Jake LaMotta vs. Marvin Hagler. Battle of the Legends.

[dpw417]

The following is an article from The Ring August '95.
Jake LaMotta vs. Marvin Hagler.

Teddy Brenner, who lives in New York City, is considered the greatest matchmaker in boxing history.
Brenner- LaMotta was underated as a boxer. When He fought Ray Robinson, he was able to jab with him. He was a very versatile fighter. At times you'd even have called him a boxer. Defensively, he gave you the top of his head and nothing else. He was a short fighter who made himself shorter. He tucked in his chin and you had to punch down at him. He also took the beat punch of anyone I ever saw. When he suffered his first knockdown against Danny Nardico, he was all done by then. And Nardico had him by about 15 pounds.
Hagler can be compared to LaMotta in that he had a great chin. He was also versatile. He could handle any style, as his record suggests, and he was a southpaw who was really ambidextrous. Hagler was a throwback to the fighters of the '40's and '50's. He would've held his own with the best of any era. He was a matchmaker's dream because you always knew you had a fight with him. During my years at Top Rank, he was one of my favorite fighters.
This is one of the matchups I wish I could have made. The fight would be Katy-bar-the-door from the start. Both guys would walk to each other. When you think of the first Hagler-Antuofermo bout, you have to give LaMotta a slight edge. It would be a distance fight, with LaMotta winning by decision.

Al Certo, managed Mustafa Hamsho, who lost world title bouts to Hagler in '81 and '84. Certo currently handles two division former world champion Buddy McGirt.
Certo- In LaMotta's mind, he actually believed nobody could lick him, and that worked in his favor. He was just a tough sonuvabitch. He had durability, and he was much harder to hit than it looked. Stylewise, it would seem he would be made to order for Hagler, but I don't think Haglerwould be able to put up withthe bodyshots and pressure LaMotta would apply.
I hate to put a guy down, but Hagler wasn't the middleweight everyone thinks he was. He licked everybody, but if you compare him to the middleweights of yesteryear, he was just another fighter. I think Joey Giardello would have put him in his hip pocket. Hagler was a busy fighter and a southpaw, which made him more difficult, and he was good enough to beat the talent that was around. The first time Mustafa Hamsho fought him, he didn't know who Hagler was so he went in with his face. He thought he was fighting Betty Boop. The second time he wanted to box, but his legs were gone and he was already shot.
Hagler didn't have the style to box LaMotta. To have a chance to win, he'd have to punch with him. Neither guy would take a backward step. The late rounds would be the key. Hagler had a good chin, so it would problably go the distance. LaMotta by close decision.

Sal Rappa is a Long Island-based boxing historian. He is on th evoting committee of the International Boxing Hall of Fame and works as a consultant for HBO.
Rappa- This would be a match made in heaven. Both Hagler and LaMotta were great middleweights in their respective times. Hagler was the superior stand off boxer on the outside and perhaps the harder puncher, while LaMotta clearly had the better chin and was the more efficient infighter. Their fight would be a war.
Hagler sometimes had a difficult time with aggressive fighters. This was proven in his first title fight with Vito Antuofermo. Antuofermo, who was really a blown up welterweight, had a move forward, take charge style and he held Hagler to a draw. As for LaMotta, his six very close fights with the great Sugar Ray Robinson serve as testimony to his boxing ability.
I see LaMotta moving forward and applying a great deal of pressure against sharp shooter Hagler. Marvelous Marvin would do well on the outside, scoring points from his southpaw stance, but not being able to hurt "The Bronx Bull". In turn, LaMotta would score heavily during the inside fighting. I believe LaMotta fought in a much tougher era, and the competition he faced would give him a small edge. Ultimately, his aggressive style would enable him to win a hard fought and close 15 round decision.

What does the ESB board think?
Opinions please.

[Sweet Pea]

I totally disagree, Hagler would handily beat him.

[mightyd40]

i didnt read the whole article but my opinion on the winner would be a clear decision for hagler. i think it will be pretty universal in here that neither guy is gonna get knocked out but hagler is the more gifted of the two

[Raging B(_)LL]

I think Sal Rappa`s outlook on how this fight would unfold is closest to my own, and I really don`t understand how most people on this board seem to dissmiss LaMotta`s chances outright against most top middles...this honestly baffles me. Now I will say something that may surprise some, but I`ve always felt that Hagler was grossly overrated as a fighter.

Don`t get me wrong folks, he was a fine fighter and would have held his own with most, but I feel much the same way about him as John Thomas does and I will leave it at that. I also never cared about him as a person and have been told some things about him from people who knew him personally one of them being his own son from Hagler`s first marriage, and let me tell you folks this man was a completely self centered asshole and a real shit as a human being.

He had a huge ego and thought he was unbeatable in his own mind, but when faced by someone who wasn`t in the least intimidated by him or his aura he could be unsettled and intimidated, there I said it. Vito didn`t give him no respect and wasn`t afraid of him, and he managed to get a draw. Now for my money LaMotta was a much, much better fighter overall than Vito and I know for damn sure he wouldn`t have been intimidated by Hagler.

Now if limited Vito could bring Hagler to the brink, then LaMotta damn sure could have done better and beaten him on his best night. Hell, he beat Ray Robinson at the mans peak yet he isn`t going to beat Hagler? I`m sorry but I dont buy that for a second. I see LaMotta going in there with that "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" kind of attitude and taking the fight to Hagler from the start, looking to impose his physical strenght on him in close.

Hagler would probably try to stick and move much the same way he did against an ancient Briscoe and Vito the first time around, but LaMotta was a better fighter than both and applied more pressure than either man. As the fight drags on I see Hagler gradually slowing down and becoming more stationary and this will only favour the stronger LaMotta. Either way, I believe Jake takes the fight and by a convincing margin down the stretch at that.

Now I know most of you will probably say I`m off my rocker for picking LaMotta and thats fine with me, but I stand by my opinion and thats that. Again, I never understood why he gets placed on a pedestal by so many... I mean he was a good fighter but was he really THAT good that only a select few fighters could have bested him? In my opinion most certainly not, but I guess I am in the minority.

[Sweet Pea]

Vito didn't deserve the draw in the first fight even against a pre-prime Hagler, and we all saw what a peak Hagler did to him on his best night. LaMotta has nothing to beat Hagler with in my mind, stylistically. Nothing at all. He won't overpower him, he sure as hell won't outbox him from the outside, and he'll be open to Hagler's counters all night long. He had a high workrate, but he was not overwhelming with speed or explosiveness, so I see it giving Hagler no real problems, especially considering he could more than hold his own inside anyway.

Based on styles, Hagler holds every advantage the way I see it. I don't get your opinion of Hagler personally. It seems you think less of him based more on his personality than fighting skills in his prime.

[Bummy Davis]

I think Lamotta would put pressure on Hagler and take the UD over 15, both men were in great condition but Hagler did not like pressure, the 1st Vito A, fight showed that and Vito was more of a gruiling Brawling Rufian, Jake was strong like Vito but had good hand speed for a raging Bull

[mightyd40]

Vito didn't deserve the draw in the first fight even against a pre-prime Hagler, and we all saw what a peak Hagler did to him on his best night. LaMotta has nothing to beat Hagler with in my mind, stylistically. Nothing at all. He won't overpower him, he sure as hell won't outbox him from the outside, and he'll be open to Hagler's counters all night long. He had a high workrate, but he was not overwhelming with speed or explosiveness, so I see it giving Hagler no real problems, especially considering he could more than hold his own inside anyway.

Based on styles, Hagler holds every advantage the way I see it. I don't get your opinion of Hagler personally. It seems you think less of him based more on his personality than fighting skills in his prime.
wow i expected almost everyone to see the fight like us. this is kinda intresting.

[brooklyn1550]

I see Hagler boxing LaMotta from mid range in this fight, keeping his jab going, and catching him with shots on the way in. Even if he fought on the inside, I see him getting the better of LaMotta.

Hagler UD

[Raging B(_)LL]

Vito didn't deserve the draw in the first fight even against a pre-prime Hagler, and we all saw what a peak Hagler did to him on his best night. LaMotta has nothing to beat Hagler with in my mind, stylistically. Nothing at all. He won't overpower him, he sure as hell won't outbox him from the outside, and he'll be open to Hagler's counters all night long. He had a high workrate, but he was not overwhelming with speed or explosiveness, so I see it giving Hagler no real problems, especially considering he could more than hold his own inside anyway.

Based on styles, Hagler holds every advantage the way I see it. I don't get your opinion of Hagler personally. It seems you think less of him based more on his personality than fighting skills in his prime.

I disagree with your view of the first fight not being a draw, as that is exactly how I scored it and it is one of the few times I have ever agreed with a draw verdict. Hagler faded down the stretch and allowed Vito to take over late in the fight, and this cost him the title in my opinion. And how do you figure LaMotta has absolutely nothing to beat him with, nothing at all as you put it?

Was Hagler so quick on his feet that LaMotta woulnd`t be able to catch up to him? And how do you figure he won`t overpower him if he got inside on Hagler? Are you implying that he was physically stronger than LaMotta? Correct me if I am wrong on any of these points but to me it seems that that is what you are implying, almost as if Hagler was a class above as a fighter which I completely disagree with.

And how do you figure he will be open for Hagler`s counters all night? Ray Robinson had a hard time landing clean punches on him, yet Hagler is going to cut him to ribbons and not miss a punch? Sorry but I don`t buy that. Granted LaMotta wasn`t going to overwhelm with speed, but if he could corner the fleetfooted Robinson in all of their encounters for long stretches, what makes you believe that he won`t be able to do so to Hagler?

Jake knew how to cut off the ring and corner his man, and he won`t be working his way in on him with his chin hanging high up in the air for Hagler to tee off on... you are really selling LaMotta short here in regards to his defense. And while Hagler could hold his own on the inside, I doubt that he would have elected to do so against someone as strong as the bronx bull. I mean if Vito and an ancient Briscoe who was running on fumes by that point could make him decide to fight off the backfoot, than logic would dictate that he would do the same vs LaMotta.

And if LaMotta was able to catch up to guys like Holman Williams, Bert Lytell, Fritzie Zivic and of course Robinson, what makes you think he won`t do so to Hagler? Hagler was fast but he wasn`t that fast, and he won`t be able to keep him off or at arms lenght for fifteen rounds. Anyways, I gotta run now but let me finish by saying that my opinion of Hagler and how he would fare in this matchup has nothing to do with my feelings on him personally. I may think he is scumbag but that doesn`t mean I will allow my feelings about him to cloud my judgement.

[brooklyn1550]

I gotta run now but let me finish by saying that my opinion of Hagler and how he would fare in this matchup has nothing to do with my feelings on him personally. I may think he is scumbag but that doesn`t mean I will allow my feelings about him to cloud my judgement.

What makes you think Hagler was a scumbag?

[cpnasty]

Hagler UD

[Sweet Pea]

Was Hagler so quick on his feet that LaMotta woulnd`t be able to catch up to him? And how do you figure he won`t overpower him if he got inside on Hagler? Are you implying that he was physically stronger than LaMotta? Correct me if I am wrong on any of these points but to me it seems that that is what you are implying, almost as if Hagler was a class above as a fighter which I completely disagree with.
No, he wasn't too quick on his feet, though his movement was rather good, it was that he was simply a more skilled boxer, a very good counter-puncher, good movement with his legs and underrated upper body movement. What I see in this is what he would outpoint LaMotta handily. LaMotta had decent head movement of his own, and great durability, but Hagler was a step above in terms of offense, in every aspect.

I don't think LaMotta was much stronger if at all than Hagler also, and he wasn't as sound, accurate, or timed with his punches, which was one of the main reasons for me taking Hagler to outdo him on the inside. I don't think LaMotta's pressure and high output outdoes Hagler's movement and accuracy. I think he'd hit LaMotta with the much better shots.


And how do you figure he will be open for Hagler`s counters all night? Ray Robinson had a hard time landing clean punches on him, yet Hagler is going to cut him to ribbons and not miss a punch? Sorry but I don`t buy that. Granted LaMotta wasn`t going to overwhelm with speed, but if he could corner the fleetfooted Robinson in all of their encounters for long stretches, what makes you believe that he won`t be able to do so to Hagler?
Robinson implied a stick and move style early on in the fight, with flurries at certain points, but he didn't overextend himself early, and instead opted to get at Jake late, after conserving energy, and ended up stopping him. Robinson was an offensive machine, but he was not as big or strong as Hagler at MW, and while he threw better combos, he didn't have a better jab, and based on what I've seen, his counter-punching skills, while very good, were not better than Hagler's, who I consider very underrated in that department.

I don't think he'd not miss a punch, but I certainly think he'll land the cleaner, more meaningful blows, the ones the judges will count more.

I don't think he corners Hagler like he did Robinson because: Robinson wasn't as good on the inside. He was a very good body-puncher, but when roughed up, he was not on his A game, while Hagler had no trouble with this, and in fact seemed to eat up fighters who came to him. His game was based on that style in his prime days against the fighter like Vito, Hamsho, etc.


