Robinson vs Hagler

:good

Too right Colbert gave Hagler problems, but Hagler showed for only the second time, he could turn a fight he was having trouble in around, he did have ring generalship at his best, something he seemed to lack in the 80s.

Hagler did rely on intimidation, by the end it was pretty much all he had, and it worked against Mugabi and sadly naive judges and Father time cost him against Leonard.

Hagler was more thoughtful and cute in the 70s, he actually did seem to think in the ring, because he was building a reputation and was not defending it like he did in the 80s.

In the 70s he was classic blue collar, something special that boxing fans knew about. By the 80s he was polluted by mainstream appeal, arguably ironically a cliche riddled white collar hero.

Briscoe still had his reputation and was still King of the Philly 160lbers. Hagler had to give him due respect. Monroe was very underrated and the only man to clearly beat Hagler, something Minter, Hamsho, 80s Vito or Obelmejias could not of done, even in their dreams!

 

Bollocks, another one that is going to turn into a big debate. I'm ending it here, sorry. But seriously, Hagler wasn't at his best versus Colbert, he didn't rely on intimidating his opponents at any point in his career, Hagler was always a relatively smart boxer, and his pre-championship opposition was not stronger than his championship opposition.

 

Where is your evidence? I backed up my statements....

 

He peaked against Colbert? Mike was giving him kittens, Boxing News had Hagler 7-4 down in rounds (Jack Obermeyer had it 8-3 Colbert). Hardly a peak in ring generalship and fluency I'd say.


He might have been way ahead that night if he had fought Corbett- Ronnie Corbett.

 

I think in future I will just not bother commenting because it seems these days everyone wants a big debate. I can't be arsed. But just for you...

You said Hagler peaked in either this fight or the Monroe rematch, right? Well, Monroe was obviously not at his peak as he wasn't performing particularly well before the Hagler fight and went downhill quickly afterwards. Hagler still looked good, but I think you'll find at least a handful of fights where he looked even better and against better opposition. Remember that Monroe was only a contender and not an unsung hero of the middleweight division.

As said, Colbert gave Hagler all kinds of problems and Hagler needed to knock him out to ensure victory. Colbert was good but certainly not amongst the best fighters the future champion would face. Is this really peak Hagler? The version you'd pick to fight the Monzons and Hopkins' and Robinsons? Certainly not.

Hagler never relied on intimidation, even at the end. He was a more aggressive fighter and so was more intimidating naturally but he was never out to scare anyone in the same way Sonny Liston or Mike Tyson would. Hagler, even by the end, still had a good amount of strength, power and skill left; it was his legs and speed that had gone which left him with little option other than to trade more often or hunt the opposition.

But this doesn't matter anyway, because your original point was that Hagler in the seventies was a cute counter puncher and that in the eighties he tried to dominate his opponents - and I'm talking about a prime Hagler, which wasn't mid-to-late '80s, but early '80s. There, he definitely was a cute counter puncher when he needed to be. Evidence? Look at the Antuofermo rematch or the first Hamsho fight. Or Tony Sibson or Wilford Scypion.

Of course, this is not to imply that at any time during this period Hagler reverted to an unskilled brawler when he went on the attack - if you watch the Obelmejias or Minter fights. Wicked counter punching on the front foot.

On Mugabi, Hagler didn't try to intimidate him. He just broke him down and that was that. Do not confuse a hard man standing and trading as 'relying on intimidation.'

What would building a reputation have to do with whether Hagler thought in the ring or not? You have no basis for saying Hagler thought more in the '70s than the '80s other than you think he used to box more, which he didn't. Seales, Watts, Demmings (among others), these men were all destroyed in much the same fashion as you'd expect to see Hagler demonstrate in 1985.

But boxing and moving doesn't necessarily equal smarter fighting. Hagler always fought smart. If he was against a fighter he thought could be outboxed, he'd outbox him. If he thought he'd stand a better chance taking it to his opponent from the start, he'd do it. Taking the front foot doesn't equate to fighting dumb, but again, he didn't box less in the '80s as you seem to imply anyway.

I'm not even sure what this means. I think it was designed to throw me off.

Reputation does not equal a good fighter. Briscoe was a good middleweight (though perhaps slightly overrated nowadays) at the time Carlos Monzon fought him but was a spent force when he and Hagler met. Hagler fought a safe fight, only fought as hard as he had to and I'll be the first one to commend him for that, but it wasn't a massive challenge. Mustafa Hamsho on film is visibly quicker and full of life - not to mention he was the number one contender when Hagler beat the crap out of him. And guess what, he did it by boxing - probably the best display of jabbing in his whole career, infact.

