Haglar vs Ray Robinson

[booradley]

I have a friend who is in his 80s and a life long boxing fan. He saw Ray Robinson fight live a couple of times. One day we were making up fantasy fights, and he said Robinson vs Haglar prime for prime would be a candidate for fight of the decade no matter what decade it took place in. What do you guys think?

boo

[john garfield]

I have a friend who is in his 80s and a life long boxing fan. He saw Ray Robinson fight live a couple of times. One day we were making up fantasy fights, and he said Robinson vs Haglar prime for prime would be a candidate for fight of the decade no matter what decade it took place in. What do you guys think?

boo

I'm in my 70s, br, and I saw Robinson train and fight live at the height of his career. I think your friend's right, Sugar vs. Hagler would've been a helluva fight...though Robby was at his peak as a welter -- what a peak it was!

[gutto]

what a fight but i think robinson would take this one

[Bill Butcher]

SRR was at his peak at 147 where as hagler was always a mwt & thats were this match must take place.

I think hagler may very well have been the better mwt champion (I class 12 straight defences more than winning & losing the crown 5 times as being more consistent) however this is a 1 on 1 match-up both at there mwt peaks.

The hagler who beat hearns in 3 rds
vs
The robinson who beat lamotta in 13 rds

:happy :thumbsup :yep :D

thats the shit Im tokin about.

Got to go for robinson on a ud or 14/15 rd tko, no mwt beats that version of ray robinson, not even the man possesed who tore through hearns, robinson all the way.

[JohnThomas1]

Yeah Robinson's the go at his absolute best at 160. Too much handspeed and has the stamina and chin to see 15 rounds comfortably, even vs Hagler. Speed is his big asset in this one, and he had plenty.

[PowerPuncher]

I think Hagler would always have a problem with ultra fast box and move type boxers and SRR does this as well as anyone. SRR would get his shots off first and get out having Hagler following him round the ring. Hagler can not outbox SRR

Even if Hagler could some how make it into a brawl SRR was an excellent brawler, who'd land his power shots quicker in combination.

Who hit harder? I think this is up for debate, SRR certainly had more accuracy. Both had great chins so I can't see a KO for either fighter

The only people who are going to pick Hagler will be downgrading SRR from his post-prime second career

SRR wins a UD 10 rounds to 5 or wider

[john garfield]

[QUOTE=WindUp]A dude in his seventies who can use the internet?

UNPOSSIBLE!

Just kidding. ;-)

=====================

You give me too much credit, WU. I can barely walk and chew gum.

[SgrRyLeonard]

That would be possibly the greatest fight ever! Two of the Greatest Middleweights ever to set foot in a boxing ring; I'd pay any amount to see that fight. The Hagler from the Sibson fight using the gameplan from the Hearns fight against the Robinson from the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, would be a seesaw, down to the wire epic battle. It's a toss up as to who wins, it's the only fight I can't pick a winner in.

[littleguy]

Probably the only fighter in the history of the sport who could beat Hagler in his prime over 15. Myabe. What do I know. It would be a fight for the ages.

[TIGEREDGE]

Hagler is the one guy that i thinkj could of beat sugar ray at his best. he had the chin, awkward double stance and very good punch

[Stonehands89]

I speculate that Hagler would handle Monzon easier than Robinson, but that Hagler is the odds-on favorite in a battle of MW champs.

"The Ambidextrous, Iron-Chinned, Iron-Willed Workman vs. The Savant Par Excellence"

JT is right about the speed factor... but Hagler handled speed better in the 70s than he did in the mid-80s. Hagler was a solid technician in there -even if he wasn't that imaginative at times. Technically, he was probably a bit better schooled than Robinson who relied on athleticism a bit more. Hagler was also considerably stronger... and he's taking the shots and he's not going down. I have little doubt on that.

Hagler could cut the ring off, bang the body well, and --here is the clincher for me--- he was confusing. Shades of the awkward Turpin. That ambidexterity would allow Hagler to land a bit more than expected and I think that Robinson's legs would feel a bit too leaden after 11 rounds of heavy Hagler fists pounding on his ribs and arms and hips all night.

I'm not certain ... because Robinson was sublime even in '51 as a MW. Nevertheless Hagler SD.

[Nemesis]

I speculate that Hagler would handle Monzon easier than Robinson, but that Hagler is the odds-on favorite in a battle of MW champs.

