Vito Antuofermo was an overachiever and only half the fighter Jake La Motta was. He was also a bleeder of the worst kind, with no punch, and fought the great Hagler to a draw. Let that sink in to all the idiot fanboys who post comments like "Hagler would have KO'ed Jake", and other laughable nonsense on this thread. Marvin struggled with Duran and squeeked out a close decision, (and that was the fat, lazy, unpredictable 80's era Duran who was a blown up lightweight).
Raging Bull wsas very tough, but he beat SRR *one time out of 6 fights*. When he did it was with a 16 pound weight advantage. If Hagler did the same against a man no more than 145 lbs., you would likely find it most unimpressive. Hagler was somewhat more skilled, with a much better KO rate. A clear decision for the Marvelous one, since LaMotta's chin was like Hagler's, Granite.
So then, the usual Hagler bouts being used to thin out Hagler's chances in a [insert any opponent, past or present, here] fantasy match-up... Who looked the winner, by the end of Hagler/Antuofermo I? The Hagler/Duran scorecards belie what actually happened in their fight. Using them to claim Hagler struggled is kind of amusing. So, as is oft the case, Hagler's fantasy match-up opponents, need to rely on dubious scoring to stand a chance. I could buy that line, to some extent. But, either way, the lack of the same level of criticism for LaMotta, is too obvious here. It's not like LaMotta ever struggled against guys naturally lighter than himself, is it?
LaMotta wins 1 in a series of 3. His constant jabbing, in particular how well he jabbed with fighters, would be a struggle for Hagler, who in my opinion was lead hand dominant and very much needed it to set his own rhythm. LaMotta's hook, double hook, and hook off the jab is a good, natural counter to Hagler's right hand leads, now that I think of it, and could be used to stem his activity levels. The triple jab would also be a constant. LaMotta's defence and IQ is also very underrated - even with his somewhat slow feet he would get close to Hagler at points with his pressure and head movement. I don't think Hagler could afford to fight this one aggressively - Jake is the stronger man and was very good and active inside and up close. LaMotta would need to get inside to try and discourage Hagler - we have seen Hagler be too respectful to the smaller Duran up close, a man he could have tried smashing through since he held the advantage. He also found Duran slippery and awkward, and Lamotta also holds some similar stylistic components (the way he rolls his neck, similar stances, slips punches over the shoulder, how he bobs, weaves and throws a rear upper inside). Some people will mention Robinson, but the 6th bout Robsinson was a full fledged classic middleweight, and we see him still struggling, getting out jabbed and pressured by LaMotta in the early rounds. The 6th bout is the only one on film and therefore the most important for use in judgement. Also bear in mind Robinson competed at LHW as a small fighter and had big success H2H against Maxim. He was not weak. In fact, he was very strong for a fighter his size by the 6th bout and even before, so people talking about his size against LaMotta as if he was a small welterweight is a bit disingenuous. Robinson also had no mental hang ups about going to war with aggressive, high work rate and bigger guys. Meanwhile, we have seen Hagler back off aggressive fighters, show too much respect or get frustrated when things aren't going according to his specific game plan. LaMotta could exploit this. LaMotta however was known to struggle with southpaws, and a Hagler on his feet poses a big challenge too. He has both faster feet and well educated movement. That's what he'd need to do - constantly circle and continuously establish / re-establish his ownership of centre ring, which LaMotta would savagely be trying to break. He would also need a high work rate, which we all know he can do, and a varying offensive arsenal, which he can also do. I can see a lead left hand working very well due to the way LaMotta moves, holds stance and shifts his weight. He could vary it to the head and body throughout the bout. Hagler also simply has a little more of the 'stuff', the greatness, classiness, in which is needed to beat tough fighters such as LaMotta. Hagler was simply a bonafide great and had all the tools and mentality to pull things off. If he couldn't do it in the first, you'd be damned sure he'd do it in a rematch or a series. That's how I see it going. A great series in which Hagler scores the eventual triumph.
Size, Toughness, Iron chin, good inside, and willpower. - But most importantly he fights to win every round. Hagler seems to only find that passion rarely. To me, Lamotta wins more for that reason. I think Lamotta is very underrated. It is the fact that Lamotta goes every round that makes think he has the right recipe to beat Hagler. Hagler is not Knocking him out, and a warrior like Jake could steal plenty of rounds and win.
Thanks. I just hate seeing the one sentence posts like 'Hagler wins ez bro' with no style comparison. LaMotta is quite underrated on this forum imo so I felt obliged. Middleweight is one of the most stacked divisions historically and H2H, so no fight of this level is gonna be 'easy' or 'clear' unless there is a major, major style advantage.
Nah just to be realistic. Hagler wins imho but it's not a walkover by any means. I think Antuofermo was pretty good and a rough customer and LaMotta was arguably better.
