Comments Thread For: Marvin Hagler, Terence Crawford, and the importance of knowing when to settle down

[TheOneAboveAll]

you sure have a high opinion of GGG lol. His best win is a draw. GGG ruins Heans in half the time Hagler did? I think we're done here.

GGG definitely would have ruined Hearns. Do not doubt this.

[BlackRobb]

Arum said that while he was under Top Rank, Bud demanded more money than he could draw. Then once he left, he did little until he landed the fight vs a damaged Spence. Yet, he's "the best p4p in the world". That ego doe!

Funny how y'all were on Errol 's nuts after the Ugas fight, but now he was shot going into the Crawford fight.

[billeau2]

I don't mean to diminish any fighter, but, as I said in my initial post, no fighter's resume is above scrutiny. Every single great fighter's resume can be inspected, disected and found to be full of asterisks, if we are inclined to look and point them out. I have said multiple times that Hagler had a great career, but it is eminently true that his fame is based principally on his fights with bigger name fighters moving up. The rest of the Fab 4 moved up to fight him. Without those fights his record is pretty lean on highlights. Those who would attempt to argue that names like Hamsho, Mugabi, Minter or Antuofermo were greats of the day need to be reminded that those guys are only remembered in history for LOSING to Hagler. That's it. Many of the same people who would hold up Hagler as an unassailable ATG argue that that equally or more dominant MWs like Bernard Hopkins and GGG were posers. All three of these guys faced and mostly beat the best competition of their respective eras.

Having viewed your posts here I incline towards accepting this post as a plausible reason for your comments. There are a few caveats that are strictly a matter of my opinion...

1. You might have put your comment down when initially speaking of Hagler, It sounded to me like a comment with no context...initially.

2. What people speak of regarding Hagler's other opposition is their toughness. Nobody who understands the sport would speak of these men as exceptional, rather they are tough, well rounded opponents. Middle weights like Monzon faced a similar problem, who did Monzon beat head to head, as an ATG Middle weight? I use him as an example only because many contrast him with Hagler.

3.Only certain guys like Robinson, Lamotta, had the benefit of fellow ATG greats to fight, It is not a characteristic of the division UNLESS we consider either division hopping, or guys coming in from Welter, etc... See where I am going here? You will find only certain eras where strictly middle weights fought other greats as middle weights.

4. can you explain how Hopkins fought better competition? considering his own victories involved guys fighting out of other divisions, of him doing the same? Ditto for GGG? I will even give credit to GGG assuming he matched Canelo... Kovalev came out of another division (for example).

[wrecksracer]

GGG definitely would have ruined Hearns. Do not doubt this.

The Hearns that beat Virgil Hill beats GGG like a drum. GGG had one quality opponent, and only managed a draw.

[TheOneAboveAll]

The Hearns that beat Virgil Hill beats GGG like a drum. GGG had one quality opponent, and only managed a draw.

You don't watch fights.

[TheOneAboveAll]

Having viewed your posts here I incline towards accepting this post as a plausible reason for your comments. There are a few caveats that are strictly a matter of my opinion...

1. You might have put your comment down when initially speaking of Hagler, It sounded to me like a comment with no context...initially.

2. What people speak of regarding Hagler's other opposition is their toughness. Nobody who understands the sport would speak of these men as exceptional, rather they are tough, well rounded opponents. Middle weights like Monzon faced a similar problem, who did Monzon beat head to head, as an ATG Middle weight? I use him as an example only because many contrast him with Hagler.

3.Only certain guys like Robinson, Lamotta, had the benefit of fellow ATG greats to fight, It is not a characteristic of the division UNLESS we consider either division hopping, or guys coming in from Welter, etc... See where I am going here? You will find only certain eras where strictly middle weights fought other greats as middle weights.

4. can you explain how Hopkins fought better competition? considering his own victories involved guys fighting out of other divisions, of him doing the same? Ditto for GGG? I will even give credit to GGG assuming he matched Canelo... Kovalev came out of another division (for example).