Jake knew how to cut off the ring and corner his man, and he won`t be working his way in on him with his chin hanging high up in the air for Hagler to tee off on... you are really selling LaMotta short here in regards to his defense. And while Hagler could hold his own on the inside, I doubt that he would have elected to do so against someone as strong as the bronx bull. I mean if Vito and an ancient Briscoe who was running on fumes by that point could make him decide to fight off the backfoot, than logic would dictate that he would do the same vs LaMotta.
He wouldn't opt to, but at times the fight would be there, I don't think he'd be out of his element. I count on Hagler's ability to counter and hit the pressure fighters with accurate shots when they're coming in. That would work to his advantage with LaMotta, as Jake is just that type of fighter. I think Hagler would have more success when he had LaMotta at range, looking to come in, than he would on the inside, but he wouldn't be out of his element, as I said.

And if LaMotta was able to catch up to guys like Holman Williams, Bert Lytell, Fritzie Zivic and of course Robinson, what makes you think he won`t do so to Hagler? Hagler was fast but he wasn`t that fast, and he won`t be able to keep him off or at arms lenght for fifteen rounds. Again, it's Hagler's ability to counter on fighters boring in that is his advantage in this fight. His own strength and toughness will allow him to cope with LaMotta's, and his skills give him the edge, especially the ones(and one) I've brought up, his ability to counter and pick off pressure fighters.

[Sardu]

Hagler had underrated boxing skills and very good footwork. He would have to fight LaMotta the way he did 'Bad' Bennie Briscoe. Like LaMotta, Briscoe was very big and broad for a middleweight and had the upperbody of a lightheavyweight. Hagler realized early on that he would have to move and box and that is what he did. Although only 5'8" tall, LaMotta still looked like a huge middleweight to me. He was physically stronger than Hagler but Marvelous Marvin was a harder puncher. I see Hagler edging out a decision after some anxious moments in a very close fight. Hagler would be too smart to try to blow LaMotta out of there as he did against Sibson, Lee, Seales, Hearns, etc. If he tried to stand and slug that would play right into the Bronx Bull's hands and hagler would lose.

Hagler split-decision and only if he elects to fight a tactical type fight.

[Sonny Carson]

I think Sal Rappa`s outlook on how this fight would unfold is closest to my own, and I really don`t understand how most people on this board seem to dissmiss LaMotta`s chances outright against most top middles...this honestly baffles me. Now I will say something that may surprise some, but I`ve always felt that Hagler was grossly overrated as a fighter.

Don`t get me wrong folks, he was a fine fighter and would have held his own with most, but I feel much the same way about him as John Thomas does and I will leave it at that. I also never cared about him as a person and have been told some things about him from people who knew him personally one of them being his own son from Hagler`s first marriage, and let me tell you folks this man was a completely self centered asshole and a real shit as a human being.

He had a huge ego and thought he was unbeatable in his own mind, but when faced by someone who wasn`t in the least intimidated by him or his aura he could be unsettled and intimidated, there I said it. Vito didn`t give him no respect and wasn`t afraid of him, and he managed to get a draw. Now for my money LaMotta was a much, much better fighter overall than Vito and I know for damn sure he wouldn`t have been intimidated by Hagler.

Now if limited Vito could bring Hagler to the brink, then LaMotta damn sure could have done better and beaten him on his best night. Hell, he beat Ray Robinson at the mans peak yet he isn`t going to beat Hagler? I`m sorry but I dont buy that for a second. I see LaMotta going in there with that "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" kind of attitude and taking the fight to Hagler from the start, looking to impose his physical strenght on him in close.

Hagler would probably try to stick and move much the same way he did against an ancient Briscoe and Vito the first time around, but LaMotta was a better fighter than both and applied more pressure than either man. As the fight drags on I see Hagler gradually slowing down and becoming more stationary and this will only favour the stronger LaMotta. Either way, I believe Jake takes the fight and by a convincing margin down the stretch at that.

Now I know most of you will probably say I`m off my rocker for picking LaMotta and thats fine with me, but I stand by my opinion and thats that. Again, I never understood why he gets placed on a pedestal by so many... I mean he was a good fighter but was he really THAT good that only a select few fighters could have bested him? In my opinion most certainly not, but I guess I am in the minority.
This is Raging Bullshit but what could you expect from a guy with your name. Hagler would win a decision definitely. Hagler won the first Vito fight 11 rounds to 4 with 1 even. Hagler did have to alot of respect for Vito's durability and didn't press for the knockout. Hagler has all the physical advantages against LaMotta, I don't see Jake winning.

[Sweet Pea]

This is Raging Bullshit but what could you expect from a guy with your name. Hagler would win a decision definitely. Hagler won the first Vito fight 11 rounds to 4 with 1 even. Hagler did have to alot of respect for Vito's durability and didn't press for the knockout. Hagler has all the physical advantages against LaMotta, I don't see Jake winning.Hey now, Raging B(_)LL is one of the very best posters on this site, easily, he's by no means a nuthugger, he just seems to have quite a differing opinion of Hagler to the general public. I disagree pretty strongly as well with his thoughts here, but he's by no means one of the ones to pick on in that sense, just a strong opinion toward a fighter that the conensus is a lot higher on.

[Russell]

Wait, one of those guys thinks LaMotta "clearly" had the better chin?

[dpw417]

This is Raging Bullshit but what could you expect from a guy with your name. Hagler would win a decision definitely. Hagler won the first Vito fight 11 rounds to 4 with 1 even. Hagler did have to alot of respect for Vito's durability and didn't press for the knockout. Hagler has all the physical advantages against LaMotta, I don't see Jake winning.
Raging B( )ll is one of the most knowledgeable, and impartial posters on this board...and I count him as a friend, and a real good stand up guy...You are entitled to your opinion re Hagler/LaMotta, but your obnoxious remarks are really uncalled for. Get some class.

[Raging B(_)LL]

[QUOTE]No, he wasn't too quick on his feet, though his movement was rather good, it was that he was simply a more skilled boxer, a very good counter-puncher, good movement with his legs and underrated upper body movement. What I see in this is what he would outpoint LaMotta handily. LaMotta had decent head movement of his own, and great durability, but Hagler was a step above in terms of offense, in every aspect.

I won`t even disagree with what you wrote above, as I agree with everything except the outpointing him handily part. But even though he was an excellent counter-puncher, I doubt that that alone would see him edge Jake convincingly. It is not as if LaMotta hadn`t faced good counter-punchrs during his time and did not come out on top, Bert Lytell and Holman Williams come to mind just to name two, and Lytell was a southpaw as well who was very highly regarded in his time.

He was even quicker on his feet just like Hagler, had excellent countering skills and a good southpaw jab yet Jake nullified all those attributes by getting inside on him quickly and thus taking away his most effective weapon which was his jab. His body attack in close made sure that he would slow down as the fight progressed and it just made it easier for him to close the gap on his more skillfull foe. So taking that into account I do not see why he could not do the same to Hagler, even though I am well awar Hagler was the better fighter.


Robinson implied a stick and move style early on in the fight, with flurries at certain points, but I don't think LaMotta was much stronger if at all than Hagler also, and he wasn't as sound, accurate, or timed with his punches, which was one of the main reasons for me taking Hagler to outdo him on the inside. I don't think LaMotta's pressure and high output outdoes Hagler's movement and accuracy. I think he'd hit LaMotta with the much better shots.


I wasn`t reffering to LaMotta`s final bout versus Robinson in which he was a walking corpse, but their previous bouts rather. Robinson was in his prime during those fights, and still found it difficult to keep him at arms lenght for long stretches in each of their fights. As for how they would do on the inside against one another, I think it is important to keep in mind here that Jake was unquestionably the naturally bigger fighter, and he was renowned in his day for his physical strenght.

And I disagree with your assertion that Jake wasn`t as accurate with his punches, when did you see him miss several punches in a row? He was pretty accurate if you ask me, and I doubt that Jake will have a hard time landing on Hagler`s midsection if they are engaged in trench warfare. You can slip a punch to the head, but to the body is another story altogether and they will take their toll on Marvin down the stretch.


he didn't overextend himself early, and instead opted to get at Jake late, after conserving energy, and ended up stopping him. Robinson was an offensive machine, but he was not as big or strong as Hagler at MW, and while he threw better combos, he didn't have a better jab, and based on what I've seen, his counter-punching skills, while very good, were not better than Hagler's, who I consider very underrated in that department.


Again, I was reffering to the other LaMotta/Robinson fights, not their final meeting in which Ray faced a dead man who was nowhere near the fighter he had been several years earlier when they first started their series. I should have made that clear in my original post, so my bad. I do agree with you however that Hagler was an excellent counter-puncher, but wether he was better than Ray that is up for debate.

I don't think he'd not miss a punch, but I certainly think he'll land the cleaner, more meaningful blows, the ones the judges will count more.

Maybe, maybe not, but I think that Jake`s body of work would catch their attention, as well as his aggression and determination which is something that cannot be overlooked.

I don't think he corners Hagler like he did Robinson because: Robinson wasn't as good on the inside. He was a very good body-puncher, but when roughed up, he was not on his A game, while Hagler had no trouble with this, and in fact seemed to eat up fighters who came to him. His game was based on that style in his prime days against the fighter like Vito, Hamsho, etc.

While Robinson may not have been as good on the inside as Hagler, what does that have to do with wether or not Hagler will be cornered? He will acquit himself better in close than Robinson would have, but that does not equate to him not getting bulled into the ropes during the fight. As for the fighters that Hagler ate up when they came to him, surely you will agree that the likes of Hamsho, Vito and Mugabi among others are not in the same league as a peak LaMotta?

They came in a straight line and got chewed up (Vito in the return) but LaMotta had more defensive ability than either of those guys, and also held the edge in terms of durability over those guys. So while he may have looked like a million bucks against those fighters what will he do against someone who bobs and weaves his way in on him and only offers the top of his head as a target? My guess is that he won`t look nearly as destructive, especially when he is facing someone who can take it just as well as he can.


He wouldn't opt to, but at times the fight would be there, I don't think he'd be out of his element. I count on Hagler's ability to counter and hit the pressure fighters with accurate shots when they're coming in. That would work to his advantage with LaMotta, as Jake is just that type of fighter. I think Hagler would have more success when he had LaMotta at range, looking to come in, than he would on the inside, but he wouldn't be out of his element, as I said.

He wouldnt be out of his element, but he sure wouldn`t be in his comfort zone either. And as for Hagler nailing him on the way in, I addressed that in my previous paragraph.

Again, it's Hagler's ability to counter on fighters boring in that is his advantage in this fight. His own strength and toughness will allow him to cope with LaMotta's, and his skills give him the edge, especially the ones(and one) I've brought up, his ability to counter and pick off pressure fighters.

Again, I address the above point you made in a previous paragraph. In closing let me say that I do appreciate Hagler as a fighter and enjoy watching his fights, but for me he is not necessaily better than many fomrer great middles who while they may not have accomplished as much or racked up as many title defenses, they were just as good as he was. Unfortunately they came up in an era of only one champ against a much more talented crop of fighters, and as such incurred more losses along the way.

[Raging B(_)LL]

What makes you think Hagler was a scumbag?

I won`t go into details at the moment as I am off to bed, but I will give the board a little insight into just what kind of person Hagler was tomorrow. And as for you Russell, I`m a big boy and I can take the insults, but seriously there is no need to be so touchy just because you disagree with what I have to say. As for Dan and Sweet Pea, thanks for the kudos and I think both of you are stand-up guys as well and I always enjoy reading what you have to say.

G`night fellas....

[Russell]

Erm, what did I say against you, Bull?

I was commenting on one of the historians/experts from the original post.

[Sweet Pea]

Erm, what did I say against you, Bull?

I was commenting on one of the historians/experts from the original post.He confused you with Sonny Carson I believe.

[laxpdx]

Hagler is the clearly the better fighter. LaMotta is an agressive puncher with toughness second to none. Which would make him a formidable foe, but Hagler would win by UD.

[Dave's Top Ten]

I won`t go into details at the moment as I am off to bed, but I will give the board a little insight into just what kind of person Hagler was tomorrow. And as for you Russell, I`m a big boy and I can take the insults, but seriously there is no need to be so touchy just because you disagree with what I have to say. As for Dan and Sweet Pea, thanks for the kudos and I think both of you are stand-up guys as well and I always enjoy reading what you have to say.

G`night fellas....

Who cares if Hagler was an ass. From what I read in Raging Bull Lamotta wasn't exactly an angel. He was a self confessed rapist, wife beater and all round thug. So WTF?! Totally irrelevant to the debate. A peak Hagler would decision Lamotta in a great fight with Jake coming on strong in the later rounds. But just like the first Vito fight, Hagler would be a pretty comfortable winner.

[Russell]

Hagler is the clearly the better fighter. LaMotta is an agressive puncher with toughness second to none. Which would make him a formidable foe, but Hagler would win by UD.