"The Ambidextrous, Iron-Chinned, Iron-Willed Workman vs. The Savant Par Excellence"

JT is right about the speed factor... but Hagler handled speed better in the 70s than he did in the mid-80s. Hagler was a solid technician in there -even if he wasn't that imaginative at times. Technically, he was probably a bit better schooled than Robinson who relied on athleticism a bit more. Hagler was also considerably stronger... and he's taking the shots and he's not going down. I have little doubt on that.

Hagler could cut the ring off, bang the body well, and --here is the clincher for me--- he was confusing. Shades of the awkward Turpin. That ambidexterity would allow Hagler to land a bit more than expected and I think that Robinson's legs would feel a bit too leaden after 11 rounds of heavy Hagler fists pounding on his ribs and arms and hips all night.

I'm not certain ... because Robinson was sublime even in '51 as a MW. Nevertheless Hagler SD.

What speedsters did Hagler outbox in the 70's?

[werety]

Cant tell this 1 for sure but i think a key factor would b hagler's switch hitting. Robbie was very adaptive but sometimes could show trouble with awkward styles like turpin. Still i think if Robinson fights his fight perfectly he will be able to defeat hagler. But hagler's not getting stopped, no chance in hell.

[Nemesis]

From what i have been told Mike Colbert was handly outboxing Hagler before gassing

[brownpimp88]

From what i have been told Mike Colbert was handly outboxing Hagler before gassing
There have been quite a few fights in which robinson didnt look so good.

[Nemesis]

There have been quite a few fights in which robinson didnt look so good.
that can happen when you have 3453 fights :good

[mcvey]

SRR was at his peak at 147 where as hagler was always a mwt & thats were this match must take place.

I think hagler may very well have been the better mwt champion (I class 12 straight defences more than winning & losing the crown 5 times as being more consistent) however this is a 1 on 1 match-up both at there mwt peaks.

The hagler who beat hearns in 3 rds
vs
The robinson who beat lamotta in 13 rds

:happy :thumbsup :yep :D

thats the shit Im tokin about.

Got to go for robinson on a ud or 14/15 rd tko, no mwt beats that version of ray robinson, not even the man possesed who tore through hearns, robinson all the way.
Il like your post,its succint and to the point ,but gets to the basics,I lean towards ray,but good judges like Mickey Duff, a very shrewd matchmaker pull for Hagler,I may be wrong but I think the "sugar man" would pull out a decision.

[john garfield]

There have been quite a few fights in which robinson didnt look so good.

Had you seen SRR live at welter, b88, all those tepid performances would have been forgotten. He was a cold-blooded hit man in silk.

All of his smiles, gifts to the cancer fund and modest replies in the press masked a stone killer...and I knew him as well as a kid could; he gave me boxing tips.

[JohnThomas1]

Had you seen SRR live at welter, b88, all those tepid performances would have been forgotten. He was a cold-blooded hit man in silk.

All of his smiles, gifts to the cancer fund and modest replies in the press masked a stone killer...and I knew him as well as a kid could; he gave me boxing tips.

I gotta be honest, i love hearing you talk of Robinson, especially considering you watched the man live.

Mate i'd really appreciate it if you could throw forward some random thoughts and comments on him and his abilities and fights. As many as you like if you cane sometime find the time. Your experiences should not go untold. We are likely talking about the greatest fighter to ever lace on a glove.

[cuchulain]

Probably the only fighter in the history of the sport who could beat Hagler in his prime over 15. Myabe. What do I know. It would be a fight for the ages.

IMO, Roy would have beaten Hagler at 160.

[john garfield]

I gotta be honest, i love hearing you talk of Robinson, especially considering you watched the man live.

Mate i'd really appreciate it if you could throw forward some random thoughts and comments on him and his abilities and fights. As many as you like if you cane sometime find the time. Your experiences should not go untold. We are likely talking about the greatest fighter to ever lace on a glove.

Appreciate it, JT. PM me an email address and I'll send you a Word document.

[JohnThomas1]

Appreciate it, JT. PM me an email address and I'll send you a Word document.

Have done John, thanks mate.

[Amsterdam]

If the unskilled La Motta could trouble Ray with pressure, I have no doubt that a prime Hagler takes him out with ease.

[john garfield]

Who's your pick JG??????

I never get into mythical match-ups, Ac -- too futile; the best argument means nothing. Nobody gets the satisfaction of proving a point.

