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

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.

 

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 but you get the drift.

Peace:good

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

Would be a great fight, though.

 

Without looking to be nasty Dave i have seen the likes of Ayala and Tyson have vast amounts of **** 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.

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 ****. 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.

 

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.

 

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.

This content is protected

 

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.