So, I believe that the dominant long-term champions, in any division or era generally fought the best competition available to them. With some exceptions, I believe that the top level competition in any era (especially from LW-MW) is always excellent. The issue, it seems to me, is that fans (even knowledgeable ones) tend to flippantly disregard and dismiss the contenders they don't know while elevating the ones they did see or read about. In most cases, these great contenders (e.g. the aforementioned Hamsho, Minter, Mugabi) are known principally for there losses. I believe that many of the same criticisms that are leveled by cynical fans at great fighters like GGG can be easily leveled at other greats like Bernard Hopkins, Monzon, etc. I watched every televised fight of BHop from MW up. I didn't say his career was better than Haglers, except that he did certainly make more successful defenses. Like Hagler, his most famous win was against a more famous guy moving up (Tito). Bhop had an amazing career, but even though he was (at one time) the longest reigning MW champion in history, his critics dismissed him as a bum of the month champion. But who did he duck and did these critics ever actually see those MW fights to be able to say that his opposition was softer than Haglers or Monzon's? Of course not. Apart from the FAB 4 (who were all, in fact, smaller guys moving up), what opponent of Hagler's was any better than Hopkins' or GGG's opponents? None of them. GGG beats every fighter Hopkins, Monzon or Hagler ever beat, and I do believe he beats most of them worse because GGG never ****ed around. He beat the best fighers of his era (most by devastating KO), but his tweener critics still find fault and say he also fought nothing but bums. GGG was robbed in the two biggest fights of his career, but the lazy (or obstinate) critic casually ignores that fact. What I've been saying is that the same criticisms, the ones with some foundation and the ones that are pure BS, pretty much apply to all of these great fighters.

[billeau2]

So, I believe that the dominant long-term champions, in any division or era generally fought the best competition available to them. With some exceptions, I believe that the top level competition in any era (especially from LW-MW) is always excellent. The issue, it seems to me, is that fans (even knowledgeable ones) tend to flippantly disregard and dismiss the contenders they don't know while elevating the ones they did see or read about. In most cases, these great contenders (e.g. the aforementioned Hamsho, Minter, Mugabi) are known principally for there losses. I believe that many of the same criticisms that are leveled by cynical fans at great fighters like GGG can be easily leveled at other greats like Bernard Hopkins, Monzon, etc. I watched every televised fight of BHop from MW up. I didn't say his career was better than Haglers, except that he did certainly make more successful defenses. Like Hagler, his most famous win was against a more famous guy moving up (Tito). Bhop had an amazing career, but even though he was (at one time) the longest reigning MW champion in history, his critics dismissed him as a bum of the month champion. But who did he duck and did these critics ever actually see those MW fights to be able to say that his opposition was softer than Haglers or Monzon's? Of course not. Apart from the FAB 4 (who were all, in fact, smaller guys moving up), what opponent of Hagler's was any better than Hopkins' or GGG's opponents? None of them. GGG beats every fighter Hopkins, Monzon or Hagler ever beat, and I do believe he beats most of them worse because GGG never ****ed around. He beat the best fighers of his era (most by devastating KO), but his tweener critics still find fault and say he also fought nothing but bums. GGG was robbed in the two biggest fights of his career, but the lazy (or obstinate) critic casually ignores that fact. What I've been saying is that the same criticisms, the ones with some foundation and the ones that are pure BS, pretty much apply to all of these great fighters.

Not as sold on GGG as you are, but certainly otherwise agree about the tendencies you note. The only thing I would say is, when we are looking at fighters, there is a tendency to overemphasize wins/losses as compared to the general level of fighters at the time... Especially considering, as you say, the competition in these divisions... In some divisions it was a lot easier to "win" while in others, considering how good the competition was, a good fighter could lose a few times. I only would point this out to balance against beating the best available competition. Both are relevant metrics.

[SUBZER0ED]

Funny how y'all were on Errol 's nuts after the Ugas fight, but now he was shot going into the Crawford fight.

This "y'all" shit applies to someone else, not me, chief. I'm not on any mofo's nuts. Ugas is nothing special. He beat a shot Pacquiao.

[wrecksracer]

You don't watch fights.

GGG has no wins vs any HOF talent. Look at his resume. Do you see any wins vs HOF talent? He arguably lost to Jacobs and Derevyanchenko. That is his level. At least Hamsho beat Wilfred Benitez and Bobby Czyz. You bought into the HBO creation. GGG is a long reigning champ over guys like Steve Rolls. You don't understand how weak the talent pool is these days.

[SUBZER0ED]

You don't watch fights.

Prime Golovkin punched like a mule. "The Hitman" would have been running and grinning after the first Golovkin clean shot landed. After the second shot, he would have been down and quite possibly out.