Dwight Muhamed Qawi called Marvin Hagler out

[mickey malone]

What does that have to do with whether he was a better p4p fighter than Foreman?

I can't be arsed with him anymore.. You close down all of his arguments on the thread topic, so he quotes examples from other fights, and we end up having to defend Greb of all people!

What do you think jab?.. I know it's a brave call, but do you think Hagler could have outpointed or stopped Qawi?... If Spinks could do it to Holmes, I think he could..

[JAB5239]

I can't be arsed with him anymore.. You close down all of his arguments on the thread topic, so he quotes examples from other fights, and we end up having to defend Greb of all people!

What do you think jab?.. I know it's a brave call, but do you think Hagler could have outpointed or stopped Qawi?... If Spinks could do it to Holmes, I think he could..

I don't think it beyond the realm of possibility, but I'd favor Qawi at 175. Hagler was a small middleweight. Qawi while short, was built like a tank. I certainly don't see a stoppage, but I don't think Marvin would be as effective with the extra weight. It would however be one of the most exciting fights ever.

[mickey malone]

I don't think it beyond the realm of possibility, but I'd favor Qawi at 175. Hagler was a small middleweight. Qawi while short, was built like a tank. I certainly don't see a stoppage, but I don't think Marvin would be as effective with the extra weight. It would however be one of the most exciting fights ever.

He's still one of those rare fighters i'd put my money on, whether he's the dog or not.. Toney would be another, because they can get back up after a KD and alter their game plan, which is normally a banker at world level.. Qawi was good at destroying opponents he could get close to, and I wouldn't be so sure he could close down a fleet footed mover like Hagler.. I don't recall Qawi ever facing a southpaw either, which often causes problems, so i'm very swayed into believing that may have presented him with something further to overcome.. Even though he had a granite chin, Hagler couldn't afford to go "at it" with Qawi, but he was very effective at fighting backwards aswell as off the ropes which is where I believe Dwight would try and nail him.. It's a close fight either way but i'm gonna stick with Marv..

[r.burgundy]

Don't change the argument. I'm not arguing whether Mugabi was good, I'm arguing about the idea that Mugabi couldn't punch. I understand you question the opposition but It takes serious power to behead most every fighter put in front of you in under 6 rounds even if they aren't elite fighters.

Julian Jackson is often labeled the hardest puncher P4P of all time, yet his only KO wins over really big name opponents are against Herol Graham and Terry Norris but I highly doubt you would question his power.

Gavilan turned pro at 17 not 23.

Ray Robinson was the same weight as Gavilan at the age of 17 so what's your point? So where is the mismatch?

Per Boxrec:
Ray Robinson - 5'11" 72" Reach
Kid Gavilan - 5'10" 71" Reach


Take a look for yourself:

the argument is long changed lol..this was supposed to be about hagler vs spinks,and qawi.i said hagler has never faced a bigger man with a punch.hearns and mugabe were brought up.how somebody thinks cause hagler beat them he bears qawi and spinks is beyond me

2 k.os of note is still 2 more than mugabe had

doesnt matter if they were the sme weight at 17,they clearly arent in the same league physically.gavilan has some of the absolute skinniest legs ive ever seen and finished his career with 30 ko's.saying he's feather fisted would be an insult to feathers.but not only was he abnormaly skinny,he was also seemed very slow.again,no way he stood a chance with srr,especially at his prime weight.they dont belong in the same ring

[r.burgundy]

I don't think it beyond the realm of possibility, but I'd favor Qawi at 175. Hagler was a small middleweight. Qawi while short, was built like a tank. I certainly don't see a stoppage, but I don't think Marvin would be as effective with the extra weight. It would however be one of the most exciting fights ever.

thank you for at least talking somewhat sensibly here.

[TheGreatA]

Gavilan was neither feather-fisted nor slow. The first statement is understandable due to his record but the second is mind-boggling. Gavilan was fast, not slow. He punched hard enough to earn the respect of his opponents and scored a few impressive knockouts.

Watch him flatten middleweight Walter Cartier:


9:30

[TheGreatA]

It's just the angle and lighting of picture that makes Gavilan's legs look skinny.