Of course, because Hagler was better when he faced that lot. You think Monroe would have beat the **** out of Hagler in the '80s like he did in 1976? Shut both his eyes and have his nose pissing with blood? Because that's what he did.

I'm trying not to be a braggart here but I have all of Hagler's filmed fights and used to be obsessed with the man as a fighter - I must have watched each fight at least twice all the way through (some of them many more times than that), and I don't mean leaving it on in the background, I mean looking at every punch and listening to all the commentary. I'd say I'm a pretty good judge of when Hagler looked good, who his best opponents were and when and where he started to decline. I'm sure you excel in other areas over me but Hagler is definitely my territory if nothing else is.

 

Actually, the next year he did fight Willie 'The Black Ronnie Corbett' Warren the next year and did very well as it goes.

 

:d

 

You love it really!

But styles make fights Monroe had his finest night in the first Hagler fight and still caused no end of trouble in the rematch, and yet Hagler lived up to his nickname and solved the Worm puzzle.

It is IMO far better to look at the tough fights as peak performances. As this shows Hagler had dimensions and was not just the offensive machine of the 80s. He had vision and a proper developed character in the 70s.

Hagler was far more varied as a fighter in the 70s, tools you need to fight the very best all-time in an incredible strong division. I would take that variation over the more experienced Hagler of the early 80s.

But Hagler was almost mocking his opponents in them fights, they were no challenge, he had to think, develop as a fighter in the 70s, because he actually was in danger of losing fights, that defines greatness, not easily beating a fair list fighters who went into the fight knowing they already had lost.

You spell it color, I spell it colour, it still adds up to the same thing

(you are just that bit more lazy)

Which is fair enough, I was there to watch my hometown (and future town drunk and racist bigot) hero lose his Middleweight Championship to the Marvelous one in 1980 in a shameful night for British boxing.

Hagler was the only class on show that night and over the years I have watched many of his fights pre Minter, all of them after.

I have come to the conclusion, Hagler had a bitterness (and paranoia) post VitoI that drove him forward and turned into the dominant Middleweight of the 80s. That bitterness really worked for him 90% of the time, it drove him forward to dominant fighters, but his straightforwardness also made fights against Duran and Mugabi a lot harder than they should of been, but also made the fight with Hearns winnable for him.

But with hindsight I feel cheated a little by Hagler, he gave up learning in the ring post Minter, in part because what he had was good enough, but he could of been even more than he was. That is why although he is one of my two favourite fighters of the 80s, I only rate him in the lower half of the top 10 of the division all-time.

 

Personally I reckon James J was there for the taking myself!

The point was Hagler was in real danger of losing that night. Looking at his resume you would presume at the time, once again he was about to fall short. But he did not, he had developed as a fighter and found away to turn the fight around, it was the springboard that led to his six/seven year domination of the division.

Once he was champ, it would take a 25lbs, four years past his best Duran to give him something to think about, although impressive beating Hashmo, Vito, Obel and co, Hagler had no one test him like Colbert did.

 

You aren't answering my questions properly. Most of what you wrote didn't even make sense.

How can you even back this up? I want physical evidence of how and why you think Hagler was a smarter, more dynamic fighter in the seventies. Please, rather than just keep claiming it.

For the record, I'm English and spell it 'colour.'

 

If a peak Hagler struggles with Colbert then I think Robinson would have a pretty easy time.

 

Well you cannot get physical evidence can you? Same as you cannot give me physical evidence. We are on a boxing forum, we are only ever going to be able to give our opinions. It is nice to know you are a fellow Brit though.

 

Alright, not physical evidence, but hard evidence. If it was still on Youtube I'd show you the first Hamsho fight which I'm convinced you either haven't seen or have just forgotten about if you think Hagler was 'just an offensive machine' in the '80s. Or perhaps the Sibson, Scypion and Obelmejias fights will show you how wrong you are about Hagler being 'far more varied' in the '70s. I'm giving you specific fights to research here. If you were with me I'd point out specific moments within those fights but obviously I can't do that, so I'll have to just tell you - Hagler was better in the '80s. And that's all there is to it really. You certainly won't find a single soul who is with you on Hagler reaching his peak against Colbert.

 

I can look at his record perhaps

His hard struggle with Finnegan too. Now there was a cute fighter. Kevin had won the previous three rounds in that fight and was juts a point behind on the cards when his cuts were too much for him to see effectively.