LaMotta was still downed, where Hagler has no legit knockdowns against him.

There's really no comparison who faced the bigger punchers. Eugene Hart and Tommy Hearns are some of the P4P hardest hitters of all time.

[JohnThomas1]

I think Sal Rappa`s outlook on how this fight would unfold is closest to my own, and I really don`t understand how most people on this board seem to dissmiss LaMotta`s chances outright against most top middles...this honestly baffles me. Now I will say something that may surprise some, but I`ve always felt that Hagler was grossly overrated as a fighter.

Don`t get me wrong folks, he was a fine fighter and would have held his own with most, but I feel much the same way about him as John Thomas does and I will leave it at that. I also never cared about him as a person and have been told some things about him from people who knew him personally one of them being his own son from Hagler`s first marriage, and let me tell you folks this man was a completely self centered asshole and a real shit as a human being.

He had a huge ego and thought he was unbeatable in his own mind, but when faced by someone who wasn`t in the least intimidated by him or his aura he could be unsettled and intimidated, there I said it. Vito didn`t give him no respect and wasn`t afraid of him, and he managed to get a draw. Now for my money LaMotta was a much, much better fighter overall than Vito and I know for damn sure he wouldn`t have been intimidated by Hagler.

Now if limited Vito could bring Hagler to the brink, then LaMotta damn sure could have done better and beaten him on his best night. Hell, he beat Ray Robinson at the mans peak yet he isn`t going to beat Hagler? I`m sorry but I dont buy that for a second. I see LaMotta going in there with that "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" kind of attitude and taking the fight to Hagler from the start, looking to impose his physical strenght on him in close.

Hagler would probably try to stick and move much the same way he did against an ancient Briscoe and Vito the first time around, but LaMotta was a better fighter than both and applied more pressure than either man. As the fight drags on I see Hagler gradually slowing down and becoming more stationary and this will only favour the stronger LaMotta. Either way, I believe Jake takes the fight and by a convincing margin down the stretch at that.

Now I know most of you will probably say I`m off my rocker for picking LaMotta and thats fine with me, but I stand by my opinion and thats that. Again, I never understood why he gets placed on a pedestal by so many... I mean he was a good fighter but was he really THAT good that only a select few fighters could have bested him? In my opinion most certainly not, but I guess I am in the minority.

Well god help me, i'm not alone after all, and seeing such an esteemed and respected analysist mirroring my own thoughts makes me feel comfortable in my stance.

Welcome to the small, but strong minority.

[Senya13]

If we gonna pick up the Brisco and Antuofermo fights, fine. Anybody thinks Hagler won't be able to do better than Dauthuille and Hairston, who soundly outboxed LaMotta, from outside and inside?

[mcvey]

The following is an article from The Ring August '95.
Jake LaMotta vs. Marvin Hagler.

Teddy Brenner, who lives in New York City, is considered the greatest matchmaker in boxing history.
Brenner- LaMotta was underated as a boxer. When He fought Ray Robinson, he was able to jab with him. He was a very versatile fighter. At times you'd even have called him a boxer. Defensively, he gave you the top of his head and nothing else. He was a short fighter who made himself shorter. He tucked in his chin and you had to punch down at him. He also took the beat punch of anyone I ever saw. When he suffered his first knockdown against Danny Nardico, he was all done by then. And Nardico had him by about 15 pounds.
Hagler can be compared to LaMotta in that he had a great chin. He was also versatile. He could handle any style, as his record suggests, and he was a southpaw who was really ambidextrous. Hagler was a throwback to the fighters of the '40's and '50's. He would've held his own with the best of any era. He was a matchmaker's dream because you always knew you had a fight with him. During my years at Top Rank, he was one of my favorite fighters.
This is one of the matchups I wish I could have made. The fight would be Katy-bar-the-door from the start. Both guys would walk to each other. When you think of the first Hagler-Antuofermo bout, you have to give LaMotta a slight edge. It would be a distance fight, with LaMotta winning by decision.

Al Certo, managed Mustafa Hamsho, who lost world title bouts to Hagler in '81 and '84. Certo currently handles two division former world champion Buddy McGirt.
Certo- In LaMotta's mind, he actually believed nobody could lick him, and that worked in his favor. He was just a tough sonuvabitch. He had durability, and he was much harder to hit than it looked. Stylewise, it would seem he would be made to order for Hagler, but I don't think Haglerwould be able to put up withthe bodyshots and pressure LaMotta would apply.
I hate to put a guy down, but Hagler wasn't the middleweight everyone thinks he was. He licked everybody, but if you compare him to the middleweights of yesteryear, he was just another fighter. I think Joey Giardello would have put him in his hip pocket. Hagler was a busy fighter and a southpaw, which made him more difficult, and he was good enough to beat the talent that was around. The first time Mustafa Hamsho fought him, he didn't know who Hagler was so he went in with his face. He thought he was fighting Betty Boop. The second time he wanted to box, but his legs were gone and he was already shot.
Hagler didn't have the style to box LaMotta. To have a chance to win, he'd have to punch with him. Neither guy would take a backward step. The late rounds would be the key. Hagler had a good chin, so it would problably go the distance. LaMotta by close decision.

Sal Rappa is a Long Island-based boxing historian. He is on th evoting committee of the International Boxing Hall of Fame and works as a consultant for HBO.
Rappa- This would be a match made in heaven. Both Hagler and LaMotta were great middleweights in their respective times. Hagler was the superior stand off boxer on the outside and perhaps the harder puncher, while LaMotta clearly had the better chin and was the more efficient infighter. Their fight would be a war.
Hagler sometimes had a difficult time with aggressive fighters. This was proven in his first title fight with Vito Antuofermo. Antuofermo, who was really a blown up welterweight, had a move forward, take charge style and he held Hagler to a draw. As for LaMotta, his six very close fights with the great Sugar Ray Robinson serve as testimony to his boxing ability.
I see LaMotta moving forward and applying a great deal of pressure against sharp shooter Hagler. Marvelous Marvin would do well on the outside, scoring points from his southpaw stance, but not being able to hurt "The Bronx Bull". In turn, LaMotta would score heavily during the inside fighting. I believe LaMotta fought in a much tougher era, and the competition he faced would give him a small edge. Ultimately, his aggressive style would enable him to win a hard fought and close 15 round decision.

What does the ESB board think?
Opinions please.
Hagler has this image as a monster,he wasnt ,he was a skilled ring mechanic with a good variety of accurate punches,and fine balance .Couple that with a top chin and allways being in great shape ,and you have a fighter very difficult to beat,he could be tentative,as against Antuofermo ,and Duran ,I dont think he really was comfortable against swarmers,but he beat all styles.Jake was Jake,at you for 15 rds,deceptively adept at slipping punches ,he took a lot on the top of his head,he had pretty fair hand speed, a chin that is comparable with Haglers ,and made up for his lack of top power by the frequency of his punches.Lamotta could look average against 2nd raters ,but he could look good against the cream too,he had tremendous self belief.Hagler would try and time him coming in with that southpaw jab,but Jake would be looking to get under it and pound the body with short hooks from both hands.Lamotta,s power ,wasnt terrific ,but he got your attention,he hit hard enough to put SRR down,and his relentless pressure meant that he wore out a lot of guys he wouldnt wear out the Marvelous one but Marvin would have to be on the top of his game to eke out a split dec.imo.

[Sweet Pea]

LaMotta was still downed, where Hagler has no legit knockdowns against him.

There's really no comparison who faced the bigger punchers. Eugene Hart and Tommy Hearns are some of the P4P hardest hitters of all time.LaMotta went up to Heavyweight and went to a Decision with monster puncher Bob Satterfield, as well as taking flush shots in 6 fights with Robinson, so I think their definitely is a comparison.

[fists of fury]

I also never cared about him as a person and have been told some things about him from people who knew him personally one of them being his own son from Hagler`s first marriage, and let me tell you folks this man was a completely self centered asshole and a real shit as a human being.



And yet Jake was such a sweetheart. :hi:

[JohnThomas1]

Hagler has this image as a monster,he wasnt ,he was a skilled ring mechanic with a good variety of accurate punches,and fine balance .Couple that with a top chin and allways being in great shape ,and you have a fighter very difficult to beat,he could be tentative,as against Antuofermo ,and Duran ,I dont think he really was comfortable against swarmers,but he beat all styles.Jake was Jake,at you for 15 rds,deceptively adept at slipping punches ,he took a lot on the top of his head,he had pretty fair hand speed, a chin that is comparable with Haglers ,and made up for his lack of top power by the frequency of his punches.Lamotta could look average against 2nd raters ,but he could look good against the cream too,he had tremendous self belief.Hagler would try and time him coming in with that southpaw jab,but Jake would be looking to get under it and pound the body with short hooks from both hands.Lamotta,s power ,wasnt terrific ,but he got your attention,he hit hard enough to put SRR down,and his relentless pressure meant that he wore out a lot of guys he wouldnt wear out the Marvelous one but Marvin would have to be on the top of his game to eke out a split dec.imo.

Very decent post.

[mcvey]

LaMotta was still downed, where Hagler has no legit knockdowns against him.

There's really no comparison who faced the bigger punchers. Eugene Hart and Tommy Hearns are some of the P4P hardest hitters of all time.
Lamotta was knocked down in the 7th round by Danny Nardico,Nardico was the 6th rated LH at the time,Jakes corner pulled him out between the 7th and 8th.Nardico in 50 wins had 35 kos,its entirely possible he might have dropped Hagler too,Hagler met some big punchers at middle but never ventured up th LH,Lamotta went the route with big Hitters like Lloyd Marshall and BobSatterfield ,both as heavy ,if not heavier hitting than Hearns and Hart,plus Jake had 6 fights with SRR without being off his feet.He was on the way out when Nardico beat him. So I think Jakes chin stands comparison with anyones.

[Raging B(_)LL]

If we gonna pick up the Brisco and Antuofermo fights, fine. Anybody thinks Hagler won't be able to do better than Dauthuille and Hairston, who soundly outboxed LaMotta, from outside and inside?

Good god, you are absolutely right! Because we all know that Jake was in his prime in those two fights!

:patsch

[Raging B(_)LL]

Erm, what did I say against you, Bull?

I was commenting on one of the historians/experts from the original post.

Sorry Russ, I meant to say Sonny Boy and typed your name instead... your allright in my book.

:good

[Raging B(_)LL]

And yet Jake was such a sweetheart. :hi:


:lol:

Of course he wasn`t, heck he was worse than Hagler overall! Now I am sure everyone here would like to know why I think the man is such a lowlife (meaning Hagler), so I will share a little tidbit about him with all of you, here goes:

Now, I am sure most of you are aware of Hagler`s divorce against his first wife Bertha who he paid a four million dollar settlement to and with whom he had five children. But did you folks now that he has never kept in touch with any of his children he had with her after their divorce and that after Bertha blew that four million on nose candy and a lavish lyfestyle that he did not assist his children financially?

His eldest son was living on the streets at one point and called his father for help, and he told him in a nutshell to fend for himself since he gave his mother 4 million and thus did not owe anything to her or them. He was forced to move in for two months with one of my long time trading partners who is good friends with Marv`s oldest son and who he helped out financially during that time.

Now I don`t know about you folks, but to me that is a despicable thing to do to your own flesh and blood. Hate your ex-wife all you want, but to let your kids suffer like that while you are a multimillionaire is nothing short of disgusting in my eyes. Needless to say, none of them speak to their father now and it seems that is exactly what he wants. Now I have more storys to share about the man, but out of respect for my friend and Hagler`s son I will say no more.

I will now also disclose something to all of you, and that is that there is footage of Hagler`s fight against Mike Colbert (KO12) which shows the last six rounds of that fight in colour and with sound. His second fight against Donnell Wigfall (KO6) is also filmed and complete shot from a camcorder ringside at the Brockton High School Gymnasium, an his fights against Johnny Baldwin and return against Willie Monroe are also filmed. How do I know this you may wonder? Well, that I will not disclose but let me assure you that they will see the light of day eventually.

[JohnThomas1]

:lol:

Of course he wasn`t, heck he was worse than Hagler overall! Now I am sure everyone here would like to know why I think the man is such a lowlife (meaning Hagler), so I will share a little tidbit about him with all of you, here goes:

Now, I am sure most of you are aware of Hagler`s divorce against his first wife Bertha who he paid a four million dollar settlement to and with whom he had five children. But did you folks now that he has never kept in touch with any of his children he had with her after their divorce and that after Bertha blew that four million on nose candy and a lavish lyfestyle that he did not assist his children financially?

His eldest son was living on the streets at one point and called his father for help, and he told him in a nutshell to fend for himself since he gave his mother 4 million and thus did not owe anything to her or them. He was forced to move in for two months with one of my long time trading partners who is good friends with Marv`s oldest son and who he helped out financially during that time.

