Floyd Mayweather - Marvin Hagler - Some perspective !!!

A few things to think about.........

1. No one questions Hagler's legacy..and he's a bonafide hero..

2. Mayweather gets Castillo chucked at him..........Hagler drew with Vito....lost twice pre-title and sneaked past a lightweight....

3. Mayweather gets marked down for Marquez and yet two of Hagler's biggest wins were Duran and Mugabi both moving up in weight..

4. Mayweather beat 4 current p4pers.......Marvin beat Hearns.........

5. Mayweather gets hammered for Manny...Hagler avoided a Hearns rematch..Who apparently didn't deserve a rematch even though it was the fight of the decade and he smashed out the WBA/WBC number 1 contender straight after.....

6. Hagler was at the top seven years..Floyd 15.............

All I'm suggesting is people need to remember things like this when judging Floyd......I rate Hagler very highly...I've met him and he's a good guy...

Didn't Jabmachine used to spar with both these two, maybe we can ask his opinion:??

Floyd saw his session with Brook and ran a mile...

Rumor has it (no I'm not Adele!!) that it wasn't the Mugabi fight but a jabmachine sparring session with marvellous that convinced Leonard to come back..

Floyd hasn't been at the top for 15 years.

At least Hagler fought (and knocked out I might add) Hearns, Floyd didn't fight Manny.

I'm not sure how many p4p fights Hagler fought, but it was certainly more than Hearns. The p4p fighters Floyd has taken on are hardly world beaters are they.

I agree Truss, a little perspective is needed.

But who actually rates Marvin higher than Floyd, Truss? Certainly nobody here, as far as I know.

I appreciate that Mayweather is a massive favourite of yours, but I don't think he gets victimized by boxing fans and observers as much as you seem to think he does. The Castillo fight is hardly thrown at him as a black mark on his record by all and sundry, is it? Rather, as he himself likes to place so much emphasis on the fact that he's never tasted defeat, people just tend to point out that he flirted very closely with losing in that one.

In terms of longevity and opposition beaten, Floyd's record stands Marvin's on its head, no qualms from me. But I'll never have it that he deserves a pass for his failure to fight Pacquiao, and I can't agree that Hagler-Hearns II never happening is the same thing. One fought his biggest rival in the biggest fight available, the other didn't. Regardless of whether Hagler 'avoided' a second fight with Hearns, the fact that he had a first one with him automatically shelters him from much of the criticism that Mayweather gets for putting up so many obstacles to prevent the Pacquiao fight, and rightfully so.

Hagler's discretion s don't get held against him the way Mayweather's are held against him...

People make big play out of the points I've mentioned....Probably because Hagler was liked!!

Mayweather has been at the top for 15 years...1998 his first title....

Hagler is held in high esteem though most have him lower..some don't..

Just making sure some people see how Mayweather is judged differently..

But thanks for the points..

Ricky Burns has been at the top for 2 years by that logic. Winning a portion means absolutely sod all these days.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:A few things to think about.........

1. No one questions Hagler's legacy..and he's a bonafide hero..

2. Mayweather gets Castillo chucked at him..........Hagler drew with Vito....lost twice pre-title and sneaked past a lightweight....

3. Mayweather gets marked down for Marquez and yet two of Hagler's biggest wins were Duran and Mugabi both moving up in weight..

4. Mayweather beat 4 current p4pers.......Marvin beat Hearns.........

5. Mayweather gets hammered for Manny...Hagler avoided a Hearns rematch..Who apparently didn't deserve a rematch even though it was the fight of the decade and he smashed out the WBA/WBC number 1 contender straight after.....

6. Hagler was at the top seven years..Floyd 15.............

All I'm suggesting is people need to remember things like this when judging Floyd......I rate Hagler very highly...I've met him and he's a good guy...

