Hagler vs RJJ

[SBleeder]

Jesus try and learn to read properly, that is absolutely not what I said!

Size is about frame size, the size of your skeleton! The wrist and ankle measurements are a way to determine this as there isn't the muscle and fat around it like other parts of the body. It is truly amazing that you don't already know that.

And how in the sam hill does "skeleton size" pertain to a boxing match? Have you ever heard a fighter say after a match, "Man, he wasn't that heavy, but his skeleton was so big, I couldn't move him around in a clinch"?

Frame size might mean something to a football player, but size in boxing is height, weight, and reach.

[Humean]

And how in the sam hill does "skeleton size" pertain to a boxing match? Have you ever heard a fighter say after a match, "Man, he wasn't that heavy, but his skeleton was so big, I couldn't move him around in a clinch"?

Frame size might mean something to a football player, but size in boxing is height, weight, and reach.

It is hard to think how someone could be anymore wrong that you are in this post. Size is of course about the size of your frame, the size of your skeleton. What do you think it means when people saying that LaMotta was really a light heavyweight fighting at Middleweight, why do you think LaMotta was considered the strongest middleweight around in the late 40s and early 50s? He was after all pretty short, shorter than many middleweights. Of course the size of your skeleton is important because all else being equal the man with the larger frame will be stronger. Your frame size indicates what sort of weight you should be, look online for it.

[Stallion_]

A cheater doesn't deserve to be compared with all time greats.

[TheMexHurricane]

Id say haglers the underdog in this fight but can anyone give a good case for haggler to win this?

Damn! 2 real ATG's. This is a fascinating fantasy matchup. I think Roy Has too much for anybody in middleweight all time but Hagler is tied for a close second along with Monzon. Hearns has the best chance but Roy would land on him in the 1st minute and KO him. Very intriguing. :::

[Scott9945]

LMAO no it isn't.

If you're saying that he is wrong, then you should provide the correct answer. I'm not getting your point at all.

[Cardinal Buck]

If you're saying that he is wrong, then you should provide the correct answer. I'm not getting your point at all.

amount of liquid displaced when a person submerges in liquid after exhaling constitutes size.

[Scott9945]

amount of liquid displaced when a person submerges in liquid after exhaling constitutes size.

Well I figured there was a simple answer, and there you have it.

[K-DOGG]

Interesting matchup, really. RJJ at 160 was young, super fast, and super powerful with one punch. Hagler, on the other hand, was a solid southpaw boxer-puncher. He didn't have to focus on the "destruct and destroy" mode until he was thirty.

Really and truthfully, style-wise, Jones is all wrong for Hagler unless...UNLESS Hagler turns tiger, which I believe he would.

On the inside, Jones could not compete with Hagler due to Marivn's superior schooling. In a crowding type of fight, Jones unconventional style would work against him. He always fought southpaws technically "wrong"; but was able to get away with it due to his incredible reflexes....and he beat every southpaw he faced until he was well past his prime against Tarver. However, none of the southpaws Jones fought were even remotely in Hagler's class.

Even though he fought well from the outside and sidestepped most fighter very well, Jones wasn't really a runner. Also, his speed intimidated most of his opponents and put them in a "what do I do now" mode. Hagler rarely got confused; he knew his mission. He would force Jones to fight by pursuing him with that battering ram right jab of his, whether it landed or not. If it did land, it would knock Jones off balance and set up Hagler's other punches. If it didn't, it would at least keep Roy occupied.

The real danger for Hagler would be Jones's left hook, which was blindingly fast and powerful to boot. Could he stun Hagler? Possibly; but if Hearns right in the first round didn't do it, I don't think Jones's left would. (This is my opinion, of course.)

Also, Jones was overconfident in his ability, especially at 160 where only two men went the distance with him. He would think he was going to knock out Hagler....and that's where the trap would be....Hagler's counter left would shake up Jones, and the right hook would put him away.




......or, we'd see a conventional/southpaw version of Jones vs Hopkins I, which Jones would win and the audience would lose.


I vote for the first scenario.

[BennyST]

And there you have it, folks. Height, weight, and reach don't mean anything in boxing. It's all about having big wrists and big ankles.

The next time my trainer yells at me to use my reach advantage, I'll tell him that reach doesn't matter, and that I need to go home and jerk off so I can get some big wrists!

amount of liquid displaced when a person submerges in liquid after exhaling constitutes size.

Well I figured there was a simple answer, and there you have it.

This is the funniest thread I've read all day. Hilarious stuff.

Anyway, you guys are arguing as if there's only one measurement of size. Height and reach are just one aspect of size, clearly a very important one in boxing though. Frame is also just one aspect of size too.

For instance, is Pacquiao bigger than Margarito? The way Humean and SCJ are arguing they'd say yes. Pac has bigger wrists and legs, but he's significantly shorter, less reach and weighed less. He's clearly smaller. You'd have to be ****ing daft to argue that his larger wrists and legs indicate a size advantage.

Now, another point. We're talking size in boxing terms. It depends on your style which will be of more advantage, but generally, height and reach are the indicators of size. For someone like Lamotta it would be his frame size because he used his weight, body and strength more. His stocky frame was advantageous to him, while Hearns' thin frame but amazing height and reach helped him. In boxing terms though, height and reach are the usual size indicator because we have weight classes. Same weight, so it's height and reach that determine who is 'bigger' typically. Always exceptions though.

To pretend Paul Williams was smaller than some welterweights he faced because they might have had larger wrist and ankle circumference though? You'd have to be a ****** or an argumentative ****, or a pretentious wanker trying to bring up scientific size measurements. We're talking boxing here people!

Either way, there is no one single way of determining size. We typically use height and reach, and if they're of similar size that way, then frame etc come into play too. For instance, Pac and Hatton. Both very similar in size, but Pac was bigger in frame in nearly every respect than Hatton, while Hatton weighed more, the fat prick, so who is bigger? Pretty similar if you ask me.

[billeau2]

amount of liquid displaced when a person submerges in liquid after exhaling constitutes size.

Eureka!!! Pardone dey pun

Size is a freakin red herring. Roy was incredible but never got pressured like Hagler could do. Oh yeah....he did look at the Glen Johnson fight. Yeah he was already past his twilight, but look at how a slow swarmer could do a number on Jones once the blueprint was set.

This fight is a case study because it shows that Jones would be vulnerable to a really gifted swarming, pressure fighter....a guy like Hagler.