If they were really to fight, I'd give you chapter-n'-verse, and we'd all sit back and see how it played out.

The best I can do is say I'd pay top-dollar to be ringside.

[john garfield]

Ha, very true about the mythical matchups. I never thought I'd be jealous of a 70 year old. It's amazing you got to see Robinson in person!

*Feels inadequate as a 25 year old fight fan*:?

:lol:

Right now I'd trade an awful lot to be 25.

[SteveO]

In a 15 round fight, I predict Robinson 7-6-2. No real reason. Lots of close rounds.

[Asterion]

Hagler UD12

Two times out of three.

[Nemesis]

If the unskilled La Motta could trouble Ray with pressure, I have no doubt that a prime Hagler takes him out with ease.

If a shot version of Ray Leonard could outbox Hagler, then I am sure Ray Robinson would take him out with ease

It works both ways retard :good

[RockyJim]

In his prime,Hagler trained at the tip of Cape Cod in Provincetown like Marciano did in the 1950's.
Isolated...away from the crowd...he focused on his next opponent.....great fighter!! Being from Massachusetts Rocky and Marvin are icons..I'll go with Hagler in this one...ever so slightly!!

[Stonehands89]

What speedsters did Hagler outbox in the 70's?
Watts and Monroe were slick fighters with good speed. He avenged both losses with ease, although I suspect that Watts stellar performace in the first fight was used by Leonard -angles, clinches, popping punches to disrupt rythym.

Also, I am not so sure that Leonard beat Hagler even primarily due to speed. That fight is used far to liberally as demonstrable of Hagler's stylistic weaknesses.

[Luigi1985]

If the unskilled La Motta could trouble Ray with pressure, I have no doubt that a prime Hagler takes him out with ease.


Just shut up, you have no knowledge and you know it. Since when had LaMotta no skills? He had good head movements and in general an underrated defense, amazing pace, iron chin, great stamina, etc., a guy with zero skills couldn´t beat one of the greatest fighters ever, whether if he weighs 16 lbs or what more...

[Nemesis]

Watts and Monroe were slick fighters with good speed. He avenged both losses with ease, although I suspect that Watts stellar performace in the first fight was used by Leonard -angles, clinches, popping punches to disrupt rythym.

But he was still beaten by them in the first place, which backs up my assertion that Hagler has trouble with fighters with fast hands


Also, I am not so sure that Leonard beat Hagler even primarily due to speed. That fight is used far to liberally as demonstrable of Hagler's stylistic weaknesses.

I would emphatically disagree with this. The reason Leonard won the decision was because he was able to fire off quick counters off the ropes and then get out of range

[brownpimp88]

All of hagler's losses were controversial and he lost by like 1 or 2 points at max. Ray Robinson has been clearly defeated during his middleweight career about 3-4 times i believe. The funny thing is that hagler was green as fuck during his first two losses anyways.

[My dinner with Conteh]

All of hagler's losses were controversial and he lost by like 1 or 2 points at max.


What was controversial about the first Monroe fight?

[brownpimp88]

What was controversial about the first Monroe fight?
have u seen the fight? It was considered a philly decision and thats why hagler immediately wanted a rematch.

[My dinner with Conteh]

have u seen the fight? It was considered a philly decision and thats why hagler immediately wanted a rematch.



Ha ha, where have you read this shite, on a Marvin Hagler forum? Boxing News was the only major publication to cover it and they gave Monroe eight rounds. The headline: "New Look Monroe Hammers Hagler". :lol:

[brooklyn1550]

Marvin Hagler UD12 Sugar Ray Robinson

[My dinner with Conteh]

and thats why hagler immediately wanted a rematch.



He wanted a rematch because he lost- clearly. Just like Seales wanted a rematch when Hagler thrashed him...same with Hamsho...Obel.

[timmers612]

Luigi, you beat me to the punch taking Amsterdam out,,,,Jake was one of my favorites and highly skilled. He knew how to get inside smoothly and could tripple up his hook when needed. For a short man he knew distance well and it let him out jab bigger men, Robby included at times. One of he top jaws of all time, tough as nails, good punch, decent speed, could throw every punch to the head or body.

[Stonehands89]

But he was still beaten by them in the first place, which backs up my assertion that Hagler has trouble with fighters with fast hands.