1. As a MW yes, but not an ATG. Floyd consistently places higher.
2. When he lauds his ‘0’ over everyone then rightly so, he and his most ardent fans refuse to acknowledge how luck has played a important part of his career in avoiding that loss.
3. Not by many, I am one that does. Or at least, not knocking him for it as such, just not crediting him with it as some have. Hagler didn’t flounce weight stips against either Duran or Mugabi but he is given a hard time over Duran.
4. I assume you mean ‘current’ as in at the time of fighting? I don’t give Floyd as much credit as you here, but would agree the general principle that he has a superior ledger – which is why most, including myself, rate him higher!
5. Rightly so. Equal share of the blame between the pair of them but there is no way in hell Floyd can get away with making no effort to get the biggest fight in decades made against the only person who could challenge his p4p status in years. As Chris has said, Hearns rematch is totally incomparable – for once bloody obvious reason!!!
6. Still don’t buy into this 15 yrs business. Especially given his infrequency of fighting and 2 yr lay-off.

Not knocking the fact Burns is a champion.....I'm saying Mayweather has been at the top level for 15 years....

and he has...

Doesn't luck follow most greats regardless of sport..

You deride the Marquez win ...Toppy...........Hagler didn't fancy Hearns again....Mayweather-Manny was a monetary dispute..

Hagler was infrequent....Fought once in two years whilst champ another hypocritical statement.

bloodygloves wrote:Didn't Jabmachine used to spar with both these two, maybe we can ask his opinion:??

Theres a time and a place for JabMachine jokes, and shoehorning them into a thread randomly isn't the place.

But top effort, I bet your special school teacher would be proud if she could see you now, forming sentences.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Ricky Burns has been at the top for 2 years by that logic. Winning a portion means absolutely sod all these days.

Winning a portion is meaningless when you're not the recognised #1, but what division has Floyd operated in where he hasn't been #1 in the last 10 yrs?? It's only Manny at LWW where there's an argument.

1. Hagler was a fan friendy fighter, like Hatton hence why people view him as a hero, and no-one thinks hagler is a top 10 atg like some think Floyd is so there legacies are different

2. Hagler doesn't use the '0' on his record to rank himself higher like Floyd and once again Floyd is ranked higher so everything he does has to be fine combed to see if he deserves to be in the top 10

3. Mugabi was 26 and had spent his entire career at 154 and had also had catch weights between 154-162 so his natural progression was to go to 160. Marquez was 36 and had only fought at lightweight once, then Floyd couldn't even be bothered to make the weight

4. Hagler beat 1 ATG and Floyd beat none

5. Really? Hagler stepping in the ring with Hearn alone is closer than Floyd got to manny. Add that he stopped him inside 3 than a rematch can't be held against him

6. Define on top? He won his first title 15 years ago but he wasn't at the to for that entire period

Was Mccallum's WBA belt at 154 meaningless ???? ..........Was Tyson's WBC winning title fight over Berbick meaningless.......

Complete crank..

WHU_Champo_League_in_7Yrs wrote:1. Hagler was a fan friendy fighter, like Hatton hence why people view him as a hero, and no-one thinks hagler is a top 10 atg like some think Floyd is so there legacies are different

2. Hagler doesn't use the '0' on his record to rank himself higher like Floyd and once again Floyd is ranked higher so everything he does has to be fine combed to see if he deserves to be in the top 10

3. Mugabi was 26 and had spent his entire career at 154 and had also had catch weights between 154-162 so his natural progression was to go to 160. Marquez was 36 and had only fought at lightweight once, then Floyd couldn't even be bothered to make the weight

4. Hagler beat 1 ATG and Floyd beat none

5. Really? Hagler stepping in the ring with Hearn alone is closer than Floyd got to manny. Add that he stopped him inside 3 than a rematch can't be held against him

6. Define on top? He won his first title 15 years ago but he wasn't at the to for that entire period

Hearns was involved in the fight of the decade..and then knocked out the number 1 contender of the wbc and wba do you think he deserved a rematch....Hagler didn't !!..........If not explain what a guy has to do..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Doesn't luck follow most greats regardless of sport..

You deride the Marquez win ...Toppy...........Hagler didn't fancy Hearns again....Mayweather-Manny was a monetary dispute..

Hagler was infrequent....Fought once in two years whilst champ another hypocritical statement.

