is really silly that somehow Hagler athletically or physically can't compete with modern middleweights.

What? You think they havent changed since the 70's? Have you seen football or basketball players back then compare to now. Boxing back then people didn't rehydrate like they do now or the science stuff that comes out where they get to train harder. Things change and evolve that's just everything in life.

[HeadShots]

is i banned?

[HeadShots]

Fuaaaaaaaaaaack

[TOBYLEE1]

Lost vs Hamsho?

It was Watts, which he later he avenged. He also fought Hamsho twice. It has been a a long time from that era

[TOBYLEE1]

Actually he destroyed Hamsho twice brutally.

He fought southpaw or righty comfortably, He had power in either hand, he could box, he had a granite chin, was never trully defeated by anyone and every opponent who fought him went through hell against him, they were never the same or they were demoralized.

I stand corrected, it was Watts

[nacho daddy]

So what two welterweights and lightweight does GGG have to beat for you to respect him?

and Mugabe was a JM