I would emphatically disagree with this. The reason Leonard won the decision was because he was able to fire off quick counters off the ropes and then get out of range

It is too simplistic an assertion that states "Hagler couldn't handle speedy fighters." Do you believe that Roy Jones "can't handle big punchers?" Who doesn't have trouble with fighters with fast hands??

Leonard did not win simply because he had faster counters. That is an woefully incomplete analysis. It is simplistic.

-Leonard's mobility factored in.
-Leonard's angles factored in.
-Leonard's tying Hagler up inside and spinning off factored in.
-The size of the ring factored in.
-The number of rounds negotiated factored in.
-Dundee's cheerleading performance factored in.
-Hagler's age factored in.
-Hagler's coming out right-handed -thereby allowing Leonard to get -comfortable- factored in.
-Hagler's "Micky the Dunce" strategy factored in.

[Amsterdam]

If a shot version of Ray Leonard could outbox Hagler, then I am sure Ray Robinson would take him out with ease

It works both ways retard :good

Yes, because Hagler was at his peak also and Robinson fights like Leonard!:rofl

Now, La Motta is basically unskilled in comparison to an elite fighter in Hagler's time, but even if we do not agree on that, we will agree that Hagler is much more advanced a fighter in every way to Jake La Motta.

So, being that everyone knows LaMotta troubled Sugar Ray Robinson and that he's probably 5 steps down from Hagler even if we're pretending that all era's are equal, what does that say about this bout?

LaMotta was able to have some success at pressuring Ray and utilising his terrible jab in the same process, let's take a bigger guy with a tremendous jab and timing, quicker, better at pressure and most likely more durable.

What's going to happen?

Hagler victory, wipe out. The ironic part is you will probably pick Greb over Ray, but not Hagler, yet you've never even seen a full fight of Greb, save for that abysmal 'sparring' demonstration that was an absolute joke looking back in hindsight.

[JohnThomas1]

Yes, because Hagler was at his peak also and Robinson fights like Leonard!:rofl

Now, La Motta is basically unskilled in comparison to an elite fighter in Hagler's time, but even if we do not agree on that, we will agree that Hagler is much more advanced a fighter in every way to Jake La Motta.

So, being that everyone knows LaMotta troubled Sugar Ray Robinson and that he's probably 5 steps down from Hagler even if we're pretending that all era's are equal, what does that say about this bout?

LaMotta was able to have some success at pressuring Ray and utilising his terrible jab in the same process, let's take a bigger guy with a tremendous jab and timing, quicker, better at pressure and most likely more durable.

What's going to happen?

Hagler victory, wipe out. The ironic part is you will probably pick Greb over Ray, but not Hagler, yet you've never even seen a full fight of Greb, save for that abysmal 'sparring' demonstration that was an absolute joke looking back in hindsight.

I can't fathom the Lamotta unskilled in comparison to a fighter in Haglers time and the Lamotta is 5 steps down from Hagler. Lamotta is infinitely better than you think. His era wasn't that long ago and unskilled.

[Amsterdam]

I can't fathom the Lamotta unskilled in comparison to a fighter in Haglers time and the Lamotta is 5 steps down from Hagler. Lamotta is infinitely better than you think. His era wasn't that long ago and unskilled.

If you don't agree then that is fair.

Basic point -

Is Hagler BETTER all around than LaMotta and did LaMotta not give Ray Robinson trouble?

Should be an easy pick even if you rate era's differently than I do.

[cross_trainer]

If you don't agree then that is fair.

Basic point -

Is Hagler BETTER all around than LaMotta and did LaMotta not give Ray Robinson trouble?

Should be an easy pick even if you rate era's differently than I do.

Leonard was similar to Robinson in style, so the comparison is decent enough. Both were past their best at that point, but the fight does give some stylistic indications of how Robinson/Hagler would have gone in their primes.

That being said, Hagler would win this one.

[Nemesis]

Yes, because Hagler was at his peak also and Robinson fights like Leonard!:rofl

Now, La Motta is basically unskilled in comparison to an elite fighter in Hagler's time, but even if we do not agree on that, we will agree that Hagler is much more advanced a fighter in every way to Jake La Motta.

So, being that everyone knows LaMotta troubled Sugar Ray Robinson and that he's probably 5 steps down from Hagler even if we're pretending that all era's are equal, what does that say about this bout?

LaMotta was able to have some success at pressuring Ray and utilising his terrible jab in the same process, let's take a bigger guy with a tremendous jab and timing, quicker, better at pressure and most likely more durable.