Luck does, indeed, but Floyd and the Flomos refuse to acknowledge it which is why it's held against him. You're reinforcing that view.

What's Hag-HearnsII got to do with JMM?? Totally irrelevant. Again you are spectacularly missing the point re Hag-Hearns - I'll give you a clue: THEY ACTUALLY FOUGHT.

If you ever wanted to discredit yourself more then it's writing off Pac-Floyd not happening as just a monetary dispute.

In Haglers 7 yrs he fought 18 times. In Floyd's 15 he's fought 27 times. That's 2.57 fights per year vs 1.8 fights per year. Who did you say is being the hypocrite?

Yea he did, but comparing that fight to Manny-Floyd is ridiculous

TopHat24/7 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Doesn't luck follow most greats regardless of sport..

You deride the Marquez win ...Toppy...........Hagler didn't fancy Hearns again....Mayweather-Manny was a monetary dispute..

Hagler was infrequent....Fought once in two years whilst champ another hypocritical statement.

Luck does, indeed, but Floyd and the Flomos refuse to acknowledge it which is why it's held against him.  You're reinforcing that view.

What's Hag-HearnsII got to do with JMM?? Totally irrelevant. Again you are spectacularly missing the point re Hag-Hearns - I'll give you a clue: THEY ACTUALLY FOUGHT.

If you ever wanted to discredit yourself more then it's writing off Pac-Floyd not happening as just a monetary dispute.  

In Haglers 7 yrs he fought 18 times. In Floyd's 15 he's fought 27 times.  That's 2.57 fights per year vs 1.8 fights per year.  Who did you say is being the hypocrite?

How many fighters acknowledge their luck...........

Hagler had 12 defences in 7 years.................Two against Obelmijas....Two against Roldan...One against Vito.........One against caveman Lee..

WHU_Champo_League_in_7Yrs wrote:Yea he did, but comparing that fight to Manny-Floyd is ridiculous

I'm suggesting that Hagler ducked Hearns which he did....Who can blame him.....Cut and dazed and all that..

It's comparing the difference between liked fighters being given a break...and disliked ones not being..

Bit like Benn quitting and Curry being stopped by the doctor...and Curry being the only quitter.

88Chris05 wrote:But who actually rates Marvin higher than Floyd, Truss? Certainly nobody here, as far as I know.

I would, as it stands right now.

Hagler dominated the middleweights and faced everyone and anyone that challenged him. His wars with Hart, Monroe, Briscoe and Watts are generally underrated -- the Philly scene was ferocious (today they'd all have a title belt). The Hearns win was immense.

Floyd has been consistently good but (as we've done to death on here) has been highly selective in his match making and didn't face his biggest challenge. That hurts him.

I hasten to add that Floyd has fought ATG's - De La Hoya and JMM are just 2 of them.

Arum struggled with how to sell Hagler-Hearns II. Hagler had won so comprehensively he needed to convince the public that Tommy would have a chance if they squared off again.

After Hagler struggled to see off Mugabi and Hearns blew out Schuler, it looked a great match again and Hagler was amenable to it (why wouldn't he be?). It was at this point that Leonard reared his head and stole in.

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:But who actually rates Marvin higher than Floyd, Truss? Certainly nobody here, as far as I know.

I would, as it stands right now.

Hagler dominated the middleweights and faced everyone and anyone that challenged him. His wars with Hart, Monroe, Briscoe and Watts are generally underrated -- the Philly scene was ferocious (today they'd all have a title belt). The Hearns win was immense.

Floyd has been consistently good but (as we've done to death on here) has been highly selective in his match making and didn't face his biggest challenge. That hurts him.

See I told you there'd be someone...You disappoint me Haz..

The Hagler-Hearns stuff is crud Haz.............Leonard was more profitable and easy.......

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I hasten to add that Floyd has fought ATG's - De La Hoya and JMM are just 2 of them.

Taken in context, those wins come with an asterix.

Oscar was a part-time fighter, who hadn't scored a decent win in years (not Floyd's fault). JMM was way over his weight (before he realised that Angel Heredia and his potions could bridge the gap far better than drinking pee and throwing rocks about in the desert.