[r.burgundy]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;8363418][QUOTE]

So it shouldn't be that hard for you ton dig up all the fighters who fought an average of almost twice a month over a 13 year career should it?


Exactly who have you watched that fought Greb and what is it that makes them "stiffs"? Funny how your novice opinion doesn't even come close to jibing with thiose who actually have seen thesev fighters up close and those who study the sport much more closely than you or myself. But hey, they're all biased and nostalgic and could possibly know more than some clown with a computer who think Tommy Hearns wasn't a huge welterweight, right?



An unpopular opinion would be saying that Greb shouldn't be a top all time p4p fighter. An unpopular opinion would be to discredit his opposition without knowing all the facts. Your opinion is down right ****** as you claim Greb was a "stiff" and only fought "stiffs".



Absolutely. A fighter who was only stopped twice in almost 300 fights, only losing 20 times compared to 260 wins. A fighter who beat 18 world champions and sports arguably the greatest resume all time. Yeah, we can agree on that.



You dwell on this one fight while dismissing the possibilities I suggested, and are quite reasonable, but you still can't change the fact he won. As far as your claim that Greb fought stiffs....we'll see about that. Experts and historians as well as people who actually saw these fighters disagree with you. We'll see what the history section thinks.

Wrong again. More fighters, plus less weight classes, plus one title equal tougher competition. That is an indisputable FACT.



What exactly does that have to do with his greatness, accomplishments and who he fought?


Ok, we'll see. Care to wager some of those phony e-points that if I put up a poll at least 70% of the posters will agree with my take on this and not yours? You can afford it, I let you off the hook last time if you remember correctly. You give me ALL your points if I win. If I lose I'll double yours. Fair?



Thats an easy opinion to have when you don't know boxing or its history.

Sig that bet so I can put up a poll.

only greb foes ive seen are walker,gibbons and tunney.who have you seen?i found gibbons the most impressive but i use that word for lack of a better 1.tthese guys are supposedly some top flight opposition.if greb beat these guys with 1 eye,they obviously aint top flight.

an unpopular opinion is any opinion that goes against the normal opinion.the pop opinion is greb is a top 10 atg and fought world class comp.i strongly disagree.from the video ive seen,there isnt anything world class about some of the guys he fought.or would you like to keep ducking the ? of is video better than a book?

since your such the historian,if he beat champs,i ask again,who on earth are these guys beating to be considered great lol.simple.

please tell me what makes these guys experts lol.stop hiding behind others opinions for petes sake.ive followed boxing closely for a good 15 years.i guess i can say im an expert.bert sugar is an expert right?he said mosley would murder floyd.so what good is his expertise if he cant see that shane is gonna get his ass kicked?

why should i take those ****** possibilities sserious.its you coming to defend your legend.we could say anybody might have been injured.if he was injured,he shouldnt've been in the ring.

since when does more = better lol.its usually the opposite.but since you wish to that game,being as there are more divisions and more champions wouldnt that make for greater fighters?

of course they'll agree with your take.especially in this section.and i counter that with this.lets post a thread in nsb and ask some guys who arent into history what they think of fighters like walker,gibbons,tunney,and whoever else i can dig up on youtube.lets ask them to look at the video and give an opinion on the fighter.i'll bet 70% say those guys suck.

[r.burgundy]

It's just the angle and lighting of picture that makes Gavilan's legs look skinny.

his legs look like that in all the video ive seen and still doesnt change his blatant disrespect of feathers.if srr was 1/2 as good as said to be at ww,only chance most fighters would have is a punchers chance.if you got 30 ko's in 100+ fights,then you dont have a punchers chance

[r.burgundy]

Gavilan was neither feather-fisted nor slow. The first statement is understandable due to his record but the second is mind-boggling. Gavilan was fast, not slow. He punched hard enough to earn the respect of his opponents and scored a few impressive knockouts.

Watch him flatten middleweight Walter Cartier:


9:30

gavilan looked like he almost got ko'd lol but eithr way,most i can say about the kid was he could work behind the jab pretty good.still in way over his head against srr