R.I.P Marvelous Marvin Hagler.

I just read some bad news. Marvelous Marvin Hagler, my all time favourite fighter has passed away aged 66.

Was shocked to hear this, as he was far from an old man and was always looking in great shape in retirement. Sensational fighter, easily one of the greatest to ever do it at Middleweight and one of the pillars of that glorious 1980s Super Fight era.

R.I.P Marvin.

Terrible news, taken far too early. A great fighter R.I.P. thoughts and very best wishes to his family.

Sad news. Genuine all time great. RIP marvellous one.

Dreadfully sad news, that one round alone ensured he'd always be remembered. RIP champ.

Ah man, endlessly entertaining and genuinely great with some legendary moments. Thanks for every moment mate. RIP The Marvellous one

Usually post only on the Rugby pages, but I was a huge Hagler fan. His fight with Tommy Hearns was one of the most intense I have ever seen. Especially the first round, which I think was the best round I have ever watched.
Hope this link works for everyone. Fight starts 15 minutes in. Three rounds. Don't have anything breakable nearby.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV9muEsTt6U

Was his treatment following his win over Alan Minter the nadir in British spectator sport? That must have been the worst sporting audience he ever encountered anywhere.

Loved watching Marvellous. He was an absolute whirlwind at his best and extremely entertaining to boot. He was a little before my time getting into Boxing but he was the sort of fighter who I would have followed religiously.

A total shock as 66 is no age. May he Rest in Mavellous Peace

Just woke up now to this news (heavy night) all I can say is RIP legend. So sad to read this his fights with hearns, Leonard, Mugabi, sibson, Minter, hamsho, caveman Lee, Duran, artufomo, are the fights I remember.

Anyone think he would beat Monzon prime for prime?

ONETWO2020 wrote:Anyone think he would beat Monzon prime for prime?

One of the great fantasy / hypothetical matchups, that. Both in pretty much everyone's all-time top three Middleweights, similar career paths and championship reigns, and didn't miss each other by all that much either.

I think Hagler at his very best had an extra gear that Monzon didn't quite possess, but while his highest championship points might have been a shade higher than Monzon's, his lower (relatively speaking) ones were also lower than Carlos'. Monzon was the slightly more crunchingly consistent performer of the pair, reliable in pretty much all situations and hardly ever wavering from his tried and tested gameplan. With Hagler there was just slightly more margin for variance there, albeit again you'd have to stress that's only relatively speaking, and we're dealing with very fine margins here.

So I guess it depends on how you tackle these hypotheticals. If you're taking each man at his very, very best (so Hagler of the Minter, Sibson or Hearns fight, for example, and Monzon of the first Benvenuti fight) then I'd probably edge towards Hagler, just. If you're going on law of averages or looking at overall records, I'd lean towards Monzon by a similar slither. One thing's for sure, barring cuts or injuries there's no way it's ending inside-schedule.

Monzon slightly more adaptable?

There's no chance Monzon is allowing Leonard to get into that fight let alone letting it be close enough to lose. Napoles had some early success before he was systematically broken down which is common in his fights.

Soul Requiem wrote:Monzon slightly more adaptable?

There's no chance Monzon is allowing Leonard to get into that fight let alone letting it be close enough to lose. Napoles had some early success before he was systematically broken down which is common in his fights.

I was gonna mention napoles a much more versatile slicker boxer then Haglar but who, as you say, eventually got broken down by Monzon. I can't pick it still to this day, I believe Haglar would need a ko but not happening against Monzon but then over the stretch Haglar had the far better engine to take a points win

I wouldn't really put Monzon down as a great adapter, Soul. In fact I think part of what made his reign so impressive and dominant was that he never really had to adapt, at least not for any notable length of time or in a big way.

It's like Larry Merchant said back during Tyson's Heavyweight heyday in the late 1980s, when people were making the point that Tyson's attack was quite repetitive and that every opponent seemed to 'know' what he was going to do when that bell rang. Merchant just replied with something along the lines of: "People say, perhaps rightly, that Mike Tyson is predictable. Well, so is a hurricane. The question is, what can you do about it?"

I think Monzon's best attribute was his consistency in being able to apply those same tactics and methods in any circumstances he faced. He was always calm and even if he did encounter occasional early troubles, he always backed his accuracy, strength, size, durability, accumulative power and steady pressure to simply be too much in the end - and he was pretty much always right. By the standards of all-time greats he didn't have that many 'skills' but he had an insane amount of attributes which nullified his opponents.

On the issue of the Leonard fight and the Napoles comparison...Well for a long time I did use to say that Hagler's struggles with smaller men, as opposed to Monzon's thrashing of them, was a key reason why I'd always rate Carlos the higher of the pair, and I think there is still truth in that. But I've rowed back a little.

Would Leonard have been able to get into the fight against Monzon as he did against Hagler? Maybe not, but I wouldn't rule it out. The comparison with Napoles-Monzon isn't really like for like, as Napoles was a considerably smaller guy than Leonard. Middleweight might not have been Leonard's best weight, but he had a lot more business campaigning there than Napoles did, as José was barely ever a Welter himself and came in inside the Light-Middle limit for Monzon. Moreover Leonard took Hagler on using his speed on the outside to keep it long and use the ring, whereas Napoles made no effort to be elusive and met Monzon head-on. Monzon didn't have to face the kind of speed and problems which Leonard, fighting as he did against Hagler, would have posed. Of course that doesn't mean Monzon couldn't have overcome them eventually, and the record books suggest he probably would...But maybe not quite as much of a given as I used to think.