He gave a rematch to the great mustapha hamsho truss. Guess he thought he was done with rematches.

Surprised you didn't mention that floyd has moved up in weight... But hagler never fancied a crack at spinks. His big fights were all smaller guys (weight wise) moving up.

Anyway hagler was a great fighter, mayweather is a great fighter, the stick he gets from balanced posters is only in terms of judging him against the historical elite of the sport, where his lack of 'great' wins and defining fights plus a little selectivity/timing of opponents counts against him. Against that is his remarkable consistency and longevity. In general the negativity towards floyd is nitpicking in an atg context... and most of us who make these comments know it is. Most of us.

Who did Hagler beat during his reign apart from Hearns....Does the draw with vito matter ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:But who actually rates Marvin higher than Floyd, Truss? Certainly nobody here, as far as I know.

I would, as it stands right now.

Hagler dominated the middleweights and faced everyone and anyone that challenged him. His wars with Hart, Monroe, Briscoe and Watts are generally underrated -- the Philly scene was ferocious (today they'd all have a title belt). The Hearns win was immense.

Floyd has been consistently good but (as we've done to death on here) has been highly selective in his match making and didn't face his biggest challenge. That hurts him.

See I told you there'd be someone...You disappoint me Haz..

The Hagler-Hearns stuff is crud Haz.............Leonard was more profitable and easy.......

Genuinely wasn't reported as such at the time. I have magazines from that period. No-one gave Tommy a shot in a rematch until the Schuler win.

Leonard was something far bigger. It was a chance for Hagler to elevate himself (for more money).

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Who did Hagler beat during his reign apart from  Hearns....Does the draw with vito matter ??

He took on everyone that mattered. No-one was missed or ignored. He couldn't have done any more.

Hagler's peak probably came prior to his title reign. That Philly scene was a cauldron.

Floyd is a great fighter but he's been really selective since leaving lightweight.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:But who actually rates Marvin higher than Floyd, Truss? Certainly nobody here, as far as I know.

I would, as it stands right now.

Hagler dominated the middleweights and faced everyone and anyone that challenged him. His wars with Hart, Monroe, Briscoe and Watts are generally underrated -- the Philly scene was ferocious (today they'd all have a title belt). The Hearns win was immense.

Floyd has been consistently good but (as we've done to death on here) has been highly selective in his match making and didn't face his biggest challenge. That hurts him.

See I told you there'd be someone...You disappoint me Haz..

The Hagler-Hearns stuff is crud Haz.............Leonard was more profitable and easy.......

Genuinely wasn't reported as such at the time. I have magazines from that period. No-one gave Tommy a shot in a rematch until the Schuler win.

Leonard was something far bigger. It was a chance for Hagler to elevate himself (for more money).

Respect your stuff Haz......But Leonard was regarded as a joke.............After all he'd been out three years and had gotten off the floor against a journeyman in his previous fight........6-1 underdog....

Now your distaste for Floyd is maybe affecting your usually spot on opinions..

Don't re-invent history pal...Mugabi was given no chance.....Hearns was a bigger fight than him...Marvin didn't fancy it...We all did..

Hearns apart.....Did he beat anyone with the pedigree of Oscar, Marquez, Cotto, Guerrero, Castillo ??? I discount Duran at 160.

Could have fought Spinks too...........

Yeh, I'm sure he could've fought asterix opponents if that was what he sought....

Well he could have fought Spinks...15 pounds......Mayweather started at 130 and fought Oscar at 154 am I right ???

Hagler gets battered by Michael...so he wasn't stupid..

Spinks @ 175 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oscar @ 154

Also, if you're going to credit Floyd for fighting Oscar at 154 - how does this balance with forcing a catchweight on Canelo for the LMW title?

Mayweather 130.......Oscar at 154

Hagler 160...........Spinks at 175.......

Duran, Briscoe, Leonard, Hart, Seales, Mugabi, Watts, Minter, Antuofermo, Watts.

