Jake LaMotta vs. Marvin Haglar

Got to go with Hagler here.

 

Lamotta is considered a great fighter .I can't forget Marvin against Antuofermo and Duran,if that version turns up he might lose this.

 

I thought JAKE would jump on Hagler. Wear him out TO THE BODY while turning Haglers cut prone face into lasagna and the ref stopping the fight in 13 or so. Hagler was to me fairly weak mentally when facing another great. Against Hearns he knew Tommy was weak so he charged on in, but against the great Duran and Leonard he was psyched out of his style and fought tentatively. Against a LaMotta who fought the iron of the 40s middles and who beat the greatest Sugar Ray, KO'd Satterfield and made heavyweights back up with his phlegmatic attacks, Hagler will be intimidated. Jake is the same heightth as Hagler at 5'8 (Hagler is not 5'9 or 10), Marvin couldn't hurt him with a pair of Big Papa bats and would be unable to get Jake off him. Besides the fact that La Motta was actually a good boxer. Jake's heart and hatefulness wills him to vicyory over Marvin and Hagler bitches like he always did in victory of defeat, but wants no truck with Jake La Motta in a rematch. Once would be enough for the Marvelous one.

 

Marvin by 8th rd tko.If Marvin can walk through Hearns best shots he can take what ever Jake dishes out.
The Raging bull a great fighter in my book
Much luv and respect for the Bronx bull who ducked no one.

 

Hagler isn't koing Jake, of that I am positive!

 

You beat me to it was gonna change it to 8th rd tko fight stopped on cuts.
Jake damn great fighter.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

The o

 

The one I would have show up is the middle 40s Jake there is no film of. The championship LaMotta was past his prime. The prime LaMotta fights with ANY MIDDLEWEIGHT in history and has a chance to win. And that's not just me saying that, that's historians also.

 

And what does Perry? mean?

 

I think Hagler has an easier time than most think. Lamotta is made for him and Marvin breaks him apart and stops him on cuts by TKO.

 

LaMotta s rep was built on a lot more than that. It was built on him kicking good fighters asses. Even the avoided fighters many heavier and actually heavyweights. Learn man cause you are wrong. Period

 

Look Perry,

Hagler never showed a lack of fitness, toughness, weak chin or body or squeamish to fight the likes of Briscoe, Hart, Monroe, Seales, Antuofermo, Minter, Hamsho, Lee, Sibson, Roldan, Hearns, Mugabi or anyone else....he never lacked heart or skill.....his dedication and discipline were second to none....he never faultered due to lack of preparation...he came to fight period......his one flaw was strategy on a few occasions.

We cannot say the same for Lamotta and never could he was inconsistent and struggled with fitness and dedication......when he wasn't beating his brother up he was beating his wife and anyone else that was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hagler was a greater middleweight than SRR

 

Once more, why Perry. As for your analysis: it's just plain ignorance. You know nothing about who all LaMotta beat and no way Hagler-Leonard was a better middleweight than Robinson. With your calling me Perry for whatever reason, you seem like a snarky little know it all. Ask McGrain if my name is Perry. I have no idea what you think.