88Chris05 wrote:I wouldn't really put Monzon down as a great adapter, Soul. In fact I think part of what made his reign so impressive and dominant was that he never really had to adapt, at least not for any notable length of time or in a big way.

It's like Larry Merchant said back during Tyson's Heavyweight heyday in the late 1980s, when people were making the point that Tyson's attack was quite repetitive and that every opponent seemed to 'know' what he was going to do when that bell rang. Merchant just replied with something along the lines of: "People say, perhaps rightly, that Mike Tyson is predictable. Well, so is a hurricane. The question is, what can you do about it?"

I think Monzon's best attribute was his consistency in being able to apply those same tactics and methods in any circumstances he faced. He was always calm and even if he did encounter occasional early troubles, he always backed his accuracy, strength, size, durability, accumulative power and steady pressure to simply be too much in the end - and he was pretty much always right. By the standards of all-time greats he didn't have that many 'skills' but he had an insane amount of attributes which nullified his opponents.

On the issue of the Leonard fight and the Napoles comparison...Well for a long time I did use to say that Hagler's struggles with smaller men, as opposed to Monzon's thrashing of them, was a key reason why I'd always rate Carlos the higher of the pair, and I think there is still truth in that. But I've rowed back a little.

Would Leonard have been able to get into the fight against Monzon as he did against Hagler? Maybe not, but I wouldn't rule it out. The comparison with Napoles-Monzon isn't really like for like, as Napoles was a considerably smaller guy than Leonard. Middleweight might not have been Leonard's best weight, but he had a lot more business campaigning there than Napoles did, as José was barely ever a Welter himself and came in inside the Light-Middle limit for Monzon. Moreover Leonard took Hagler on using his speed on the outside to keep it long and use the ring, whereas Napoles made no effort to be elusive and met Monzon head-on. Monzon didn't have to face the kind of speed and problems which Leonard, fighting as he did against Hagler, would have posed. Of course that doesn't mean Monzon couldn't have overcome them eventually, and the record books suggest he probably would...But maybe not quite as much of a given as I used to think.

Good Job One-two, you distracted him enough that he won't write the obituary for Hagler and bankrupt the Hagler estate in the process. That said, Agreed mate. Glad to see you still spinning your magic on here

Cheers Shah, good to see you still knocking around too. Still a few nice little sparks of life on v2 which remind you of those heady old days.

So sorry to hear of Marvelous Marvin's death. One of my favourite fighters. I recently watched the fight with Mugabi and can't see any of todays fighters beating either of those two. Then this afternoon I had to watch the Classic battle against Tommy Hearns. You would have to go with Dempsey v Firpo to match that for excitement. RIP Marvin.

Also good to see you still popping in, rapidringsroad. Can't grumble with your opinion that Marvin's wars against Hearns and Mugabi were the most thrilling and exciting fights he had - two classics of that era.

I wonder if we can reach any kind of consensus on what Hagler's greatest or most impressive pure performances were? I think he saved his very best for the Brits - he was awesome in tearing Alan Minter apart, and his brutal dissection of Sibson was just about as good as it gets. They'd be my two standouts, but also an honourable mention goes to his systematic walk-down of Obelmejias in their rematch. No messing around from Hagler there.

Mugabi was a big win cuz the beast was a problem at that time. Haglar had to go toe to toe with a real puncher and never had it all his own way. Round 6 was a cracking round but like teddy atlas said Haglar didn't need to fight him could have avoided him but being the champ he was he took the fight.

Another thing is Haglar cut his teeth on the Philly circuit and lost a couple fights but I think that era in boxing on Philadelphia against the likes of Willie the worm and briscoe moulded him into a champion before he won the belt

Also not many people know Haglar tkoed Roy Jones in 77 which is a huge ATG win on his record. Everyone talks about the fab 4 but forget Haglar beat Roy Jones too

ONETWO2020 wrote:Also not many people know Haglar tkoed Roy Jones in 77 which is a huge ATG win on his record. Everyone talks about the fab 4 but forget Haglar beat Roy Jones too

Soul Requiem wrote:

ONETWO2020 wrote:Also not many people know Haglar tkoed Roy Jones in 77 which is a huge ATG win on his record. Everyone talks about the fab 4 but forget Haglar beat Roy Jones too

Would assume that it's an attempt at wumming because nobody could be that dense. Although the constant misspelling of Hagler's name despite the fact that the correct spelling is all over the thread might suggest otherwise.

Anyway, Hagler a nailed on top 3 middleweight for me along with Monzon and Greb. Did it the hard way and took on all the fights he could - often not on his own terms. I thought the book, "Four Kings" was overhyped and really only scratched the surface of each fighter, but it was the chapters on Hagler that I remember most and found most interesting.

I've probably seen the War more than any other fight and it is always the fight I show people who think they like boxing but who don't really like it. It doesn't ever let you settle and seeing people who don't know the outcome react as both fighters tread the tightrope between triumph and disaster is always great.

I'd always be including Hopkins in that and making it a four. He doesn't have the historical importance and was often dull to watch but he did have undoubted ability.

The lure of the war unlike many boxing gunfights is that neither needed to fight in such a way. That separates it from your Gatti Ward type brawls where neither had the ability to fight another way.