Fighting Spinks and taking a Hearns rematch are a bit revisionist. The Spinks fight was never viable (or mooted). The Hearns rematch wasn't floated either (Hagler certainly didn't duck out of it, if that's what you're implying).

Hagler would have nailed Hearns again.

Anyone's record can be picked apart of fluffed up -- Hagler's isn't perfect either -- but those names you mention; how many were at their best?

Corrales, Hernandez and Castillo. But as I noted earlier, he was highly selective after that. Hagler can't ever be accused of that. He was the man and conducted himself as such.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather 130.......Oscar at 154

Hagler 160...........Spinks at 175.......

Different world back then. There wasn't as much emphasis on travelling through the weights picking up splintered titles. If you can find me one newspaper clipping that suggested Hagler ducked either Spinks or Hearns, then I'll agree with you.

Hagler fought Hamsho and Obelmejias twice apeice because they were mandatories, and back in the 80's, mandatory challengers had to be fought or the champ could be stripped. It wasn't like today, were mandatory challenegers mean nothing, and fight fans get erections just watching the same old name fighters getting title shot after title shot.

What was splintered about Spinks undisputed title................

Didn't Spinks take on Larry in 85 ??..........Gomez take on Sanchez ?? Camacho take on Ramirez ?? .........Leonard-Kalule.............Duran-Leonard..

He didn't fancy Spinks....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mayweather 130.......Oscar at 154

Hagler 160...........Spinks at 175.......

Utter BS. Floyd's previous 4 fights had been at 140-147 so don't make out like he made a sudden jump to 154 from 130.

Plus Oscar not an ATG@154 whereas Spinks@175 is/was.

AND you're ignoring the Canelo question? If it was ok to fight ODLH several years ago at 154, why not Canleo now when Floyd is a fully fledged WW/LMW?????

147 is 17 pounds..........Spinks was 15..........

Even If I concede the point..It doesn't change the argument..

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/30/sports/hearns-races-toward-hagler-rematch.html

"He (Hearns) also remains one of the finest fighters in the world, but after the third-round knockout by Hagler, an immediate rematch would have been not only against boxing's always fragile rules, but unattractive. Arum has thus devised a doubleheader to build for what he hopes is the eventual rematch of one of the best fights in history."

Eh? Concede what? You've flatly lost the point. Floyd, gradually, over a number of years, worked his way up through the weights from 130 to 147. He then for a one-off popped up to 154 to fight an old Oscar before the biggest meal-ticket in sport retired.

You're saying Hagler should've made the same jump all in one go for one fight against a guy lightyears ahead of ODLH??

ANNNNNNNNNNNND you're still avoiding the Canelo question.

Spinks made the jump from 175 to 215 (larry)..........Leonard made the jump...Hearns went from 160-175...after Shuler...

What was Hagler's excuse..Fighting Hamsho and Obelmijas ??

Spinks was a superfight..

Not lost anything mate..

Mayweather moved up..

And if Hagler could've moved through 3 difference weight divisions before getting to an old about-to-retire Spinks then I'd criticise him for not doing it...........

CANELO??

Not all fighters want to move up Truss, nor do they have to to achieve greatness. Carlos Monzon never moved up either.

Canelo is at 152 right ??.......So what are you moaning at ...

Spinks often came in at 171...........Sure a deal could have been made..

I guess Hamsho was more enticing If less profitable....as was Leonard over Hearns..

Why is it not at 154?

You want to laud Floyd for the MASSIVE jump to 154 for Oscar. Then why isn't he fighting at 154 for Canelo?

Esp given Cotto was at 154 was it not.......?

You're nitpicking.....Fact is he's fighting at a higher weight....

Spinks-Hagler was a superfight.........Spinks weighed 171 for Jim Mcdonald..........

Hagler fought hamsho twice instead........and you're having a pop at Mayweather for taking on a p4per at a higher weight............Hagler only fought one present one and he came up in weight...

Okay for Duran to move from 135-160 to fight Hagler.

Its easier to take on all comers if you stay at one weight class and never move up.

Nowadays when you get below MW there are so many weight classes that moving weights becomes a neccessity to build a great legacy.