Hagler vs Ray Robinson

Robinson had so much experience against granite chins though, and he just deployed himself, continued to do work against these guys making rounds unassailable, banking points, bell goes, hand raised. He did it against LaMotta, Gavilan, Maxim (allowing what happened), Gene Fullmer, Carmen Bassilio, Holly Mims, he fought so many granite or near-granite chins and just like Marvin endlessly tested, he endlessly passed the test of men who tried to arrange their invincibility against him. And his own offence was so good that he occasionally found a match-winning punch or series of punches.

 

No danger that's true. He had the chin, for his era at the very least. He didn't have the offence.

He was very good though offensively and i get your point.

 

Yes, but that's like saying "he never fought anyone quite like Hagler" to which the answer is always going to be "Hagler never fought anyone quite like Robinson" (but if he did he dropped a controversial decision to him...).

The post you quoted was a specific response to a specific point: that fighters when they are presented with an indelible chin, one that really works as a barrack to offence, they can come up with empty, run out of ideas, become bereft. My point was that all the actual evidence we have indicates that Robinson wasn't that type of fighter. In fact all the evidence indicates that he was the opposite of that kind of fighter, specifically skilled at riding out indelible fighters and beating them anyway.

Robinson didn't literally fight Hagler, nor did he fight one of perhaps two middleweights who had a chin/offence combo as developed as his, but he fought ATG fighters with very elite chins who had really good offences and did very well against them. That is important data full stop, but i'd argue close to unassailable indicators relating to the specific conversation.

Before anyone gets upset: that's not the same as saying that Hagler can't beat Robinson, what it means is that Hagler being immovable making Robinson run out of ideas/panic/compromise his offence in a way that doesn't help him, very, very unlikely.

 

Yeah, I did address that in the original post where I stated that Robinson's deployed offence would be enough to get him the decision. I'm not sure what this "idea" things mean, his idea is the offence you see on footage of Robinson plus any of the meaningful adaptions he might introduce to the fight.

I question the value of Hagler's switch-hitting at the very highest level, indeed, the switch-hitting ability of almost any fighter at the very, very highest level. This is because almost every switch-hitter (and the rare exceptions tend to be really weird) is better or worse at one than the other, because of course it is. Turning southpaw was a terrible mistake against Leonard, and I think it would be a terrible mistake against Robinson.

Yeah, this has already been covered - it's what the original post is about. That's what's meant by the Original post.