Hagler's gamble!

First topic message reminder :

I watch "the war" more then any other fight I think, it never gets old to me. 1 of the greatest fights ever and a fight I always recommend but what strikes me as odd is the tactics used by Haglar. Now I dont know if Marvin's corner sent him out there with the instruction to take the fight to the streets or if Marvin just wanted to personally tear it up with Hearns? I do know for a fact that everybody expected Tommy to box behind his jab but as we know he was forced into a brawl. Either way the fact remains that Haglar's tactics were crazy. He did not fight that way he was more methodical so why did he decide to war it out with a man with the ko power, ram rod jab, height, and super reach of Tommy Hearns?

Whatever the reason the gamble nearly backfired as Haglar was caught and hurt early on and Hearns opened up a cut on Marvin. We all knew Hearns right hand was the 1 punch Hagalr had to aviod but it was obvious in the final round that he could shake it off as Hearns landed many flush right hands all night. I am not surprised there was no rematch as I think 9 times out of 10 Tommy would have beaten Marvin. Marvin just took his chance.

88Chris05 wrote:

Waingro wrote:There are lots of fights that would be close but imo hagler would destroy hearns in a rematch he was too strong and tough for hearns and i reckon hearns would not want to fight him again after getting badly knocked out. Just my opinion. I reckon Hagler and Leonard in a rematch would be close.

Hearns did want the Hagler rematch, make no mistake. Tommy wasn't easily discouraged; he told everyone who'd listen after beating Shuler that he wanted 'Marvelous' again. Hagler, rightly or wrongly, didn't go down that route - personally I don't blame him. His win against Hearns was more than convincing enough for him to move on from that particular chapter.

And saying that Hagler-Leonard II would have been close...You mean as opposed to their first fight, which wasn't close at all?

lol not sure what fight you were watching mate the first Leonard and Hagler fight was close I though Hagler won it and I reckon a rematch would have been close aswell so dont know where people are getting I think the loser in the fight would get destroyed from when there are plenty of close fights out there.

The term hall of fame is not to be taken literally, as with all sports it is more a hall of acheivement but I would guess it is not called as such because it does slightly lack in poetry and is hardly a term that trips off the tongue. Would also guess that whether the average guy on the street has heard of them is perhaps not the most flawless system to establish worthiness for inclusion. I am going Meadowhall with the missus tonight, am relatively confident were I to ask a sample of the shoppers there who they had heard of, Audley Harrison or Jimmy Wilde Audley would win at a canter which suggests a flaw in your methodology.

It was called the fight of the decade for a reason....

One of the most exciting fights of alltime..

Gave Hamsho a rematch didn't he????

HumanWindmill wrote:I don't believe that Hagler's tactics were any surprise at all.

Hearns was expected to box and Hagler was expected to pressure and brawl. The only surprise was that Tommy obliged him by going toe to toe. Hagler, the naturally stronger man and with a practically impregnable chin, had far less to lose in a slugfest than did Hearns, whose whiskers were never the most reliable.

It was Hearns who gambled, in my opinion, and Hearns who came unstuck. Hagler's only problem was the cut.

I take slight issue with your remark about Hearns' chin here old chap- Hearns absorbed a helluva lot of impact and coped with it very well, against Leonard in his two fights particularly. It was his LEGS that let him down!

They built up Floyd vs Oscar and it was as dull at ditchwater. Doesn't always follow that two great fighters will produce a great fight. Luckily Tommy and Marv produced the goods

Waingro wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

Waingro wrote:There are lots of fights that would be close but imo hagler would destroy hearns in a rematch he was too strong and tough for hearns and i reckon hearns would not want to fight him again after getting badly knocked out. Just my opinion. I reckon Hagler and Leonard in a rematch would be close.

Hearns did want the Hagler rematch, make no mistake. Tommy wasn't easily discouraged; he told everyone who'd listen after beating Shuler that he wanted 'Marvelous' again. Hagler, rightly or wrongly, didn't go down that route - personally I don't blame him. His win against Hearns was more than convincing enough for him to move on from that particular chapter.

And saying that Hagler-Leonard II would have been close...You mean as opposed to their first fight, which wasn't close at all?

lol not sure what fight you were watching mate the first Leonard and Hagler fight was close I though Hagler won it and I reckon a rematch would have been close aswell so dont know where people are getting I think the loser in the fight would get destroyed from when there are plenty of close fights out there.

It's called sarcasm, my dear friend! Nobody would dispute that Hagler-Leonard was just about as close as it gets.

Waingro wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Trussman, you're arguing against a guy who claims that Jose Napoles shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, and who claims that nobody from his boxing gym has even heard of him. Don't go too far out of your way to crush this particular foe!