Now I don`t know about you folks, but to me that is a despicable thing to do to your own flesh and blood. Hate your ex-wife all you want, but to let your kids suffer like that while you are a multimillionaire is nothing short of disgusting in my eyes. Needless to say, none of them speak to their father now and it seems that is exactly what he wants. Now I have more storys to share about the man, but out of respect for my friend and Hagler`s son I will say no more.

I will now also disclose something to all of you, and that is that there is footage of Hagler`s fight against Mike Colbert (KO12) which shows the last six rounds of that fight in colour and with sound. His second fight against Donnell Wigfall (KO6) is also filmed and complete shot from a camcorder ringside at the Brockton High School Gymnasium, an his fight against Johnny Baldwin is also filmed. How do I know this you may wonder? Well, that I will not disclose but let me assure you that they will see the light of day eventually.

Jeez man that's some bad shit

:-(

[Senya13]

Good god, you are absolutely right! Because we all know that Jake was in his prime in those two fights!
We also know that Hagler was in his prime for the Briscoe and 1st Antuofermo fights, don't we? He didn't improve a little bit after that, he only got worse.

[Raging B(_)LL]

We also know that Hagler was in his prime for the Briscoe and 1st Antuofermo fights, don't we? He didn't improve a little bit after that, he only got worse.

Are you trying to imply that Hagler was a mere pup when he took on those two? He may not have been at his absolute peak, but he sure as hell was a damn good fighter by that point who was a cunt`s hair away from his prime. You on the other chose to bring up two of LaMotta`s less impressive performances when the man was already over the hill.... apples and oranges there bud, apples and oranges.

[brooklyn1550]

I won`t go into details at the moment as I am off to bed, but I will give the board a little insight into just what kind of person Hagler was tomorrow. And as for you Russell, I`m a big boy and I can take the insults, but seriously there is no need to be so touchy just because you disagree with what I have to say. As for Dan and Sweet Pea, thanks for the kudos and I think both of you are stand-up guys as well and I always enjoy reading what you have to say.



G`night fellas....

I'd like to hear your insight

I actually knew Hagler from when I trained in Brockton with the Petronelli's as an amateur. We went out to lunch a few times. He was always a okay guy, nothing more - not the brightest, sharpest, or most genuine I've met. He asked me if I could buy him a pair of shoes (white with red stripes) from East Side Sporting Goods in Detroit. I did...and he didn't pay me back for several months, until I finally went up and said "when the hell are you going to pay me back?" I haven't taked to him in ages, but I did email him via his website a few years back.

[OLD FOGEY]

I totally disagree, Hagler would handily beat him.

I don't see LaMotta winning this one either. Too many losses to too many ordinary fighters in his career.

[JIm Broughton]

Seeing that both men had cast iron chins and probabaly could'nt knock the other one out the fight would probably end in a decision. With that being the case, I can't see how LaMotta can win. Assuming the chins are equal, Hagler has the edge in just about every other department. He's taller, faster,more technically sound boxer, better defense, better movement in foot and upper body and punched harder to boot. I see this fight as a decision win for Marvin. He would simply outbox LaMotta. It would'nt be a cakewalk for Hagler. Jake was as tough as they come and underrated in his boxing ability, but still not as good as Hagler. Marvin would be pumping his jab in Jakes face all night and whipping in hard fast combo's behind it. Jake would have his moments for sure but he just does'nt hit hard enough to hurt Marvin which means he would have to hope to outbox him and that is extremely unlikely imo.

[Raging B(_)LL]

You know, it never ceases to amuse me when I hear how Hagler holds all those advantages over LaMotta and as such would beat him. Maybe its just me, and feel free to call me crazy for what I am about to say, but didn`t the Sugar Man hold the same advantages over Jake that Jim Broughton just mentioned? And yet Jake beat him when he was considered invincible, and arguably should have had at the very least one more win against him in their 5th fight and their third tussle was controversial as well.

So here we have little short armed Jake giving hell to arguably the universally considered best p4p fighter in our sports history, yet he will not be able to get past Hagler or even manage to give him a good fight? I`m sorry folks but I ain`t buying what you selling, although you are entitled to your opinions. But for me anyone who gives Ray Robinson hell in five fights is one heck of a fighter and would have troubled Hagler who I consider a lesser fighter than Robinson. Most of the good fighters he fought held those same advantages over Jake, yet it did not stop him from winning now did it?

[Senya13]

Are you trying to imply that Hagler was a mere pup when he took on those two?
And how do you know LaMotta was past it when he was being outboxed by Dauthuille? He has just won the title a little over a year prior, and by his own words, he was in the best form of his life for Cerdan fight, he got over the hill in one year all a sudden? He'll of course tell you, that he's lost motivation the next day after he won the title, that it was exactly before the Dauthuille fight that he suddenly had troubles making 160lb, yadda, yadda. His bio is full of excuses for everything that wasn't in his favour, the man was a sore loser.

[Raging B(_)LL]

And how do you know LaMotta was past it when he was being outboxed by Dauthuille? He has just won the title a little over a year prior, and by his own words, he was in the best form of his life for Cerdan fight, he got over the hill in one year all a sudden? He'll of course tell you, that he's lost motivation the next day after he won the title, that it was exactly before the Dauthuille fight that he suddenly had troubles making 160lb, yadda, yadda. His bio is full of excuses for everything that wasn't in his favour, the man was a sore loser.

How do I know he was past it by the time he fought Dauthuille you ask? Hmmm, perhaps because he was already on the slide by the time he won the title for starters. And of course he was in the best shape of his life for the Cerdan fight, but being in the best shape you can get yourself into is not the same as being in your prime now is it? And he had been having trouble making weight for several years before he even won the title you dunce, not immediately after winning it as you so falsely claim. Your dislike for him is amusing, I mean did someone once have the gall to suggest that LaMotta would have defeated your Boy Toy Roy and since then you have been doing your best to drag his name through the mud at every turn? I mean you really go out of your way to put the man down, it`s actually pretty comical I find but hey whatever rocks your boat!

:good

[Raging B(_)LL]

I'd like to hear your insight

I actually knew Hagler from when I trained in Brockton with the Petronelli's as an amateur. We went out to lunch a few times. He was always a okay guy, nothing more - not the brightest, sharpest, or most genuine I've met. He asked me if I could buy him a pair of shoes (white with red stripes) from East Side Sporting Goods in Detroit. I did...and he didn't pay me back for several months, until I finally went up and said "when the hell are you going to pay me back?" I haven't taked to him in ages, but I did email him via his website a few years back.

I just noticed this post of yours, and I can tell you Marvin NEVER answers any e-mails, why he even has the site up I do not know. He is a very bitter and self-centered man, and by all accounts I have heard is rather unpleasant to be around. And forget about trying to get an autograph from him, he will just give you the brush off and pretend he didn`t hear your request and just walk away, I kid you not as I know of several people e has done this too.

[Senya13]

So you know it better than LaMotta himself, that he doesn't start claiming he's no longer the same until after the Cerdan fight? Even then he's only talking about losing motivation, killing instinct, but not about being phisically past his prime.

I falsely claim? LaMotta's autobiography, chapter 21:

After Mitri, I signed to meet Laurent Dauthuille, the Frenchman who had beaten me two years before at Montreal. The fight was for September 13, 1950, at the Detroit Olympia, and it was while training for this fight that I began to get the idea that I couldn't go on with this life forever. Somehow before I had always been able to get myself down to the hundred-and-sixty-pound limit, but this time, to use the phrase again, it was sheer torture.

[Raging B(_)LL]

So you know it better than LaMotta himself, that he doesn't start claiming he's no longer the same until after the Cerdan fight? Even then he's only talking about losing motivation, killing instinct, but not about being phisically past his prime.

I falsely claim? LaMotta's autobiography, chapter 21:

After Mitri, I signed to meet Laurent Dauthuille, the Frenchman who had beaten me two years before at Montreal. The fight was for September 13, 1950, at the Detroit Olympia, and it was while training for this fight that I began to get the idea that I couldn't go on with this life forever. Somehow before I had always been able to get myself down to the hundred-and-sixty-pound limit, but this time, to use the phrase again, it was sheer torture.

So because it was sheer torture for him to make the weight for that one fight you are going to imply that it was easy street for him to make the weight in all his other bouts previous to that one? Nice try senya, but how about quoting the pragraph earlier in the book where he made it clear he always had to lose a ton of weight before his fights as he ate like a pig?

Or better yet, how about speaking to people as I have who knew him personally and who confirmed the fact that it was hard for him to make the middleweight limit for most of his career? And does anybody else see the irony in Senya quoting a line from his book yet claiming everything else he had to say in said book when trying to explain some of his lesser performances was a load of BS?:lol:

[Raging B(_)LL]

[QUOTE] So you know it better than LaMotta himself, that he doesn't start claiming he's no longer the same until after the Cerdan fight?

Fighters are always the last ones to admit that they are slipping, but if you were to speak with people who saw him fight often they will tell you that he wasn`t the same fighter by the time he won the title. But of course, knowing you you will be running to check out those newspaper accounts which you have thousands of and desperately try and find an article which validates your position that he was anything but at his absolute peak for his bout against the Frenchman. Well ol` chap, give it a go and I`ll be right here when you get back.

:thumbsup

[C. M. Clay II]

Battle of the legends? When did LaMotta become a "legend" all of a sudden? What, because of DeNiero's performance in Raging Bull?:lol:

LaMotta was a pretty good fighter, but let's not make him into something he's not. Hagler was more or less a complete fighter, who could box, punch, and brawl with the best of them. I think personally Hagler is a boxer on another level, and thst LaMotta would not have much to trouble him. LaMotta wasn't a great puncher so he can't hurt Hagler. He doesn't have great speed either. This has a wide decision victory for Marvelous written all over it.:good

[Dave's Top Ten]

I just noticed this post of yours, and I can tell you Marvin NEVER answers any e-mails, why he even has the site up I do not know. He is a very bitter and self-centered man, and by all accounts I have heard is rather unpleasant to be around. And forget about trying to get an autograph from him, he will just give you the brush off and pretend he didn`t hear your request and just walk away, I kid you not as I know of several people e has done this too.

Raging, why don't you give it a rest for Christ's sake. Who the fuck cares? Does anyone really think Hagler was Mother Theresa?? Who gives a shit? This is a forum / website about boxing, not ethics and personality traits? Does anyone really expect boxers to be sweeness and light?

Sounds like you're the bitter one. Keep the discussion to boxing please. If you must insist on tearing into Hagler as a person then please also do the same for Lamotta, who was a complete animal in and out of the ring. Makes Marvelous look like a saint!

[Raging B(_)LL]

Raging, why don't you give it a rest for Christ's sake. Who the fuck cares? Does anyone really think Hagler was Mother Theresa?? Who gives a shit? This is a forum / website about boxing, not ethics and personality traits? Does anyone really expect boxers to be sweeness and light?

Sounds like you're the bitter one. Keep the discussion to boxing please. If you must insist on tearing into Hagler as a person then please also do the same for Lamotta, who was a complete animal in and out of the ring. Makes Marvelous look like a saint!

Geez, have one of these :rasta and chill the fuck out. In case you haven`t noticed fella I was replying to someone else who had asked me on the first page of this thread why I thought Marvin was a scumbag, and so I replied and addressed something else that he brought up. If you don`t like it too bad, stay out of the thread then or put me on your ignore list.

As far as calling me bitter, thats funny :lol: . I don`t know the man personally and have no bitterness towards him at all as I never met him or knew him. But his actions speak louder than words and while Jake may have been a lowlife of the highest caliber which I readily admitted earlier (of course you probably missed that little tidbit now did ya), even he took care of his brood and didn`t leave them to fend for themselves unlike the multimillionaire Hagler.

[Raging B(_)LL]

[quote] Makes Marvelous look like a saint!

Oh yea, what a saint he was to shit all over his hungry kids when they needed him, all five of them. As a father who is rasing two children who are not my own because their real father did something very similar to what Hagler did, I can tell you that has a profound effect on a child especially when they are so young and it is something they never really get over and it stays with them their whole lives.

So I`ll say it again just to get under your skin, Hagler was a good fighter but he was a fucking lowlife scumbag who hung his kids out to dry at a time in their lives when they needed him most. So fuck him! A real man takes care of his children no matter what and makes sure they are provided for, the fact that he did not and wanted nothing to do with them for me makes him more of a scumbag than LaMotta even who at least took care of his kds the best he could.

[mcvey]

You know, it never ceases to amuse me when I hear how Hagler holds all those advantages over LaMotta and as such would beat him. Maybe its just me, and feel free to call me crazy for what I am about to say, but didn`t the Sugar Man hold the same advantages over Jake that Jim Broughton just mentioned? And yet Jake beat him when he was considered invincible, and arguably should have had at the very least one more win against him in their 5th fight and their third tussle was controversial as well.

