Haglar vs Ray Robinson

Yeah near all the teams talk pretty big in tournies like this. The Kiwi's talked big before last weekends Rugby League test and we trounced em 58-0. There will be other days in the Rugby, it's just that we'll have to wait a damn long time

 

What a war between arguably the 2 best mwts ever.

I think srr can infight with hagler all day long & not look out of place but when it comes to distance boxing, thats were srr dominates marvin.

Hagler would have success early on but by the 6th rd robinson`s punches would start to find the mark regularly to both body & head, his jab would be in marvs face all night long & whenever hagler rushed him or let his gaurd slip a notch he would get hit by really hard & accurate combinations.

A 12 rd fight could be very close here but robinson wins in a real mans battle... 15 rds.

 

Well. As we all know Hagler lost to Sugar Ray Leonard in 87. Hagler might have been past his prime at that point, but Leonard wasn't a natural middleweight and was making his comeback from a very long lay-off. And as great as Leonard was, he wasn't Robinson. For that reason I think I would pick Robinson to best Hagler.

 

Leonard also fought nothing like Robinson, unless you're counting on Robinson moving around the ring flurrying at times to escape Hagler's attack. And again, that was no prime Hagler. The prime Hagler amd the Hagler of his late career fought nothing alike. Therefore the SRR and SRL comparison is very off.

 

Well, my point was that SRL wasn't at his prime either (just had a long lay-off) and also wasn't fightning at his natural weight. It's true that SRL and SRR had differences style-wise, but I wasn't comparing their styles, just their quality.

The point I was making was that if i a post-prime SRL beat a post-prime Hagler, it's a realistic bet that a prime SRR beats a prime Hagler. That is, if you don't think that SRL was style-wise much tougher for Hagler than SRR would have been.

 

Using the 1987 version of Hagler is like evaluating Hopkins based on his 2005 fights against Jermain Taylor.

The 1980-81 version of Hagler had good (if not great) speed to accompany his obvious skill, workrate and toughness. I think he'd get the better of Robinson on the inside and be able to leverage him backward and close distance, and we know he wouldn't fade.

Hagler in a highly competitive decision.

 

I strongly disagree. Using a faded version of a fighter to evaluate him at his peak never makes sense, unless you're judging some sort of intangible quality (and even then, I'd say the guy can only fairly gain, not lose).

Hagler was obviously declined against Mugabi in 1986 and, against Leonard, severely diminished. Sure, Leonard was as well, but it's irrelevant. Hagler deserves to be rated on his best performances.

In a more extreme example, would the past-prime versions of Leonard and Duran in their third fight accurately predict the outcome of their first fight?

 

I don't. A mover/fast counter-puncher is the only thing in my opinion that would troubled a prime Hagler. SRR was a fighter with good boxing skills.