What's going to happen?

Hagler victory, wipe out. The ironic part is you will probably pick Greb over Ray, but not Hagler, yet you've never even seen a full fight of Greb, save for that abysmal 'sparring' demonstration that was an absolute joke looking back in hindsight.

a simple question...

Who would you say is a better (pressure /) fighter Vito Auntofermo or Jake Lamotta?

[Amsterdam]

Leonard was similar to Robinson in style, so the comparison is decent enough. Both were past their best at that point, but the fight does give some stylistic indications of how Robinson/Hagler would have gone in their primes.

That being said, Hagler would win this one.

:shock:

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Amsterdam]

a simple question...

Who would you say is a better (pressure /) fighter Vito Auntofermo or Jake Lamotta?

I've never seen much of Vito, but he's more capable than LaMotta if he was even remotely competitive with anyone decent from the 80's.:yep :good

[JohnThomas1]

I've never seen much of Vito, but he's more capable than LaMotta if he was even remotely competitive with anyone decent from the 80's.:yep :good

:shock:

[cardstars]

I am the biggest Hagler fan there is, but I gotta go Ray by decision. For the record I believe there is NO WAY Ray knocks out Hagler in his prime. Beat him possibly yes, but knock him out - I highly doubt it. Hagler still has a great shot at winning this one though. I think this would truly be, "THE" matchup

[RoccoMarciano]

I have a friend who is in his 80s and a life long boxing fan. He saw Ray Robinson fight live a couple of times. One day we were making up fantasy fights, and he said Robinson vs Haglar prime for prime would be a candidate for fight of the decade no matter what decade it took place in. What do you guys think?

boo

I agree with your friend! This would be one of the best ever. I think Hagler would win... but it should be remembered I'm a huge Hagler fan :good

[JIm Broughton]

I pick Hagler. Sugar Ray was the greatest welterweight of all time but not the greatest MW. Hagler is considered by many the greatest MW of all time and lost the title only once in a hotly disputed decision to Ray Leonard who wisely avoided Marvin until his skills significantly diminished. At MW Hagler posessed more power than Robinson and his ability to take power shots flush on the jaw is legendary. Marvin was no plodder either. He had fast hands and employed plenty of upper body movement and head feints as well. This being said it's still conceivable that Robinson could use his speed advantage to frustrate Marvin and take a points victory but I still lean toward Marvin at MW in what could possibly be the greatest MW fight in history and one of the greatest fights of all time at any weight.

[Executioner]

Robinson by decision. Ray would beat Hagler to the punch with his superior handspeed and he had enough power to get his respect.

[mcvey]

Oh Dear Oh Dear:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

[Sonny Carson]

He wanted a rematch because he lost- clearly. Just like Seales wanted a rematch when Hagler thrashed him...same with Hamsho...Obel.
He may have lost but that wasn't a peak Hagler. The Hagler of 1980-1983 would be a very tough fight for Robinson.

[JohnThomas1]

He may have lost but that wasn't a peak Hagler. The Hagler of 1980-1983 would be a very tough fight for Robinson.

He'd be a tough fight for anyone.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I've never seen much of Vito.



Look up 'limited overachiever' in a thesaurus and you'll find a piece of his scar tissue. :good

[john garfield]

Do you really believe Robinson would be lucky to be a top 30 welterweight today?

Your question boggles my mind, A. How can you say such a thing when you never saw SRR live in the '40s! Do you depend on BoxRec?

Sugar was poetry in motion -- a stone killer in silk.

Had you seen him, you'd never have posted that.

[john garfield]

He was asking that to Amsterdam, as Amsterdam is actually the one who believes it.

If I wasn't such a dinosaur, I'd say, "my bad," Assassin.

[Bad_Intentions]

i would see hagler knocking down robinson, but robinson will take this fight via DECISION

[Jbuz]

I've always thought Robinson would beat Hagler at 160, despite Hagler being significantly greater at the weight.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I think Hopkins UD's both of them !


Whoopee shit.

[Robbi]

Hagler could beat Robinson. But Hagler would be wise not to give him a rematch.

Robinson wasn't in his prime at middleweight, although throughout the 1950's was a damn fine part of his career.

[Robbi]

I think Hopkins UD's both of them !