So here we have little short armed Jake giving hell to arguably the universally considered best p4p fighter in our sports history, yet he will not be able to get past Hagler or even manage to give him a good fight? I`m sorry folks but I ain`t buying what you selling, although you are entitled to your opinions. But for me anyone who gives Ray Robinson hell in five fights is one heck of a fighter and would have troubled Hagler who I consider a lesser fighter than Robinson. Most of the good fighters he fought held those same advantages over Jake, yet it did not stop him from winning now did it?
I think you are a top poster RB,but when mentioning Jakes win over Robinson,lets not forget that Ray was still a Welter and Jake was the number 1 middleweifght contender.I think Hagler would just squeak by Jake by dec ,over three fights Jake likely wins one,they would all be by dec I think.

[Senya13]

LaMotta accentuates the troubles of making weights for this particular fight, that from this point on it was nearly impossible for him to make this weight (he only made it once more for Robinson fight). He ran out of excuses, so suddenly troubles with weight for all previous fights were not comparable with Dauthuille fight. He speaks about troubles with weight many times prior to this in his bio, but except for Janiro fight (where he had to make 155) he doesn't put as much accent on these troubles (saying that he felt the best at around 170 or even 175, as I have always been saying, his being a natural light heavyweight, who liked to pick on smaller fighters, but once he stepped up to his natural class, he got his ass whipped real bad).
I don't know what irony you see here, as I originally claimed this excuse for Dauthuille fight in particular is a load of BS.

He wasn't the same, what a surprise, but Hagler during his title reign was the same he had been for Briscoe and Antuofermo I, or very close to his prime, according to your claims. Double standards at their best.
And if LaMotta was on the downslide by the time he won the title, when was his prime? When he lost to Dauthuille earlier the same year? When he won a SD over tomato can Allen? When he supposedly threw the fight with Fox? When he had to cut down to 155 for Janiro? When he drew with Jimmy Edgar? Ah, excuse me, he was only at his prime for one single year, 1945. But he is too modest to claim this excuse too early in his bio, he desided to run out of all other possible excuses first.

Sorry, but your BS about Hagler being nearly at his prime for Briscoe and Antuofermo, but LaMotta being past his prime after his 4th year as a pro, only makes me laugh.

[Dave's Top Ten]

Geez, have one of these :rasta and chill the fuck out. In case you haven`t noticed fella I was replying to someone else who had asked me on the first page of this thread why I thought Marvin was a scumbag, and so I replied and addressed something else that he brought up. If you don`t like it too bad, stay out of the thread then or put me on your ignore list.

As far as calling me bitter, thats funny :lol: . I don`t know the man personally and have no bitterness towards him at all as I never met him or knew him. But his actions speak louder than words and while Jake may have been a lowlife of the highest caliber which I readily admitted earlier (of course you probably missed that little tidbit now did ya), even he took care of his brood and didn`t leave them to fend for themselves unlike the multimillionaire Hagler.

Well you sure do sound bitter ! You should read back some of your posts. Instead of me staying out of the thread, Hagler v Lamotta (which is an intruiging one) why don't you leave and start your own one, Who was the biggest scumbag Hagler or Lamotta? then boxing fans, rather than gossip fans, can enjoy the thread more easily.

[brooklyn1550]

I just noticed this post of yours, and I can tell you Marvin NEVER answers any e-mails, why he even has the site up I do not know. He is a very bitter and self-centered man, and by all accounts I have heard is rather unpleasant to be around. And forget about trying to get an autograph from him, he will just give you the brush off and pretend he didn`t hear your request and just walk away, I kid you not as I know of several people e has done this too.

On one occasion, a guy asked for his autograph when we were at lunch. He turned around, visibly annoyed, and said "I'm eating." Yeah, he could be a prick.

I've emailed him since then, but I get responses like "Marvin thanks you for being a fan. It means a lot to him."

[Raging B(_)LL]

[quote]LaMotta accentuates the troubles of making weights for this particular fight, that from this point on it was nearly impossible for him to make this weight (he only made it once more for Robinson fight). He ran out of excuses, so suddenly troubles with weight for all previous fights were not comparable with Dauthuille fight. He speaks about troubles with weight many times prior to this in his bio, but except for Janiro fight (where he had to make 155) he doesn't put as much accent on these troubles (saying that he felt the best at around 170 or even 175, as I have always been saying, his being a natural light heavyweight, who liked to pick on smaller fighters, but once he stepped up to his natural class, he got his ass whipped real bad). I don't know what irony you see here, as I originally claimed this excuse for Dauthuille fight in particular is a load of BS.

So because LaMotta doesn`t make mention of his earlier difficulty making weight that means he did not have any difficulty at all until the Dauthuille fight? How about the fact that the people closest to him all attest to the fact that he always had a hard time getting down to the middleweight limit? Guess there opinion doesn`t count now does it since you know better right? As for picking on smaller fighters thats rich, especially considering how highly you rank Hopkins who`s biggest wins have been over blown up welterweights/jr.middleweights and yet you consider him a great fighter. Oh how selective you are when applying your criteria, but yet here it comes to bite you in the ass.:lol:


He wasn't the same, what a surprise, but Hagler during his title reign was the same he had been for Briscoe and Antuofermo I, or very close to his prime, according to your claims. Double standards at their best.

Do you know how to read? Because judging from the above post it seems that you cannot. I never said that Hagler was the same during his title reign as he had been for the Briscoe and Antuofermo fights. What I did say if you had bothered to pay attention was that by the time Hagler faced either of those two he was pretty much a finished product, and yes he was indeed very close to his prime.

After the draw with Vito he went on a tear and stopped both Loucif Hamani and Bobby Watts in two rounds and then beat the crap out of Alan Minter to win the title. All this he achieved within a year of his draw with the Mosquito... so yes in my opinion Hagler was pretty much at his peak by the time of those two fights in question. So where is the double standard?

And if LaMotta was on the downslide by the time he won the title, when was his prime? When he lost to Dauthuille earlier the same year? When he won a SD over tomato can Allen? When he supposedly threw the fight with Fox? When he had to cut down to 155 for Janiro? When he drew with Jimmy Edgar? Ah, excuse me, he was only at his prime for one single year, 1945. But he is too modest to claim this excuse too early in his bio, he desided to run out of all other possible excuses first.

Christ on a cross, surely you can`t hate the guy that much!:lol: Allright ol` bean, since you want an answer to when his prime was starting to slip away I will oblige you. Most insiders who I spoke with agree that the physical decline started arond the time of his fight against Tommy Yarosz, a fight which he clearly lost but was rewarded with a gift decision.

After seven years of constantly making weight it became much harder for him to get down to 160 as the weight wasn`t comming off as easily anymore, and these words were spoken by Jake`s own brother. And since you have the book and are so keen to look it up for refference at the moment, surely you know the story of what happened the very same night he won the title from Cerdan? Afterwards he just wasn`t the same psychologicallym all the while he was already on the decline physically.


Sorry, but your BS about Hagler being nearly at his prime for Briscoe and Antuofermo, but LaMotta being past his prime after his 4th year as a pro, only makes me laugh.

When did I ever say LaMotta was past his prime after only his 4th year as a pro? Talk about a load of BS there, don`t go putting words in my mouth that I haven`t actually spoken, even I don`t sink that low to try and prove a point.

[Raging B(_)LL]

I think you are a top poster RB,but when mentioning Jakes win over Robinson,lets not forget that Ray was still a Welter and Jake was the number 1 middleweifght contender.I think Hagler would just squeak by Jake by dec ,over three fights Jake likely wins one,they would all be by dec I think.

Mcvey,

Believe you me I am well aware of Ray being a welterweight whilst fighting Jake, but that did not stop him from beating several other middleweights even while weighing in as a welterweight. The Artie Levine, Georgie Abrams fights come to mind to name two, but Ray was so good that the weight difference did not matter.

[Raging B(_)LL]

On one occasion, a guy asked for his autograph when we were at lunch. He turned around, visibly annoyed, and said "I'm eating." Yeah, he could be a prick.

I've emailed him since then, but I get responses like "Marvin thanks you for being a fan. It means a lot to him."

Those are all automated replys, trust me when I tell you he isn`t the type to sit in front of a computer screen and take his time to reply to his devoted fans.

[Raging B(_)LL]

Well you sure do sound bitter ! You should read back some of your posts. Instead of me staying out of the thread, Hagler v Lamotta (which is an intruiging one) why don't you leave and start your own one, Who was the biggest scumbag Hagler or Lamotta? then boxing fans, rather than gossip fans, can enjoy the thread more easily.

:|

You know, I am sure there is an ignore function available on this site, and since you seem to get your panties in a knot over any negatives said about Marvin perhaps you should put me on that ignore list. That way, you can have peace of mind and not have to read those oh so terrible things I have said about your boxing idol.

[Dave's Top Ten]

[quote=Raging B(_)LL][quote=Senya13]






Do you know how to read? Because judging from the above post it seems that you cannot. I never said that Hagler was the same during his title reign as he had been for the Briscoe and Antuofermo fights. What I did say if you had bothered to pay attention was that by the time Hagler faced either of those two he was pretty much a finished product, and yes he was indeed very close to his prime.

After the draw with Vito he went on a tear and stopped both Loucif Hamani and Bobby Watts in two rounds and then beat the crap out of Alan Minter to win the title. All this he achieved within a year of his draw with the Mosquito... so yes in my opinion Hagler was pretty much at his peak by the time of those two fights in question. So where is the double standard?


Most Hagler watchers, me included, would estimate Hagler hit his peak at 1983.

You saying Hagler was also at the peak of his powers for Briscoe (1978) and for Vito (1979)?

"so yes in my opinion Hagler was pretty much at his peak by the time of those two fights in question. So where is the double standard?"

A 5 year peak? wow ! Stick to the gossip :rofl

[Dave's Top Ten]

:|

You know, I am sure there is an ignore function available on this site, and since you seem to get your panties in a knot over any negatives said about Marvin perhaps you should put me on that ignore list. That way, you can have peace of mind and not have to read those oh so terrible things I have said about your boxing idol.

Incorrect. I welcome negatives and positives on Hagler and any boxer. That's what makes a great debate. You are bringing up personal issues about fighters which is irrelevent to this thread. I would imagine that a lot of great boxers are assholes. Just take it as a given and get on with the boxing debate.

[bxrfan]

On one occasion, a guy asked for his autograph when we were at lunch. He turned around, visibly annoyed, and said "I'm eating." Yeah, he could be a prick.

I've emailed him since then, but I get responses like "Marvin thanks you for being a fan. It means a lot to him."
That's funny, because I asked for his autograph last year when he was eating at the hall of fame, and I got it in my IBHOF book. Then again, I was only 15.

[Raging B(_)LL]

[QUOTE]You saying Hagler was also at the peak of his powers for Briscoe (1978) and for Vito (1979)?

What I did say if you had bothered to pay attention was that by the time Hagler faced either of those two he was pretty much a finished product, and yes he was indeed very close to his prime.


A 5 year peak? wow ! Stick to the gossip :rofl

:huh

After the draw with Vito he went on a tear and stopped both Loucif Hamani and Bobby Watts in two rounds and then beat the crap out of Alan Minter to win the title. All this he achieved within a year of his draw with the Mosquito... so yes in my opinion Hagler was pretty much at his peak by the time of those two fights in question.


What is it that you do not understand here? Pretty much at his peak does not equate to being at one`s peak, although I will concede that I probably articulated that little nugget the wrong way, but then again my above post should have made it clear what I meant. No matter, I stand by what I said and if you don`t like it I ain`t gonna lose any sleep over it thats for sure.

[Senya13]

Do you know how to read?

One.

He speaks about troubles with weight many times prior to this in his bio

So because LaMotta doesn`t make mention of his earlier difficulty making weight

Two.

but Hagler during his title reign was the same he had been for Briscoe and Antuofermo I, or very close to his prime

by that point who was a cunt`s hair away from his prime.


Hagler beat Hamani, Watts within 1 year... What are 3 best Hamani wins? How does a quick win over unranked Watts mean Hagler was near his prime?

So LaMotta was at his prime when he barely outpointed Jimmy Allen by SD in Brooklyn?
What does LaMotta says about this period?

As soon as my suspension for the Fox fight was over, I fought a guy named Ken Stribling in Washington, which was a very good fight town then, and knocked him out in the fifth round. In the rest of 1948 I had a total of four real good wins, including two knockouts, and, in fact, up to the time I fought Cerdan, who got the title by belting out one of the toughest middleweights ever, Tony Zale, in Jersey City, the one real tough fight I had was with a rough French Canuck named Laurent Dauthuille up in Montreal. This character opened up a cut over my eye so big you could see the top of the eyeball--twelve stitches it took them to close it.
I lost the decision, and I thought maybe that would also mean I lose the crack at the title, but I got Joey on the phone and he told me that Mister Big figured, what the hell, anybody could lose a decision on a cut eye.
I had a couple of other good fights before the Cerdan fight. One was with another tough guy named Robert Villemain in New York, and the other with a brawler named Joey DeJohn in DeJohn's hometown, Syracuse.

