Fullmer vs Hagler

[Rusty Tromboni]

Who wouldn't beat Graziano? Oh, how's about, all other former lightweight champions, to name a few dozen guys?

That's an interesting challenge. You only get away with making it because the championships were on freeze during the War. Robinson would have been a Lightweight champion, and he ended Graziano's career.

Mayweather schools him. True, he would have never fought at Lightweight in Graziano's era. So, I won't hold that against you too much. And we really don't know how well Mayweather would handle that era - he might implode.

I would love to see Rocky vs. the Armstrong of the Garcia rematch.

Packey McFarland (not a champion, I know) and Benny Leonard might have been primitive compared to contemporaries of Graziano, but their success against truly great Welterweights makes me think they'd have a chance.

Ross and McLarnin might be underdogs, but not so much that they wouldn't earn a spot in the ring. And would you really be shocked if they won?

Whitaker might have had a chance at really embarassing Rocky. Depending on how much you owe the loss to Trinidad to his spiraling personal life, or how much you think Tito was just too big and powerful should determine your position. But Graziano and Tito probably were pretty comparable in terms of size, power, ability. Tito had more "skill", Graziano had WAAAY bigger balls. I think Whitaker handles rough housing way better than the bigger and harder-hitting Mayweather, so I consider this a pick-em.

Napoles is a lot like Robinson - should've/could've/would've. You don't have to count him. But he's a small Weltwerweight that I'd back against Graziano. I wouldn't bet the house on it, but if I had to put money down he gets mine.

Walcott was a small Weltwerweight (like McFarland, too big for the weightc lass based on the limits of the day, but clearly smaller than a lot of more recent "Lightweights") I'd love to see him against Graziano. That would tell us A LOT! Not the first fight would make if you had a time machine, but one that would really, really help answer some of the huge questions we have about Boxing. And the entertainment value would be priceless.

You still so confident?

[The Old LefHook]

Rocky beats every one of those guys in an eight foot ring.

[them_apples]

Okay, everyone picks Hagler. That is predictable. I pick him, too. But the thing that makes this an interesting fight to watch is that the action will be non stop. Get ready for all the dirt. Marvin will not take kindly to those rabbit punches in clinches.

Gene was a lot tougher than the cast that Marvin generally brutalized. Gene would brutalize the likes of Minter & Antefuermo too. He might also endure the huge fire of Hearns, Roldan and Mugabi as well, to prevail.

Hagler will win, but he is going to have his hands completely full doing it, like he did few times in his career.

yeah agree, Fullmer at his best is rough for anyone. He's got a beard to take Haglers shots long enough to land some of his own, and his style has the potential to nullify anyone inside. Fullmer had an ugly style but he was a brutal fighter.

I think I would still pick Hagler but decision, but you know - it's tough. You are right he is a lot better than Minter and Fermo, maybe it's one of those things where time and bigger stars buried his name - but head to head he might have a chance.

Just like prime Carter, Benton, Giardello and Tiger all have a great chance of beating Hagler, going by what an old fat Briscoe managed vs Hagler.

[them_apples]

Yeah. You're only making it worse for yourself.

In fact, now that you made me go and review his record closer. I am that much more confident that Hagler LOSES. Fullmer brought out the best that Robinson and Giardello had (at the time) and they still couldn't out-box him. Tiger needed 3x and his own tropical soil to finally beat an old Fullmer.

These are all guys who would make the hacks Hagler fought look like... well, hacks. Hagler was entertaining. He had really gutsy fights with guys who really shouldn't have been that difficult for a champion to dispose of. Ironically, his struggle made the fights more epic. It's like watching Ruddy. We've all seen that movie a dozen times, but who the best player on ND's current roster? Who was their last big name to make it in the NFL? You remember, way more lines from "Rudy" than you'd care to admit, though.

If not an emotional bio-pic, then Hagler's championship reign was like a summer blockbuster. Lots of explosions, legendary one-liners and big plot moves. But no substance or meaningful acting compared to the more weighty classics. Seriously, John Mugabi... Mustafa Hamsho... if you'd see these guys today it would be to pad Amir Khan's record, so that you might mistake him as still relevant.

I agree with you for once, accept for the bottom part, Khan is equally a bum and even more so than a mugubi or Hamsho. those guys are agree are C level middleweights, thought fighting today they might have some success because they were still tough and gutsy. From a historial comparison though, yeah, you take a talented fighter like Hagler and feed him c class oponents and a couple great Welters - one which he loses to - he looks pretty great.