Agreed. No doubt in my mind that Hopkins would have handily beaten the Hagler who fought Leonard. He had the strength inside, which Leonard never had, brilliant counter punching from long range, and the tactical awareness. He beats the Leonard who fought Hagler as well.

If Hopkins ever fought the prime Hagler, he would have used the same strategy. Hopkins' always fights cautiously during the early rounds, then moves through the gears. He'd never stand and trade punches with Hagler for lengthy periods. Not that he would doubt his own punch resistance, its just not in his DNA to constantly trade leather.

Close, but I'd pick Hopkins via decision.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :dead

[My dinner with Conteh]

Better then living in the past !


This is the classic section mate, go and be a crashing bore elsewhere. :good

[JohnThomas1]

Agreed. No doubt in my mind that Hopkins would have handily beaten the Hagler who fought Leonard. He had the strength inside, which Leonard never had, brilliant counter punching from long range, and the tactical awareness. He beats the Leonard who fought Hagler as well.

If Hopkins ever fought the prime Hagler, he would have used the same strategy. Hopkins' always fights cautiously during the early rounds, then moves through the gears. He'd never stand and trade punches with Hagler for lengthy periods. Not that he would doubt his own punch resistance, its just not in his DNA to constantly trade leather.

Close, but I'd pick Hopkins via decision.

Good stuff Robbi, Hopkins is the man!!!!

[JohnThomas1]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :dead

You need to re-evaluate your thinking on Hoopin' Hopkins!

[JohnThomas1]

You're livin' too much in the past dinner!

:D

Tho i still reckon old SRR is the man on his best night here. I think his speed and greatness would even topple the mighty Bhop.

:D

[Holmes' Jab]

SRR wins a close UD against Hagler. 8-6-1 in rounds.

[Holmes' Jab]

Agreed. No doubt in my mind that Hopkins would have handily beaten the Hagler who fought Leonard. He had the strength inside, which Leonard never had, brilliant counter punching from long range, and the tactical awareness. He beats the Leonard who fought Hagler as well.

If Hopkins ever fought the prime Hagler, he would have used the same strategy. Hopkins' always fights cautiously during the early rounds, then moves through the gears. He'd never stand and trade punches with Hagler for lengthy periods. Not that he would doubt his own punch resistance, its just not in his DNA to constantly trade leather.

Close, but I'd pick Hopkins via decision.


I definitely think a prime Hopkins, more often than not beats the faded '87 version of Hagler who lost to an also past-his-best Leonard.

If we're talking prime-for-prime Hagler-Hopkins I think it'd be a potential classic, however I can envisage Marv being busier down the stretch of Championship rounds to take a close/disputed UD. Hopkins would be toughie for him though, no question. :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

You need to re-evaluate your thinking on Hoopin' Hopkins!


Not in a Hagler vs Robinson thread I don't. :good

[JohnThomas1]

Not in a Hagler vs Robinson thread I don't. :good

I knew you'd come up with a ripper ya prick hahaha

Good luck in the Rugby, who would have thought us and NZ would both lose the same day i think it was. A very interesting final.

[Nemesis]

I knew you'd come up with a ripper ya prick hahaha

Good luck in the Rugby, who would have thought us and NZ would both lose the same day i think it was. A very interesting final.

Alright John,

It was made all the more enjoyable when your comrades said England only had one good player (Jason Robinson, that is)

BTW i fancy "us" to get beat about 30-15 in the final, an improvement on 36nil anyway

[Bill Butcher]

If he wins he has no possibility or thought of finishing Hagler.

The name gene fulhmer springs to mind.

Never down in his entire career, un-ko able, then boom 1 perfect left hook, game over,

Ray also made graziano take a 10 count, that was a RIGHT hander.


Just because someone didnt get ko`d doesnt mean they cant be ko`d, they just havent fought the right (or wrong) guy yet.

I also disagree with people who say hagler hit harder than srr, marv was an accumalitive puncher where as ray had greater 1 punch ko power in BOTH hands.

I still feel this 1 would go the distance, in fact Id bet on it but to think there is no way in hell that the mwt peak srr can ko marvin is a bit to far, after all, nobody took a better beating than lamotta & after the srr lamotta fight nobody probably did take a better beating than lamotta.

Ray had the speed, power & boxing skill advantage & I think he beats hagler.

[Robbi]

Hopkins sure was the man.