What the hell, LaMotta doesn't even mention the Yarosz fight as being anything special, that could affect him as a fighter somehow? But your friends and you know better, right?
LaMotta clearly lost the Yarosz fight? Referee and one judge 5-4-1 LaMotta, second judge and the NY Times reporter 7-3 LaMotta. Not to mention the fact that LaMotta actually fractured his hand in this fight (he doesn't mention it in the book, but it was reported during next week after the fight).

What are you talking about, what in particular about the night he beat Cerdan?

[JAB5239]

I just noticed this post of yours, and I can tell you Marvin NEVER answers any e-mails, why he even has the site up I do not know. He is a very bitter and self-centered man, and by all accounts I have heard is rather unpleasant to be around. And forget about trying to get an autograph from him, he will just give you the brush off and pretend he didn`t hear your request and just walk away, I kid you not as I know of several people e has done this too.


I won't try to defend Hagler's behavior toward his kids, but I will say I met him at a bar in NH around 1990-91. I introduced myself, bought him a drink and asked him for his autograph. He gave me the IBHOF hat he was wearing (this is before he was inducted) and signed it for me. I thought that was pretty cool.
As far as who would win...I can see both sides of the coin. I do believe LaMotta's skills are very underated though. This wouldn't be a walkover for either guy.

[Raging B(_)LL]

[QUOTE] Do you know how to read?

Why yes, yes I do!

Hagler beat Hamani, Watts within 1 year... What are 3 best Hamani wins? How does a quick win over unranked Watts mean Hagler was near his prime?

It is the manner in which he blasted them out of there in two rounds apiece that was impressive.

So LaMotta was at his prime when he barely outpointed Jimmy Allen by SD in Brooklyn?

Jimmy who? I think you got the name wrong.

What the hell, LaMotta doesn't even mention the Yarosz fight as being anything special, that could affect him as a fighter somehow? But your friends and you know better, right?

Of course he doesn`t mention the Yarosz fight, why would he? As I said he lost that fight according to most observers, and as you point he broke his hand in the fight and thus wasn`t able to fight the way he normally did. He got a gift, plain and simple and ring magazine felt the same way as did some of the people who I spoke with. Of course, why should I believe what they have to say, after all they only happened to know him and see him live on several occasions. Your newspaper accounts are gospel Senya, the end all and be all of course, how could I have forgotten.

:patsch


What are you talking about, what in particular about the night he beat Cerdan?

How about the little tidbit of him getting acosted by the man at the party that was held for him after winning the title, the man who he thought he had killed years earlier when he cracked his skull wide open with a lead pipe and robbed him of his money? Look it up and see what he has to say about how he felt after that encounter and how in his own words it affected him.

[Raging B(_)LL]

At this point I will bow out of this thread and say no more, as I do not want to hijack my friend Dan`s thread here and get into any flame wars of any kind that will veer this thread completely off course. And since repeating myself ad nauseum is something I absolutely despise doing, so I will say no more and Senya if you feel like taking a parting jab at me go right ahead.

[Sweet Pea]

You know, it never ceases to amuse me when I hear how Hagler holds all those advantages over LaMotta and as such would beat him. Maybe its just me, and feel free to call me crazy for what I am about to say, but didn`t the Sugar Man hold the same advantages over Jake that Jim Broughton just mentioned? And yet Jake beat him when he was considered invincible, and arguably should have had at the very least one more win against him in their 5th fight and their third tussle was controversial as well.

So here we have little short armed Jake giving hell to arguably the universally considered best p4p fighter in our sports history, yet he will not be able to get past Hagler or even manage to give him a good fight? I`m sorry folks but I ain`t buying what you selling, although you are entitled to your opinions. But for me anyone who gives Ray Robinson hell in five fights is one heck of a fighter and would have troubled Hagler who I consider a lesser fighter than Robinson. Most of the good fighters he fought held those same advantages over Jake, yet it did not stop him from winning now did it?Robinson was also a natural Welterweight, not exactly a better MW than Hagler. I rate Hagler higher at the weight as a matter of fact.

[Dave's Top Ten]

At this point I will bow out of this thread and say no more, as I do not want to hijack my friend Dan`s thread here and get into any flame wars of any kind that will veer this thread completely off course. And since repeating myself ad nauseum is something I absolutely despise doing, so I will say no more and Senya if you feel like taking a parting jab at me go right ahead.





Dont want to hijack the thread....? Better late than never folks..:nut

[Sweet Pea]

Dont want to hijack the thread....? Better late than never folks..:nutStop being a dick, he was responding to Brooklyn when you called him out. He didn't just start talking shit out of thin air about Hagler.

[brooklyn1550]

That's funny, because I asked for his autograph last year when he was eating at the hall of fame, and I got it in my IBHOF book. Then again, I was only 15.

Probably because it was the Hall of Fame induction weekend. And yeah, the fact that you're relatively young probably helped out too.:good

[JohnThomas1]

At this point I will bow out of this thread and say no more, as I do not want to hijack my friend Dan`s thread here and get into any flame wars of any kind that will veer this thread completely off course. And since repeating myself ad nauseum is something I absolutely despise doing, so I will say no more and Senya if you feel like taking a parting jab at me go right ahead.

Well i've enjoyed your insights and extra's - plenty i didn't know. It's funny, when people talk about the disgraces of say a Tyson many slurp it up and come looking for more, but when it's the likes of a Hagler panic sets in. The thing about LaMotta is that his wrong doings have all been publicised somewhere or other, but i have seen bugger all of what you said about Hagler in the light of day.

[Dave's Top Ten]

Stop being a dick, he was responding to Brooklyn when you called him out. He didn't just start talking shit out of thin air about Hagler.


"I also never cared about him as a person and have been told some things about him from people who knew him personally one of them being his own son from Hagler`s first marriage, and let me tell you folks this man was a completely self centered asshole and a real shit as a human being."

I refer you to a section of his first post above. He just volunteered his opinion and was not asked for it. Just setting the record straight here, nothing more. So you stop being a dick.

[JohnThomas1]

"I also never cared about him as a person and have been told some things about him from people who knew him personally one of them being his own son from Hagler`s first marriage, and let me tell you folks this man was a completely self centered asshole and a real shit as a human being."

I refer you to a section of his first post above. He just volunteered his opinion and was not asked for it. Just setting the record straight here, nothing more. So you stop being a dick.

So what tho? RB is one of the finest posters around and certainly not known for going around posting shyte or BS. All threads offshoot a bit and particulars about certain fighters as human being always come up somewhere or other - it's part and parcel of a boxing forum and something i don't mind reading - no matter who it is especially if it's a decent source.

Enjoy your posts mate, always read them, but you need to let this one go. RB has provided some top reading both on and off topic in here, giving out some good oil on LaMotta who is underrated IMO and needs all the telling he can get.

[Dave's Top Ten]

So what tho? RB is one of the finest posters around and certainly not known for going around posting shyte or BS. All threads offshoot a bit and particulars about certain fighters as human being always come up somewhere or other - it's part and parcel of a boxing forum and something i don't mind reading - no matter who it is especially if it's a decent source.

Enjoy your posts mate, always read them, but you need to let this one go. RB has provided some top reading both on and off topic in here, giving out some good oil on LaMotta who is underrated IMO and needs all the telling he can get.

I hear you JT and I can tell from his posts he knows his stuff. But I am just pointing out he hijacked the thread to vent his spleen about how much he hates Hagler personally. He should create his own thread for that. Peace

[JohnThomas1]

I hear you JT and I can tell from his posts he knows his stuff. But I am just pointing out he hijacked the thread to vent his spleen about how much he hates Hagler personally. He should create his own thread for that. Peace

Well it comes across harsh but i don't think he was on a mission personally. I think he anticipated plenty of undeserved flak for picking Hagler and coming clean that he thinks he is a bit overrated from a forum that holds Hagler in very very high regard. I'd even venture to guess his extra comments were put forth as a bit of latter back up that Hagler may not be all some think he is, both in and out of the ring. Getting in first maybe. Regardless he's done no wrong.

Peace Dave, for sure mate. I'll be back well later to give a deeper summary of the fight from my own perspective.

[Raging B(_)LL]

Thank you John for the kind words, and I agree with you on what you have to say re Tyson and yet how folks get all up in arms over some of the things I had to say on Marvin. I understand that some of the things I said about the man may not be popular, but no need to shoot the messanger so to speak. As for you Dave it is true that no one asked me what my thoughts were on Hagler and that I voiced them on my own. Nonetheless I said what I had to say on him and there is no going back now.

I am aware that his personality is not relevant as to how a fight would have unfolded between the two of them, but I did feel however that after years of keeping what I knew to myself that this was a good time to air some of the man`s dirty laundry. Now, I don`t want anyone here getting into a verbal tussle with you because of the little back and forth we exchanged between the two us, so I will say lets bury the hatchet and just move on and talk boxing, fair enough?

Now I know I said I wasn`t going to come back to this thread but I felt I had to get this out of the way, but this time I am bowing out of the thread for good and will let other posters chime in with their 0.02$ cents worth. So again Dave, lets forget this unpleasant exchange that transpired between the two of us and move on, and tht includes all of us folks here. After all we are all adults here, well maybe not all:lol: but you get the drift.

Peace:good

[dpw417]

You know, it never ceases to amuse me when I hear how Hagler holds all those advantages over LaMotta and as such would beat him. Maybe its just me, and feel free to call me crazy for what I am about to say, but didn`t the Sugar Man hold the same advantages over Jake that Jim Broughton just mentioned? And yet Jake beat him when he was considered invincible, and arguably should have had at the very least one more win against him in their 5th fight and their third tussle was controversial as well.

So here we have little short armed Jake giving hell to arguably the universally considered best p4p fighter in our sports history, yet he will not be able to get past Hagler or even manage to give him a good fight? I`m sorry folks but I ain`t buying what you selling, although you are entitled to your opinions. But for me anyone who gives Ray Robinson hell in five fights is one heck of a fighter and would have troubled Hagler who I consider a lesser fighter than Robinson. Most of the good fighters he fought held those same advantages over Jake, yet it did not stop him from winning now did it?
Amen!
It's strange LaMotta's skills aren't given their proper due...Not everyone can test Robinson the way he did... Regardless of the weight advantage. LaMotta was a great who would have given anyone a hard fight.

[Dave's Top Ten]

Well it comes across harsh but i don't think he was on a mission personally. I think he anticipated plenty of undeserved flak for picking Hagler and coming clean that he thinks he is a bit overrated from a forum that holds Hagler in very very high regard. I'd even venture to guess his extra comments were put forth as a bit of latter back up that Hagler may not be all some think he is, both in and out of the ring. Getting in first maybe. Regardless he's done no wrong.

Peace Dave, for sure mate. I'll be back well later to give a deeper summary of the fight from my own perspective.

Well no flak from me for picking Lamotta to win or saying Hagler is overrated. That's what creates a debate and isn't that why we all subscribe to the board? It just becomes petty and boring when we start debating whether someone is a good guy or not. Its irrelevent and have you seen Hagler? What makes anyone think he's a nice guy?

By the way, JT, just out of interest why are you such a strong believer in Hagler being overrated? Its a serious question. I have a similar opinion over several boxers but don't air them with as much passion. Genuinely interested to hear to why you have such a stong opinion.

[birddog]

Why some feel Hagler is overated. I'm certainly I'm not answering for JT or anyone else. I'm also a Hagler fan. But why some feels he's overated

Antuofermo 1 (won the fight handily I thought, but didn't seal the deal faded late)

Duran (not as close as it looked, but he left allot of dout (hagler did) in allot of people minds, maybe rightly so)

Leonard (been discusses ad naseum)

Questions of caliber of contenders during Haglers rein



Lack of adapability, to adjust/think on the move at times, Considereed a plodder by some ( see Vito, Duran, Leonard above)

Just my thoughts, off the top of my head. Maybe opens up a whole new discussion re his flaws and strong points.

There is no perfect fighter or person. All have good and bad days, just have to take their accumulated career and judge from there

my $.02

[dpw417]

Well god help me, i'm not alone after all, and seeing such an esteemed and respected analysist mirroring my own thoughts makes me feel comfortable in my stance.

Welcome to the small, but strong minority.
JT, which small, strong minority is it?
Feeling that LaMotta is underated or that Hagler is overated?

[Keihule]

This is a tough fight to call, Jake I believe would be the agressor, both men leading toe to toe action all around the ring. Hagler is bigger, and stronger, bangs with Jake and lands good uppercuts on the inside and strong left hands from the outside. La Motta comes forward the only way he knows how, slipping punches and pounding away at the body with short hooks, and when marvin tries to move around jake chases him with the double jab from time to time.

I believe Jake's experience in a tougher era, vs. robinson, satterfield, janiro, fox, and cerdan would give him the edge in the later rounds. whacking those hooks across the face of hagler as he begins to back of a little to regain composure.

Jake by SD in a War for the century

[radianttwilight]

I'm going to go out on a limb and call an upset for LaMotta.

Would be a great fight, though.

