Originally Posted by Boilermaker
He wasnt consistent at middleweight, that was a major problem throughout his middleweight career. It is understandable, because he was the greatest welterweight ever (probably) but not the greatest middleweight ever, although still probably one of the 10 greatest ever. Hagler had the better middleweight career adn probably would have beaten Robinson, quite possibly by stoppage.
La motta wasnt anywhere near as good as Hagler, imo, and neither were any of the fighters who beat Robinson, with the possible exception of Joey Maxim whose weight and size may have posed Hagler problems because of the unknown factor, but probably wouldnt have.
Robinson was a great fighter, but as a middleweight it is pretty clear that he wasnt the greatest ever.
he's absolutely one of the ten best. at worst 3rd, WORST.
i love hagler and i would call it a 60/40 robinson's way. I don't consider it a guarantee that robinson wins but looking at style's and attributes i think he has more tools to beat hagler than hagler has tools to beat him.
at his best robinson had the movement and jab to outbox hagler, the toughness to stay with him 15 hard rounds, an equal chin and a shade more power.