I know Hagler is a great middleweight, but the Goat MW? He never came close to proving it, if thats the question - it would be a step of faith to make that claim.

I don't think Hopkins came even remotely close either though, because he basically pulled the same move only with more losses but making up for it with a weight jump.

From a purely honest stand point, Mugubi was a good prospect - he came to win and got hammered by a more experienced fighter, lost so bad so early and was ruined - looked even worse after that which diminishes Haglers win. I think undefeated Mugubi was alright though, some guys he woulda beat.

[Rusty Tromboni]

- -Greb could brawl with any sub 200 lb fighter and had a bad habit of beating up LH/Hvy contender types.

Neither describes Fullmer, Hagler, or even Monzon who is my #1 pic at middle. I'd have Hag top5 or 3. Not sure where Gene belongs, but for sure he'd win 1 of 3 agin him.

Monzon is number 1, but not Greb or Robinson?

Monzon wouldn't have been a Light Heavyweight in their respective eras, and not a very good one.


Fullmer, crude even for his own era, was more talented/gamer than Hagler, but Hagler was definitely a much more refined and polished product. Have them swap eras and I dunno if Hagler makes it off the local circuit, but the Petronellis make Fullmer into a guy shoved into ATG-discussions.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I agree with you for once, accept for the bottom part, Khan is equally a bum and even more so than a mugubi or Hamsho. those guys are agree are C level middleweights, thought fighting today they might have some success because they were still tough and gutsy. From a historial comparison though, yeah, you take a talented fighter like Hagler and feed him c class oponents and a couple great Welters - one which he loses to - he looks pretty great.

I know Hagler is a great middleweight, but the Goat MW? He never came close to proving it, if thats the question - it would be a step of faith to make that claim.

I don't think Hopkins came even remotely close either though, because he basically pulled the same move only with more losses but making up for it with a weight jump.

From a purely honest stand point, Mugubi was a good prospect - he came to win and got hammered by a more experienced fighter, lost so bad so early and was ruined - looked even worse after that which diminishes Haglers win. I think undefeated Mugubi was alright though, some guys he woulda beat.

Mugabi was a miniature Duane Bobick . Or Lloyd Marshall without the brains. Or somewhere in between the two.

People remember Hagler because 1) He had good results against Duran, Hearns, and Leonard; 2) He had a long-reign. Benitiez, conversely, didn't do as well against the others, and didn't have a meaningful title reign to show for himself. Obviously, the difference between Hagler and Benitez is largely owed to luck, and a little bit to hard work. Benitez looks better on film/was more precocious/more talented/more ambitious but he didn't have the size and timing advantage that Hagler had over the others.

Hagler is like Ringo, Benitez is like Pete Best.

[Rusty Tromboni]

yeah agree, Fullmer at his best is rough for anyone. He's got a beard to take Haglers shots long enough to land some of his own, and his style has the potential to nullify anyone inside. Fullmer had an ugly style but he was a brutal fighter.

I think I would still pick Hagler but decision, but you know - it's tough. You are right he is a lot better than Minter and Fermo, maybe it's one of those things where time and bigger stars buried his name - but head to head he might have a chance.

Just like prime Carter, Benton, Giardello and Tiger all have a great chance of beating Hagler, going by what an old fat Briscoe managed vs Hagler.

I wouldn't put Carter in that group. But the others are all good mentions.

Hagler is a lot like Holmes, for me. A consumate professional, a complete boxer-puncher, and a supremely lucky S.O.B.

[QueensburyRules]

Hagler is like Ringo, Benitez is like Pete Best.

- -That make U Peewee Herman?

[The Old LefHook]

I don't know what Carter could do against AT opposition. Giardello was slick. One thing Carter could do was punch. He followed Joey around helplessly. He had great power if he could find you. He also had about the most defined set of traps I have seen on a boxer. He was muscle galore.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I don't know what Carter could do against AT opposition. Giardello was slick. One thing Carter could do was punch. He followed Joey around helplessly. He had great power if he could find you. He also had about the most defined set of traps I have seen on a boxer. He was muscle galore.

Yeah, I see him fairing no better than Hart. Not an easy night for Hagler, but not the guy to defy his greatness.