Of course you're right because so many sports historians, anaylists, and blow by blow announcers continue to annually back you up with this b.s that it's caused millions of people to become brainwashed and not think for themselves. Kudos to anyone on here who picked Corrales-Castillo and even to those who didn't as long as you made a good argument. For those just spreading the myth, my advice is learn to think and make judgements for yourself without letting others dictate your opinion. By the way I think it's easily CC over HH simply because one was a short dominiation and the other was a long action packed fight that swung back and fourth and had multiple knockdowns. It also had one of the most exciting comebacks in history dispite the so called cheating.
How would you compare Corrales's 10th round comeback with that of Earnie Shavers against Tiger Williams?
Most of you guys are too young to have enjoyed Hagler - Hearns when it actually happened. If you had, you would hold their encounter in higher regard. Having said that, the ammount of action sustained in Corrales - Castillo, as well as the skill level of the competitors in said bout is sublime.
:nono: if he didn't do it, then my joke from the previous post would have gone on unnoticed, forever.
That's the beauty of video my friend. We have the technical technology to go back in time and disprove this stupid myth that has gone on long enough. The HH fight is flat out not better than CC. At least in our opinions.
Let me be a little clearer, as you seemed to not understand me. People who saw Hagler - Hearns when it happened hold it in higher regard that people who watched it later. Yet, Corrales - Castillo I was better.
Hagler-Hearns scores nostalgia points for most old time boxing fans, and it also gets points for delivering excitement after all that pre-fight hype. Plus, it was fought in front of a frenzied, packed house while C/C I was looked like a Kansas City Royals game in mid August. But as far as the action in the ring, I really don't see how its even a contest: Castillo-Corrales was the much better fight.
Corrales-Castillo by a country mile! Ive said it a million times before and will continue to say it. Hagler-Hearns is the most OVERRATED fight of all time!
You hit the nail on the head. In order to appreciate Hagler-Hearns, you had to watch it live with complete uncertainty of the outcome. You have to have seen it without knowing if one of Tommy's big right hands was going to stop Marvin. Looking back now, with the knowledge of who wins and how, it is little more than a beating by Hagler. But trust me, when it happened it was 2+ rounds of shear entertainment.
No. Still, whats that have to do with it? I didnt watch Hagler-Mugabi live either, but can still look back on it and say it was a great fight. Hagler-Hearns was a 1 round action fight. Only the 1st was great.
It's funny how some of you are acting like there is a right or wrong answer.:: It's a matter of choice. Clearly both were exciting enough to even have this argument. I personally liked Corrales/Castillo simply cause it lasted more. but Chico spitting the mouth piece is what saved him from being KOd and created the late comeback drama. But to some people that took away from what CAstillo was doing in that 10th round. you can look at it as cheating or you can give Chico props for surviving in that situation. It dependes on each point of view. Hagler/Hearns was shorter but it was a train wreck from the beginning. It's too bad Tommy broke his hand, alot of people forget that part and think Hagler simply kicked his ass after the first round. Both fights were pretty fucking good IMO.
I might go with Holyfield-Tyson I. That actually won Fight of the Year when it wasn't even a top 5 fight that year, and wasn't the best HW fight in the last two months of the year. Quartey-DLH is up there too. People often say it was a great fight. 10 of the 12 rounds were basically a posing jab-fest.