Marvin Hagler vs Sugar Ray Robinson

Early 50's SRR at MW beats Hagler. The SRR who lost to Carmen Basilo loses to Hagler if Hagler
doesn't pull a "Duran fight" attitude and gets "intimidated" who his opponent is.

 

Red Rooster debunked this brilliantly.


psyche jobs on Hagler are yet another fable concocted by the media. why? becuz the man simply had no weaknesses and they couldnt think of anything else

it's a convenient theory some still use today but it's never held any water

Why? the simple truth is, MMH wouldve cracked in his fight vs Hart in 9/76 (do or die time)

wouldve cracked in in facing nemesis Monroe in rematch

wouldve cracked in falling behind to Colbert

wouldve cracked in hostile England vs Minter - far more intimidating than facing off against an over the hill, pudgy ex lightweight

wouldve cracked in his fight with Hearns who brutally dispatched Duran in two, especially with the Doctor threatening to stop the fight on cuts

How come he didnt crack in that big fight? it's what MANY thought would happen

so you see, that's just a fable

btw, Hamsho whipped Benitez easy, who beat Duran easy

well, there goes your assessment of Hamsho

 

Hagler vs Robinson. It's the best middleweight ever vs the 6th best middleweight ever. Hagler would be the best middleweight Robinson ever faced. Robinson however, would not be the best Hagler faced. Robbie would have problems here on account of Hagler's movement, southpaw jab, and versatility

Hagler, already an expert in street warfare by his third year, could either box smartly, wearing down opponents little by little - a jab and hook here, a counter hook there, or end a fight in the blink of an eye. Marvin had the defense, the terrifying flesh ripping weapons, the toughness, and the determination to take out Robinson. And his power in either hand was incredible! Jabs, uppercuts to the body, hooks to the head leave Robinson exhausted, battered, and bloodied after 11 competitive rounds (much to he crowds delight)

 

Thanks Murk. I gave this person a chance to defend his claim, and make me eat my words - not once, but twice, and he never got back to me

 

I see this as a 50-50 type fight.
I just can't see a clear pattern for this fight. Prime for prime they both had all the skills and talent in the world, power, durability, everything.

 

Hagler is 10 times the fighter Jake Lamotta is and could actually punch. Robinson struggled with Lamotta in some of their fights and was hurt and knocked down in others. Hagler would walk through whatever Robinson could dish out and stop him.

 

1st Fight Lamotta had 12.75lbs on Robinson and won about 2 rounds.
2nd Fight Lamotta won he had a 16lbs advantage.
3rd Fight Lamotta had 12.75lbs on Robinson and won about 2 rds.
4th Fight Lamotta was 9.5lbs heavier and the AP gave him 1 rd.
5th Fight Lamotta had 9lbs advantage and lost a close fight.
6th Fight? Well we know what happened there!

Lamotta was 10 times the fighter Antuofermo was and Vito gave Hagler all he wanted.

 

Yes. and while '50-51' Robinson was an impressive force in the division, the Hagler of 1977-1979 was an even greater force. From his devastation of Monroe in fights 2 & 3 to late minute heroics in the Colbert fight to his proven toughness demonstrated in the Cabrera fight.

I also agree, Lamotta wasnt much. Listening to the experts, if not for the footage, one would start to believe the middleweights of the 40s would walk all over hagler, Nunn, Jones, etc.

remember how great Charley Burley SEEMED, until we actually got a look at him?

 

What's technically wrong with Burley exactly?

 

too bad his record doesnt reflect it

Jake couldnt beat one side of Vito. Remember the trouble he had with one armed Cerdan?

 

Yeah ok, no point arguing with a fool.Night.

 

Technicall? everything.

he looked like an awkward bum, no fight in him. first look I ever got a look at him, I wanted to see for myself the attributes that made him such a foe to be avoided and I quickly realized he was overhyped. more myths perpetuated by the press

the truth is that his style made him a "stinker". when you stink out arenas, you earn a bad rep and lose marketability. lack of marketability spells low reward, low attendance. as the man in the street would say "no dinero"

and what manger wants that for their fighter, or themselves for that matter?

to put it kindly, he'd be a poor man's Roy Jones

 

you ought to know

cant argue what you cant defend?

Like my good friend Vinnie Barbarino would say "up yer nose wid a rubba hose!"