Not sure what you are on about mate. I said Naploes wasnt famous and not many people have heard of him. If you ask anyone on the street if they know who he is chances are they will not have a clue. Can he say he is more famous than Ali or Tyson or Lewis or Hagler I dont think he can. The Hall of Fame is full of people that hardly anyone has heard supposed to be a hall of fame so should be full of boxers that most people would have heard of not guys that people dont know.

The clue is in the word ' Boxing.'

The IBHOF is for fighters who are famous in the field of boxing, not necessarily famous to the man in the street. There's a baseball HOF, too, but I doubt I could name three members. Doesn't mean the rest aren't famous in the world of baseball, but rather it means that I know sod all about baseball.

Not meaning to be rude, but if you haven't heard of José Napoles it simply means you don't know any more about boxing than the average man in the street.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Waingro wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Trussman, you're arguing against a guy who claims that Jose Napoles shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, and who claims that nobody from his boxing gym has even heard of him. Don't go too far out of your way to crush this particular foe!

Not sure what you are on about mate. I said Naploes wasnt famous and not many people have heard of him. If you ask anyone on the street if they know who he is chances are they will not have a clue. Can he say he is more famous than Ali or Tyson or Lewis or Hagler I dont think he can. The Hall of Fame is full of people that hardly anyone has heard supposed to be a hall of fame so should be full of boxers that most people would have heard of not guys that people dont know.

The clue is in the word ' Boxing.'

The IBHOF is for fighters who are famous in the field of boxing, not necessarily famous to the man in the street. There's a baseball HOF, too, but I doubt I could name three members. Doesn't mean the rest aren't famous in the world of baseball, but rather it means that I know sod all about baseball.

.

Philistine Windy

rowley wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Waingro wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Trussman, you're arguing against a guy who claims that Jose Napoles shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, and who claims that nobody from his boxing gym has even heard of him. Don't go too far out of your way to crush this particular foe!

Not sure what you are on about mate. I said Naploes wasnt famous and not many people have heard of him. If you ask anyone on the street if they know who he is chances are they will not have a clue. Can he say he is more famous than Ali or Tyson or Lewis or Hagler I dont think he can. The Hall of Fame is full of people that hardly anyone has heard supposed to be a hall of fame so should be full of boxers that most people would have heard of not guys that people dont know.

The clue is in the word ' Boxing.'

The IBHOF is for fighters who are famous in the field of boxing, not necessarily famous to the man in the street. There's a baseball HOF, too, but I doubt I could name three members. Doesn't mean the rest aren't famous in the world of baseball, but rather it means that I know sod all about baseball.

.

Philistine Windy

Too complicated for my simple head, jeff.

Windy, it's basically like Rounders but it's played by grown men being paid a small fortune rather than little girls who are doing it just before double maths and home economics

I think you are being rude. I do boxing on a regular basis and would say I know alot more than the average bloke on the street about. There are lots of people in boxing who hve not heard of many old time fighter. I met Lennox Lwis before and asked him would he like to have faced any fighters from history and he said he could hardly name any so didnt really know about them but I guess he knows less than the average bloke aswell! Lots of pro fighters dont know much about old time fighters coz they spend most of their time training and not reading books! I have met lots of boxers and trainers that do not know much about history and the only point i was making was that not alot of people have heard of those fighters in the hall of fame. If you think that means i know less than the average bloke fine by me lol.

The slightly above average bloke on the street then....

They can meet you half way.....

DAVE667 wrote:Windy, it's basically like Rounders but it's played by grown men being paid a small fortune rather than little girls who are doing it just before double maths and home economics

Ha !

Thanks for the explanation, mate. Missed those little barbed one liners.

Waingro wrote:I think you are being rude. I do boxing on a regular basis and would say I know alot more than the average bloke on the street about. There are lots of people in boxing who hve not heard of many old time fighter. I met Lennox Lwis before and asked him would he like to have faced any fighters from history and he said he could hardly name any so didnt really know about them but I guess he knows less than the average bloke aswell! Lots of pro fighters dont know much about old time fighters coz they spend most of their time training and not reading books! I have met lots of boxers and trainers that do not know much about history and the only point i was making was that not alot of people have heard of those fighters in the hall of fame. If you think that means i know less than the average bloke fine by me lol.

Not sure there's much to "lol" about in that post, Waingro

HHIHAWG (Holds Head In Hands And Weeps Gently)

So because some people in the sport choose not to learn about the history of the sport those fighters that fought in the past should be excluded from hall of fame?