[JohnThomas1]

Alright John,

It was made all the more enjoyable when your comrades said England only had one good player (Jason Robinson, that is)

BTW i fancy "us" to get beat about 30-15 in the final, an improvement on 36nil anyway

Yeah near all the teams talk pretty big in tournies like this. The Kiwi's talked big before last weekends Rugby League test and we trounced em 58-0. There will be other days in the Rugby, it's just that we'll have to wait a damn long time :lol:

[Bill Butcher]

What a war between arguably the 2 best mwts ever.

I think srr can infight with hagler all day long & not look out of place but when it comes to distance boxing, thats were srr dominates marvin.

Hagler would have success early on but by the 6th rd robinson`s punches would start to find the mark regularly to both body & head, his jab would be in marvs face all night long & whenever hagler rushed him or let his gaurd slip a notch he would get hit by really hard & accurate combinations.

A 12 rd fight could be very close here but robinson wins in a real mans battle... 15 rds.

[Bokaj]

Well. As we all know Hagler lost to Sugar Ray Leonard in 87. Hagler might have been past his prime at that point, but Leonard wasn't a natural middleweight and was making his comeback from a very long lay-off. And as great as Leonard was, he wasn't Robinson. For that reason I think I would pick Robinson to best Hagler.

[Sweet Pea]

Well. As we all know Hagler lost to Sugar Ray Leonard in 87. Hagler might have been past his prime at that point, but Leonard wasn't a natural middleweight and was making his comeback from a very long lay-off. And as great as Leonard was, he wasn't Robinson. For that reason I think I would pick Robinson to best Hagler.Leonard also fought nothing like Robinson, unless you're counting on Robinson moving around the ring flurrying at times to escape Hagler's attack. And again, that was no prime Hagler. The prime Hagler amd the Hagler of his late career fought nothing alike. Therefore the SRR and SRL comparison is very off.

[Bokaj]

Leonard also fought nothing like Robinson, unless you're counting on Robinson moving around the ring flurrying at times to escape Hagler's attack. And again, that was no prime Hagler. The prime Hagler amd the Hagler of his late career fought nothing alike. Therefore the SRR and SRL comparison is very off.

Well, my point was that SRL wasn't at his prime either (just had a long lay-off) and also wasn't fightning at his natural weight. It's true that SRL and SRR had differences style-wise, but I wasn't comparing their styles, just their quality.

The point I was making was that if i a post-prime SRL beat a post-prime Hagler, it's a realistic bet that a prime SRR beats a prime Hagler. That is, if you don't think that SRL was style-wise much tougher for Hagler than SRR would have been.

[Lampley]

Using the 1987 version of Hagler is like evaluating Hopkins based on his 2005 fights against Jermain Taylor.

The 1980-81 version of Hagler had good (if not great) speed to accompany his obvious skill, workrate and toughness. I think he'd get the better of Robinson on the inside and be able to leverage him backward and close distance, and we know he wouldn't fade.

Hagler in a highly competitive decision.

[Lampley]

Well, my point was that SRL wasn't at his prime either (just had a long lay-off) and also wasn't fightning at his natural weight. It's true that SRL and SRR had differences style-wise, but I wasn't comparing their styles, just their quality.

The point I was making was that if i a post-prime SRL beat a post-prime Hagler, it's a realistic bet that a prime SRR beats a prime Hagler. That is, if you don't think that SRL was style-wise much tougher for Hagler than SRR would have been.

I strongly disagree. Using a faded version of a fighter to evaluate him at his peak never makes sense, unless you're judging some sort of intangible quality (and even then, I'd say the guy can only fairly gain, not lose).

Hagler was obviously declined against Mugabi in 1986 and, against Leonard, severely diminished. Sure, Leonard was as well, but it's irrelevant. Hagler deserves to be rated on his best performances.

In a more extreme example, would the past-prime versions of Leonard and Duran in their third fight accurately predict the outcome of their first fight?

[Sweet Pea]

Well, my point was that SRL wasn't at his prime either (just had a long lay-off) and also wasn't fightning at his natural weight. It's true that SRL and SRR had differences style-wise, but I wasn't comparing their styles, just their quality.

The point I was making was that if i a post-prime SRL beat a post-prime Hagler, it's a realistic bet that a prime SRR beats a prime Hagler. That is, if you don't think that SRL was style-wise much tougher for Hagler than SRR would have been.I don't. A mover/fast counter-puncher is the only thing in my opinion that would troubled a prime Hagler. SRR was a fighter with good boxing skills.