[JohnThomas1]

This is Raging Bullshit but what could you expect from a guy with your name. Hagler would win a decision definitely. Hagler won the first Vito fight 11 rounds to 4 with 1 even. Hagler did have to alot of respect for Vito's durability and didn't press for the knockout. Hagler has all the physical advantages against LaMotta, I don't see Jake winning.

:lol:

[JohnThomas1]

Well no flak from me for picking Lamotta to win or saying Hagler is overrated. That's what creates a debate and isn't that why we all subscribe to the board? It just becomes petty and boring when we start debating whether someone is a good guy or not.

Without looking to be nasty Dave i have seen the likes of Ayala and Tyson have vast amounts of shit put on them as human beings but have never seen you appear to defend them. RB is a superb poster and i for one want to see him back in this thread to defend and debate with others his reasoning for putting LaMotta over Hagler. The man went out on a limb, oh so obviously with some nervousness, and i for one respect that from such a poster. Nobody on this board is better educated to thrust forth the intricasies and abilities of LaMotta, and i for one don't want to stifle that.

Again, the offshoots about boxers as human beings is always going to be discussed and indeed valued even if you or i become somewhat squeemish with certain subjects. As far as i am concerned this forum envelopes both. I think you have been a bit unfair on RB.

Also, there is little room for debate per Hagler from what RB has posted.

By the way, JT, just out of interest why are you such a strong believer in Hagler being overrated? Its a serious question. I have a similar opinion over several boxers but don't air them with as much passion. Genuinely interested to hear to why you have such a stong opinion.

Mate i have posted such stuff many many times and won't go in depth here again. I might summarize for a latter post in this thread.

Peace Dave, i don't want to offend or start shit. You're a top poster.

Being the busybody in here that i am, as well as half full of Jimmy, i'd like to see two things.

1. RB continuing to post in here per topic.

2. Both of you dropping the previous topic as RB has more than made his point and we can now go back to thrashing out Hagler vs LaMotta.

Peace.

[JohnThomas1]

JT, which small, strong minority is it?
Feeling that LaMotta is underated or that Hagler is overated?

Hagler overrated.

If i have such an esteemed poster as Bull agreeing with me i feel oh so much better. Nemesis is in the same boat too.

I'm actually happy with myself on two fronts

1. I have the confidence and presense of mind to think against the common grain.

2. I have the balls to respectably voice it.

Now let me vastly abbreviate my reasons.


Hagler has a terrible inability to adapt against people that don't willingly go to war, especially excellent ones.

Hagler on the biggest occasions lacks focus, confidence, self believe and intelligence against stylistically difficult opponents.

People can moan all they like about Hagler being past it vs SRL but the fact is Leonard was the one facing the difficulties and Hagler made so many bizarre mistakes under the biggest spotlight he ever faced it is just not funny. Contrast this with a Duran who faced a FAR better version of SRL as well as facing more disadvantages. In the first fight Duran played him like a violin, a lesson that was never forgotten by Leonard and indeed used to advantage vs the likes of Hagler.

Guys like Monzon, SRR, Hopkins, RJJ, would give Marvin fits. Others that are unable to be intimidated, like LaMotta and co will also be tough. History supports me.

[Stonehands89]

Hagler signed a page of Ring Magazine for me -with a personal note. I know legions of people who have met him and not one didn't say that he was down-to-earth, friendly, and almost always shorter than expected. As to his bitterness, if it is actual, it is life-long and if you knew where he came from you'd understand a bit better. His non-relationship with his kids is not something I am privy to. If the hearsay from RB is accurate, then it is lamentable and reflects badly on Marvin the man but I think it sounds funny to discuss Hagler's character flaws on a thread that includes Jake LaMotta, the proud king of the pricks.

I will say this about Marvin. He had enough respect for the sport to present himself well in the public eye. Tyson didn't. Tyson said "F*CK YOU" to not only his opponents, but to you and me, to the ghost of Cus, to his own crumbling self-esteem, and to the boxing world.

Marvin had enough dignity to keep his demons as private as he could. I'm not going to judge him, except about what I saw firsthand. I'll judge Marvin the fighter. He gave the best, classiest, and most intelligent interviews between fights (I own a few of these on Boston talk shows from the mid 80s) and during training camps and after fights he was witty, insightful and entertaining. He came off like he did in those Right Guard deodorant commercials -with class. Whether it was real or feigned matters not a bit.

More importantly, the man was a devotee to his trade and for that he will always have the highest respect from these quarters. He put his championship before everyone and everything and while that doesn't necessarily make a good husband and father, it sure as hell made him a great champion. I also see and appreciate how he stuck with Goody and Pat even though resisting King, et al., slowed down his career. Marvin would come in razor-sharp and ripped down to frighteningly precise fractions. Marvin Hagler was the last Spartan.... the reincarnation of a Mongolian warlord.

That's that the Marvin I know and the only one I care to know. His private life is his own.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[JohnThomas1]

Now for my own call.

I think LaMotta is very very underrated, especially for his almost sublime technical skills. Marciano is similar, they ain't pretty but they sure do more than many think, as supported by Master Pontius' video brilliance.

Make no mistake, Marvin is the better boxer. This would take him to about a 7-3 lead after 10 rounds. After this it is all LaMotta. Whether Hagler can find a round or two late is the key. He very definitely tired late vs Antuofermo and also backed out of the challenge issued.

I see this fight being won narrowly by Hagler or perhaps a draw. Anywhere from a draw to a 1 or 2 point win for Hagler IMO but i sure won't argue heatedly one way or another.

[Raging B(_)LL]

[QUOTE]His non-relationship with his kids is not something I am privy to. If the hearsay from RB is accurate, then it is lamentable and reflects badly on Marvin the man but I think it sounds funny to discuss Hagler's character flaws on a thread that includes Jake LaMotta, the proud king of the pricks.

Stonehands,

Just to set the record straight I can assure you that what I have said about Hagler in this thread is NOT hearsay, as I would NEVER make something like this up about any fighter, and I want to make that very clear for everyone here. As for LaMotta he was what he was and he did what he did and I don`t excuse none of it, and I believe I`ve made that very clear in my previous posts. Now on a seperate note since John and others would like me to keep contributing to this thread, I guess I`ll reverse my earlier stance and see if there is anything I can add to the disscussion later on.

[Stonehands89]

[quote=Stonehands89]
Stonehands,

Just to set the record straight I can assure you that what I have said about Hagler in this thread is NOT hearsay, as I would NEVER make something like this up about any fighter, and I want to make that very clear for everyone here. As for LaMotta he was what he was and he did what he did and I don`t excuse none of it, and I believe I`ve made that very clear in my previous posts. Now on a seperate note since John and others would like me to keep contributing to this thread, I guess I`ll reverse my earlier stance and see if there is anything I can add to the disscussion later on.
I would never accuse you of making something up, you strike me as a fair man. Hearsay simply means that we heard it from you and you heard it from someone else. That's hearsay.

[MagnificentMatt]

Heh..Doesnt seem like everyone posting here has actually seen Hagler - Antuefermo...

[Raging B(_)LL]

[quote=Raging B(_)LL]
I would never accuse you of making something up, you strike me as a fair man. Hearsay simply means that we heard it from you and you heard it from someone else. That's hearsay.

Fair enough Stonehands, although the someone else from whom I learned all this from is lifelong friends with Marvin`s oldest son who lives in Atlanta these days and has just recently started trying his hand at promoting fights locally. Anyways, now that thats settled lets drop all the personal talk about either fighter and stick to boxing.

[Stonehands89]

[quote=Stonehands89]

Fair enough Stonehands, although the someone else from whom I learned all this from is lifelong friends with Marvin`s oldest son who lives in Atlanta these days and has just recently started trying his hand at promoting fights locally. Anyways, now that thats settled lets drop all the personal talk about either fighter and stick to boxing.
...then it is actually double hearsay....

[Raging B(_)LL]

[quote=Raging B(_)LL]
...then it is actually double hearsay....


....from as reliable a source as you can get....

:D

[Mantequilla]

Wasn't it reported that Hagler had thrown a rock\large brick at his the wife and kids when they were in a car.

I've read that in various places over the years.

[Vantage_West]

hagler is not goign to brawl..it's pointless this is a very rare time when the man he is fighting is smaller much smaller than himself. he knows of lamotta vs robinson that lamotta can tire if he is unable to hit often. also haglers southpaw style would be very interesting. .what made halger marvelous was his abilty to be a typical boxer-puncher but with this added awkwardness added to his arsenal makes opponants confused to either engage or box.

so we are choosing the boxing/countering hagler.

lamotta had a pretty underated jab, not that it should be ranked with the greats. just should be noted that he could jab and move pretty well he wasnt as one dimensional as people believe. he out jabbed robinson i think:think

anyways the point is that lamotta is a bulky storng guy with a decent jab. if he gets close using his jab to keep haglers right jab at bay hagler will have to brawl to get him off him...and that spells trouble

you may say that hagler has a better jab than lamotta but historically that doesnt matter we have seen great jabers get out jabed. even people who have a size and reach disadvanage. look at ali-foster. foster had a great jab but ali was clearly the better jab and used it like a tool to be pick his man off.

so in this situiation i think that hagler will be caught in a brawl.

but this is only by my idea that lamotta will jab more than try and broadside him.

if lamotta warms form the outside then he is goign to get beat up badly.

the fight i think would be lamotta being aggresive and throwing a limp wristed jab then goign to work on the inside while hagler will jab and move to his right then counter with the left hand then throw rigth hooks to the body to mix thigns up.

either way this is a ud and i would give hagler the far greater advantage he is bigger and can back stong guys off. it's the glitz and glamour stylists that hagler i think has trouble with.

[Vantage_West]

On one occasion, a guy asked for his autograph when we were at lunch. He turned around, visibly annoyed, and said "I'm eating." Yeah, he could be a prick.

I've emailed him since then, but I get responses like "Marvin thanks you for being a fan. It means a lot to him."well to be honest man when your eating your eating it's kinda rude to ask for an autograph. he isnt as self centred as people think he is he is just oen of those guys who is a sligt loner who likes to be on his own.

loads of fighters are liek that.

[Dave's Top Ten]

Hagler overrated.

If i have such an esteemed poster as Bull agreeing with me i feel oh so much better. Nemesis is in the same boat too.

I'm actually happy with myself on two fronts

1. I have the confidence and presense of mind to think against the common grain.

2. I have the balls to respectably voice it.

Now let me vastly abbreviate my reasons.


Hagler has a terrible inability to adapt against people that don't willingly go to war, especially excellent ones.

Hagler on the biggest occasions lacks focus, confidence, self believe and intelligence against stylistically difficult opponents.

People can moan all they like about Hagler being past it vs SRL but the fact is Leonard was the one facing the difficulties and Hagler made so many bizarre mistakes under the biggest spotlight he ever faced it is just not funny. Contrast this with a Duran who faced a FAR better version of SRL as well as facing more disadvantages. In the first fight Duran played him like a violin, a lesson that was never forgotten by Leonard and indeed used to advantage vs the likes of Hagler.

Guys like Monzon, SRR, Hopkins, RJJ, would give Marvin fits. Others that are unable to be intimidated, like LaMotta and co will also be tough. History supports me.

Monzon, SRR, Hopkins, RJJ would give Hagler fits, sure, and he'd give them fits right back. These guys you mention were great fighters and if they didn't give Hagler nightmares during a fight there would be something wrong. That doesn't mean he's overated though.

You are absolutely spot on that stylistically evasive fighters gave Hagler the most problems, but dont they to most fighters? I don't agree that Hagler lacked focus or confidence. I remember seeing his performance against Geraldo and the evasive, cautious style definitely gave him some early probems but I would say it was his focus and confidence that got him through. Perhaps Hagler was not the intelligent fighter that someone like SRL was and he needed his cornermen, that's true.

On the subject of the Duran fight, and I've seen it many times, the fact is ( and Duran fans won't like this) he came to survive and land the odd right hand counter to keep Hagler thinking. Really, when great fighter like Duran decide to fight like that there's not much you can do except keep plugging away to the win. Should Hagler have been more aggressive? Are you kidding? Have you seen the long line of busted up middleweights that Duran produced over the proceeding years when he was a shell of a fighter that Hagler fought? Hagler may have got the KO but at a big risk of getting himself banged up, cut or fouled.

Anyway, my opinion is no more right or wrong than yours. What I was really asking you JT, was why you feel so strongly about it? I feel Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson, for example are two very overrated boxers but I don't feel the passion to let everyone know about it? What's the reason?

[Stonehands89]

On the subject of the Duran fight, and I've seen it many times, the fact is ( and Duran fans won't like this) he came to survive and land the odd right hand counter to keep Hagler thinking. Really, when great fighter like Duran decide to fight like that there's not much you can do except keep plugging away to the win.
I've seen that fight many times as well ... and can assure you that Duran did not come simply "to survive". He came to win. His strategy was sound, but was formed around a more aggressive Hagler. You're observation are negligent of the likelihood that both Hagler and Duran expected the other to fight aggressively, and were faced with different circumstances.