Waingro wrote:I think you are being rude. I do boxing on a regular basis and would say I know alot more than the average bloke on the street about. There are lots of people in boxing who hve not heard of many old time fighter. I met Lennox Lwis before and asked him would he like to have faced any fighters from history and he said he could hardly name any so didnt really know about them but I guess he knows less than the average bloke aswell! Lots of pro fighters dont know much about old time fighters coz they spend most of their time training and not reading books! I have met lots of boxers and trainers that do not know much about history and the only point i was making was that not alot of people have heard of those fighters in the hall of fame. If you think that means i know less than the average bloke fine by me lol.

I said I'm not being rude, lol.

However, lol, if you wish to preach respect, lol, you might start, lol, by not accusing people, lol, of lying, lol.

If you, lol, think Nigel Benn, lol, iyo, lol, is a top ten middleweight, lol, iyo, lol, and Carlos Monzon isn't lol, iyo, lol, when most people lol think Monzon, imo, lol, would have schooled, nay, destroyed Benn, lol, then imo, lol, you know litlte more, lol, than the average, lol, non - boxing fan, lol.

Now, lol, I'm being rude, imo, lol, so perhaps, lol, you have something, ( imo, lol, ) to complain about,.

Lol.

You guys really hate the phrase lol, huh?

Not even in jest Windy

HumanWindmill wrote:

Waingro wrote:I think you are being rude. I do boxing on a regular basis and would say I know alot more than the average bloke on the street about. There are lots of people in boxing who hve not heard of many old time fighter. I met Lennox Lwis before and asked him would he like to have faced any fighters from history and he said he could hardly name any so didnt really know about them but I guess he knows less than the average bloke aswell! Lots of pro fighters dont know much about old time fighters coz they spend most of their time training and not reading books! I have met lots of boxers and trainers that do not know much about history and the only point i was making was that not alot of people have heard of those fighters in the hall of fame. If you think that means i know less than the average bloke fine by me lol.

I said I'm not being rude, lol.

However, lol, if you wish to preach respect, lol, you might start, lol, by not accusing people, lol, of lying, lol.

If you, lol, think Nigel Benn, lol, iyo, lol, is a top ten middleweight, lol, iyo, lol, and Carlos Monzon isn't lol, iyo, lol, when most people lol think Monzon, imo, lol, would have schooled, nay, destroyed Benn, lol, then imo, lol, you know litlte more, lol, than the average, lol, non - boxing fan, lol.

Now, lol, I'm being rude, imo, lol, so perhaps, lol, you have something, ( imo, lol, ) to complain about,.

Lol.

You sure do have a "LOT OF LOVE" to give there, Windy

You guys always seem to hunt in packs.....

Now you've screwed the guy over and pretty much whupped his butt..

Just leave it..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You guys always seem to hunt in packs.....

Now you've screwed the guy over and pretty much whupped his butt..

Just leave it..

TRUSS talking about "leaving it"

LOL

You might have noticed "I left it" on my Conn thread when I was pitching a shutout against you...

lol not interested in getting into arguments on a forum just like talking about boxing but on here if people dont agree with your opinion they just start having a go. Havent said anything insulting to anyone on here. Never said I was an expert in boxing but reckon i know more than the average bloke on the street.

It may have looked that way from your POV (your head several miles up your rear end). Personally I saw it as you finally realising you'd been bested by a supior foe and knowing when to throw in the towel.

Pitching a shutout? (a lol-worthy comment if ever there was one)...shame you don't know how to pitch a shut-up!

Waingro wrote: Never said I was an expert in boxing but reckon i know more than the average bloke on the street.

Do you live in Didsbury by any chance? (sorry Truss)

supior foe.........

well if you're going to try and throw Latin words at me maybe i'd better leave it again......

Waingro wrote:lol not interested in getting into arguments on a forum just like talking about boxing but on here if people dont agree with your opinion they just start having a go. Havent said anything insulting to anyone on here. Never said I was an expert in boxing but reckon i know more than the average bloke on the street.

Nonsense.

YOU are the one who is intolerant of folks disagreeing with you. Countless people here have tried to debate with you about Dempsey, HOF, Lennox Lewis and you just fling your backside and LOL at them.

Respect is a two way street, Sunshine. Give some out and you might get some back. Treat folks like idiots and they will do likewise.

rowley wrote:

Waingro wrote: Never said I was an expert in boxing but reckon i know more than the average bloke on the street.

Do you live in Didsbury by any chance? (sorry Truss)

Certainly couldn't get more average that TRUSSMAN.

My wife's recently discovered the 90's series "Cold Feet" set in Didsbury with a bunch of middle-class twonks all disappearing up their rear ends and I get the impression that TRUSS is the living embodiment of the character played by John Thompson.

Aww TRUSSY, I have to throw these little typos in every so often to give you something to cling onto as you slowly drown in your own idiocy...and I think there's a paperclip lodged in my keyboard.

