Hagler/Robinson

When comparing resumes should Robinsons Welter wins be included if Hagler gets credit for Duran/Leonard?

SRR - Lamotta*5, Turpin*2, Olsen*5, Graziano, Fulmer*2 (past prime), Villemain plus the welters Galivan*2 (once at middle), Henry Armstrong, Bell, Angott, Zivic

Hagler - Hearns, Duran, Antufermo, Minter, Briscoe, Mugabi, Hamshow

No contest for me - SRR takes it by a distance

AS FOR ROBINSONS LOSSES - ONLY 2 WERE IN HIS PRIME. He wasn't the same in his second career but still prospered past his prime

 

No. Leonard and Duran were fighting at middleweight.

 

You are leaving out Obel and Sibson. Since Leonard lost his fight to Hagler, you should put Leonard's name up there, too.

Hagler's resume at middleweight is better. However, Robinson is the only fighter in history that I think could outpoint a prime Hagler. Robinson would have to put on the fight of his life for this to happen, but Robinson could be freaky good that way.

 

:hi: Homicidal Hank

Haglers comp is below Robinsons. If you include Haglers wins over Welters (despite them blowing upto MW) then include Robinsons.

Hagler got outpointed by Leonard, which hurts his MW legacy, Robinsons past prime losses shouldn't be held against him, ie the 1s after retirement

 

Hagler was easily better. As a middleweight, Robinson is on about the same level as Tony Zale.

 

robinson won the middleweight title 5 times.

hagler was a pure middleweight.

i'd have to say hagler.

 

Look, Homicide Hank was great, no doubt about it, and he nearly won the middleweight title, but I think that if you are going to downgrade Hagler's resume on the basis of him fighting Duran because Duran was a lightweight, then you will have to do the same for Robinson for fighting Hank because Hank was a featherweight. Even then, that fight was at welterweight. And that is my point! Duran was fighting at middleweight and was settled in. Armstrong was settled into welterweight, but Robinson fought him at welterweight, not middleweight. It's the fact that they fought at middleweight that counts. So you can't count Armstrong or any of Robinson's welterweight opponents in assessing his middleweight legacy. I think if you think about it a little bit you will agree. Overall legacy, absolutely, but middleweight legacy, no.

On the matter of losses, Hagler never lost to a middleweight in a title fight. Even if you want to say Leonard beat him, that was still past Hagler's prime. Robinson lost to Turpin and had a devil of a time with him in the rematch. It's hard to imagine Hagler having trouble with Turpin.

 

I sure don't agree with this.

 

Hagler has the slightly better resume maybe, but head to head give me Robinson at his best for sure.

 

Why?

 

Zale unified the title and posted only one successful title defense, a fight he almost lost, against Graziano. Then he was defeated by Graziano. He regained his title, but then lost it again in a brutal defeat. Zale was knocked out numerous times in his career.

Robinson won the title, lost it on a close decision, regained it in spectacular fashion, and defended it twice before retiring the championship. He then came back, regained the title, defended it once, lost it to a middleweight who would have pounded Zale into the ground, regained the title with a one punch knockout, lost the title on a very close decision to an all-time great welterweight, regained it, lost it on a close decision, some say should have won it a sixth time, and went on to have a decent post championship career. He was never knocked out.

Robinson is hands down the greater middleweight.