Should Hagler have been more aggressive? Are you kidding? Have you seen the long line of busted up middleweights that Duran produced over the proceeding years when he was a shell of a fighter that Hagler fought? Hagler may have got the KO but at a big risk of getting himself banged up, cut or fouled.

JT and I have gone round and round on this many times. I hold that hindsite is 20/20 and looking back, Hagler would have been better served to fight Duran more aggressively. Duran was exhausted with the larger, far stronger Hagler fighting carefully and he may have not done so well had Hagler put more pressure on him. However, I do agree that Hagler did get his eye swelled up and not a little when he did turn it on and there is a chance that Duran would have swelled it up earlier had Hagler been more aggressive earlier... then things may have gotten quite interesting.

...By the way, Hagler was Duran's first real entry into the MW division.

[brooklyn1550]

well to be honest man when your eating your eating it's kinda rude to ask for an autograph. he isnt as self centred as people think he is he is just oen of those guys who is a sligt loner who likes to be on his own.

loads of fighters are liek that.

True. In fact, you're right about the "slight loner" comment. He absolutely loved pigeons when he was younger.

But he could be a prick at times and a good guy on other occasions. He beat people up for a living, so you gotta cut him some slack:D

[Executioner]

I emailed hagler too about threee years ago, fucker never replied back :twisted:

i've been ever so bitter since then. :bart

[Vantage_West]

I emailed hagler too about threee years ago, fucker never replied back :twisted:

i've been ever so bitter since then. :bartthats what i thought:rofl :rofl :rofl
i havent replied to my best friends on facebook...:oops:

[Vantage_West]

True. In fact, you're right about the "slight loner" comment. He absolutely loved pigeons when he was younger.

But he could be a prick at times and a good guy on other occasions. He beat people up for a living, so you gotta cut him some slack:Dpigeons......:think

tyson maybe?

[Drew101]

LaMotta had an underrated skill-set, and I'm certain that a lot of the rounds (especially the later rounds) would be extremely close.

We can assume that Hagler would play the role of boxer, and give the Bull looks from both stances to throw him off, and that he could make a pretty decent living in the trenches even against a monster like Jake. LaMotta would likely be throwing more, Hagler methinks would be able to land the higher quality shots, and might do a bit more facial damage to LaMotta than vice versa. In close rounds, that could be enough to make a difference in the minds of judges. Ultimately, I think Hagler's versatility carries the day, and he pulls out a close, very hard-fought decision by an 8-6-1 margin.

[Nemesis]

This is Raging Bullshit but what could you expect from a guy with your name. Hagler would win a decision definitely. Hagler won the first Vito fight 11 rounds to 4 with 1 even. Hagler did have to alot of respect for Vito's durability and didn't press for the knockout. Hagler has all the physical advantages against LaMotta, I don't see Jake winning.

I mustve missed that 16th round :huh

[JohnThomas1]

Monzon, SRR, Hopkins, RJJ would give Hagler fits, sure, and he'd give them fits right back. These guys you mention were great fighters and if they didn't give Hagler nightmares during a fight there would be something wrong. That doesn't mean he's overated though.


Yes, but many pick Hagler unhesitatingly over the lot of them, and i for one think he'd lose anywhere from 2 to 4 of those fights. Many put him number 1 H2H and ATG and i think that is a slight overrating. I have him top 5 H2H and probably 2nd 160 ATG accomplishment wise. Greb and co are hard to rank.

You are absolutely spot on that stylistically evasive fighters gave Hagler the most problems, but dont they to most fighters? I don't agree that Hagler lacked focus or confidence.

Well two of the evasive fighters were much smaller men who had come from much lighter weights, as well as being well past peak tho still certainly superb fighters. Hagler fought Leonards fight for far too much of their fight and failed to ram home his advantages vs Duran. A Monzon would not make such mistakes. When talking focus and confidence yes, he was devastating vs the lower tier, Hamshjo, Sibson, whoever, but in some biggest fights he very definitely double crossed himself.

I remember seeing his performance against Geraldo and the evasive, cautious style definitely gave him some early probems but I would say it was his focus and confidence that got him through. Perhaps Hagler was not the intelligent fighter that someone like SRL was and he needed his cornermen, that's true.

Geraldo is not in the same league as the greats tho. Hagler was mostly devastating vs guys his level and a bit above on the whole.

On the subject of the Duran fight, and I've seen it many times, the fact is ( and Duran fans won't like this) he came to survive and land the odd right hand counter to keep Hagler thinking. Really, when great fighter like Duran decide to fight like that there's not much you can do except keep plugging away to the win. Should Hagler have been more aggressive? Are you kidding? Have you seen the long line of busted up middleweights that Duran produced over the proceeding years when he was a shell of a fighter that Hagler fought? Hagler may have got the KO but at a big risk of getting himself banged up, cut or fouled.

Of course Hagler should have been more aggressive, bad scoring or not he almost lost the fight. From memory he had to win the last two to secure his win, tho it would have been the robbery of the year. The thing is in one of the mid rounds Hagler took it right to Duran and established dominance only to come out next round and box, letting all the good work he had done slide. A Monzon, Hopkins etc would not have taken their foot off his throat. When pressed on the matter Hagler said they were wary of his counter right hand, but there was no counter right hand in that round anyway. Regardless Hagler, the much bigger man with a sensational chin should really not have been showing such a worry. Hagler won almost all the inside exchanges while Duran went better than expected outside.

Anyway, my opinion is no more right or wrong than yours. What I was really asking you JT, was why you feel so strongly about it? I feel Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson, for example are two very overrated boxers but I don't feel the passion to let everyone know about it? What's the reason?

Do you think i am a hater Dave?

I thought this was what the forum was all about, sharing opinions and debate about the merits of certain fighters and their fights :huh

I'd hardly call it passion, you are free to search all of my posts with "Hagler" and you'll hardly find me running around obsessed with the man. When matches are discussed i will freely give my opinion and reasons as i have here. I have picked Hagler in a close fight here but hardly think RB picking LaMotta calls for the shit he was given. It's a good contest this one, and i remember the Dream Fight series picking Hagler by a point or so with Jake dominating the late rounds after falling behind early.

You seem pretty prickly to any criticism of Hagler.

[redrooster]

You can see Hagler in all his glory in the Hamsho and Sibson fights. If Hagler comes in sharp like he was in those fights, Lamotta doesn't stand a chance.

Lamotta is just too primitve a fighter and wouldn't do well in the Hagler era. Many of Hagler's opponents would be favored over Jake who lost to many ordinary men while in his prime.

Sibson would outjab and outwork Lamotta for a decision. Tony was a power puncher but also had a much better defense, far more head movement, much faster, stronger more precise with his punches, and wasn't constantly struggling with his weight. Jake didnt even use a jab and if he did it didnt compare with Sibbo's

Roldan was also much stronger than the short armed, squat Lamotta. Jake could never hope to last with such a difficult to hit and heavy handed fighter.

Jake is hopelessly outgunned here too.

Jake would be even money with Hamsho but as with Czyz and Benitez, he would be overwhelmed by Hamsho's southpaw style and pressure. Hamsho was a much more consistent performer. Jake was a win one lose one fighter.

Obel was much to big for him at 6'2'" and would destroy him at long range with that big right hand.

Dangerous Don Lee at 6'3" with his southpaw style is another man whose height and style Jake would not be able to handle.

Why even Tony Ayala with his limited experience would have ripped him to pieces. So it's no wonder that I say Jake would not have been able to compete in Hagler's era.


Hagler would employ the same technique that Pernell used against Chavez in which Julio, not knowing any better, would constantly chase that ghost he thought was directly straight ahead of him.

Then like the expert strategist that he is, Hagler would circle and hit Jake off balance from angles with his skin ripping right jab. This might resemble the 1982 nightmare between Hector Camacho and Louie Loy.

Could it turn into a struggle? yes it could if Marvin is not focused but since Marvin hates the spotlight of scrutiny he experienced after the Duran fight, he will once again become the near perfect fighter he was in the first Hamsho fight.

Marvin was just so much more developed than Jake as a fighter. It's no wonder that Jake only made one defense (and even then he was seconds from losing it)

Sorry Raging Bull fans but Jake isn't getting past that right jab and Hagler's hooks to the head are eventually going to soften him up for the kill. Hagler wins this by tko or cuts.

[Hank]

La Motta would win a decision, but by good margin. He had a lot of smarts, could take anything Hagler had. Not that Hagler would be able to land so easy.

[redrooster]

:lol:

Of course he wasn`t, heck he was worse than Hagler overall! Now I am sure everyone here would like to know why I think the man is such a lowlife (meaning Hagler), so I will share a little tidbit about him with all of you, here goes:

Now, I am sure most of you are aware of Hagler`s divorce against his first wife Bertha who he paid a four million dollar settlement to and with whom he had five children. But did you folks now that he has never kept in touch with any of his children he had with her after their divorce and that after Bertha blew that four million on nose candy and a lavish lyfestyle that he did not assist his children financially?

His eldest son was living on the streets at one point and called his father for help, and he told him in a nutshell to fend for himself since he gave his mother 4 million and thus did not owe anything to her or them. He was forced to move in for two months with one of my long time trading partners who is good friends with Marv`s oldest son and who he helped out financially during that time.

Now I don`t know about you folks, but to me that is a despicable thing to do to your own flesh and blood. Hate your ex-wife all you want, but to let your kids suffer like that while you are a multimillionaire is nothing short of disgusting in my eyes. Needless to say, none of them speak to their father now and it seems that is exactly what he wants. Now I have more storys to share about the man, but out of respect for my friend and Hagler`s son I will say no more.

I will now also disclose something to all of you, and that is that there is footage of Hagler`s fight against Mike Colbert (KO12) which shows the last six rounds of that fight in colour and with sound. His second fight against Donnell Wigfall (KO6) is also filmed and complete shot from a camcorder ringside at the Brockton High School Gymnasium, an his fights against Johnny Baldwin and return against Willie Monroe are also filmed. How do I know this you may wonder? Well, that I will not disclose but let me assure you that they will see the light of day eventually.


RB, you must stop hiding all these golden nuggest and give us the lowdown on these fights. Watching new films on the great one gives me a huge lift and was my sole reason for closely watching the fight game.

[Dave's Top Ten]

Yes, but many pick Hagler unhesitatingly over the lot of them, and i for one think he'd lose anywhere from 2 to 4 of those fights. Many put him number 1 H2H and ATG and i think that is a slight overrating. I have him top 5 H2H and probably 2nd 160 ATG accomplishment wise. Greb and co are hard to rank.



Well two of the evasive fighters were much smaller men who had come from much lighter weights, as well as being well past peak tho still certainly superb fighters. Hagler fought Leonards fight for far too much of their fight and failed to ram home his advantages vs Duran. A Monzon would not make such mistakes. When talking focus and confidence yes, he was devastating vs the lower tier, Hamshjo, Sibson, whoever, but in some biggest fights he very definitely double crossed himself.



Geraldo is not in the same league as the greats tho. Hagler was mostly devastating vs guys his level and a bit above on the whole.



Of course Hagler should have been more aggressive, bad scoring or not he almost lost the fight. From memory he had to win the last two to secure his win, tho it would have been the robbery of the year. The thing is in one of the mid rounds Hagler took it right to Duran and established dominance only to come out next round and box, letting all the good work he had done slide. A Monzon, Hopkins etc would not have taken their foot off his throat. When pressed on the matter Hagler said they were wary of his counter right hand, but there was no counter right hand in that round anyway. Regardless Hagler, the much bigger man with a sensational chin should really not have been showing such a worry. Hagler won almost all the inside exchanges while Duran went better than expected outside.



Do you think i am a hater Dave?

I thought this was what the forum was all about, sharing opinions and debate about the merits of certain fighters and their fights :huh

I'd hardly call it passion, you are free to search all of my posts with "Hagler" and you'll hardly find me running around obsessed with the man. When matches are discussed i will freely give my opinion and reasons as i have here. I have picked Hagler in a close fight here but hardly think RB picking LaMotta calls for the shit he was given. It's a good contest this one, and i remember the Dream Fight series picking Hagler by a point or so with Jake dominating the late rounds after falling behind early.

You seem pretty prickly to any criticism of Hagler.

JT, thanks for the reply, great opinions and great post. I never criticized Raging for picking Lamotta by the way, just the personal stuff which I thought was boring, irrelevant etc. No, not prickly to criticism, just like to debate with people I disagree with on points.

[redrooster]

I would like to know more about these films on Hagler that RB is talking about. how soon will they be released?

[JohnThomas1]

JT, thanks for the reply, great opinions and great post. I never criticized Raging for picking Lamotta by the way, just the personal stuff which I thought was boring, irrelevant etc. No, not prickly to criticism, just like to debate with people I disagree with on points.

Hey, no worries Dave you're a top player mate. Keep up the good work and i look forward to reading plenty of your future posts.