DAVE667 wrote:and I think there's a paperclip lodged in my keyboard.

Worst excuse since Curry was slapped by Honeyghan.

lol where have I been intolerent of people I just have my own opinion on some things and I dont mind if people do not agre or do agree its fine with me. Where have I said that nobody can disagree with me or where have I shown no respect? Please give me an example?

Waingro wrote:lol where have I been intolerent of people I just have my own opinion on some things and I dont mind if people do not agre or do agree its fine with me. Where have I said that nobody can disagree with me or where have I shown no respect? Please give me an example?

Sorry, but I can't agree with that.

Scottrf wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:and I think there's a paperclip lodged in my keyboard.

Worst excuse since Curry was slapped by Honeyghan.

I'm just too proud to admit I rarely proof-read any of my stuff, I'm amazed so much of it is legible (or is that articulated?)

Waingrow writes "where have I shown no respect? Please give me an example?" The disrespect you've shown the Queen's English is bordering on criminal...or American!

Just want to take this opportunity to speak to one of these cro-magnons who use text speak. Waingro, what possible benefit do you think there is in inferring that you are laughing out loud when almost certainly you are not?
I find it truly baffling and I would genuinely like to know what it's all about.
It looks awful and if anything slightly camp, not a great quality for someone who professes to know their boxing. Let me guess, Tyson fan, huh?

This by my count is the fourth thread to be ruined today through unneccessary arguing and trading insults which is a great shame.

I have read most of Waingros posts and while I dont agree with the majority of what he writes, he has not been insulting or abusive towards any member of the forum so I would suggest that if you dont agree with him and cant debate with him without resorting to insults then you simply ignore him, as to do otherwise serves no purpose other than to destroy the thread in question and bring down the level of debate in general.

Just want to take this opportunity to speak to one of these cro-magnons who use text speak.

Wasn't the Cro-Magnon age AFTER the Neanderthal Age. Didn't the Cro-Mags (as well as being a kick ass hardcore band) utilise rudimentary tools as weapons and invent fighting...or am I thinking of Essex?

Basically, aren't the Cro Mags superior (or ever supior) to Neanderthals? How does Waingro get to be a Cro-Mag whilst the rest of use languish in the realm of the Neanderthal...unlike TRUSS who is possibly Homo-erectus

Colonial, your mistake is in assuming that the insults etc are unnecessary!

Yes colonial, I only come here for the insults these days.I would rather hear Dave slag off "Cold Feet" in an amusing way than,say, pay fifteen big ones to see Shane Moseley do his pascifist routine. plus the "lol" debate that has been raging, why it's as good as a Dr Who story "arc" (one for Hobo, there).

I never actually use LOL or any other text speak on here but for goodness sake if Waingro wants to use it then thats fine. You gotta have a pretty easy life if reading the word LOL gets you all worked up. Agree with Colonial Lion, if you dont agree with him and cant debate with him without resorting to insults then you simply ignore him. No need to ruin threads

Steffan wrote:I never actually use LOL or any other text speak on here but for goodness sake if Waingro wants to use it then thats fine. You gotta have a pretty easy life if reading the word LOL gets you all worked up. Agree with Colonial Lion, if you dont agree with him and cant debate with him without resorting to insults then you simply ignore him. No need to ruin threads

I'm sure that few object to the use of text speak, Steffan ( or, rather, few would complain about it, ) but the context is significant.

When the ' lol ' is employed in a dismissive and mocking manner it can be irritating, just as the misappropriation of the ' sheep ' emoticon might disturb you.

Waingro wrote:lol where have I been intolerent of people I just have my own opinion on some things and I dont mind if people do not agre or do agree its fine with me. Where have I said that nobody can disagree with me or where have I shown no respect? Please give me an example?

Is that you, Young Towzer?

Ha, I did wonder, Jack.

Clearly you do not know more than the average man on the street if you have not heard of Napoles. Also not sure why anyone feels the need to stick up for Waingros use of 'lol', it's a juvenile phrase that renders any opinion by said poster as meaningless and redundant.

Cleary you dont know much about me and have never met me so you dont know what I know maybe I am not an expert but at least I dont have to start insulting people and getting involved in fights to share my point of view. Im sorry the word lol upsets you but i think you need to chill out mate as this is just a boxing forum and not english school.

Morning, Waingro.

There's a private message in your inbox, mate.

Thanks for the message human windmill no problem mate I am here to talk about boxing and not get into arguments. I am not steven though whoever that is.

Understood, mate.

Thanks for your understanding.

Just don't expect your opinion to be taken seriously then.

Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning Ghosty?

Just this morning?

Something like that but does someone honestly think they're going to be taken seriously when they are clearly more juvenile than a four year old?

Not everyone has to speak the Queen's English, you know.