Marvin Hagler vs Sugar Ray Robinson

Nailed it. Prime Hagler was solid from top to bottom and his power was incredible. Robinson becuz of his boundless talent WAS the best middleweight until Hagler arrived on the scene

 

Hagler was a great middleweight but a prime SRR already was 132-2-2 when he beat Turpin, LaMotta was better than Antufermo for sure and SRR was better than the Duran that gave Hagler a good go. Hagler gives Robby some trouble but a prime SRR wins ...SRR also takes SRL ...Ray Robinson was a true Dr. of this sport and they closed the college ​

 

If we are talking about both men on their best night SRR takes it. He was the more complete fighter and had the boxing ability to avoid and counter Hagler for 15 rounds.

 

that's going to be hard to prove since lamotta had FIVE losses to the same welter with a significant edge in weight. In addition, several losses to lesser known fighters Dauthille, Villemain, Hudson, Basora, Fox BEFORE winning the title

how do those losses make Jake better than Vito who held prime Hagler to a draw PLUS wins over Corro & Griffith?

They dont

scratch one ill conceived claim

I WILL agree that SRR was better than Duran who faced Hagler but was he better than the Hearns who faced Marvin? Not likely

Sibson?

Roldan? Cabrera? Hart? Mugabi? not on the nights they faced Hagler

Robbie will never have trouble with the likes of Bobo Olson but seriously, what did he have going for him?

Robbie may be the Doctor of the sport but he's going to need one himself if he ever had the misfortune of crossing Hagler's path.

 

Each on their best night, I'll take SRR but it will be a barn burner

 

What are you smoking?

 

you're in no position to talk. every time us two have debated you came up dry like on your honeymoon

Hagler is simply superior physically to Robinson. that's why Robbie could never hold onto his title no matter who the challnger was. lost it to every major contender

all this talk about "prime Robinson" is more extrapolation/nonsense and is not actual analysis

Lamotta? he was just a punching bag,a brawler w/o a punch

 

You don't think some of those losses had to do with him already being long in the tooth and his fight schedule? I'm confident that if Hagler had to fight as much or as often as SRR did, he have some more losses as well don't ya think Red?

 

Stop talking sense. Not to mention there were some pretty good middles around too.

 

this proves you dont actually finish reading my posts. I clearly said BEFORE winning the title.

as for Hagler, his string of middleweight wins late 76-79, is more impressive than Robbie's run in 50-51

Robinson is greatest middleweight AFTER Hagler, Greb, Monzon, & Jones

 

His power was excellent but well short of incredible.

 

his power wasnt known to be awesome but since I have never been influenced by the press, i just go by what I see - the last minute heroics from the Colbert fight

Hamsho, Obel 2, Hearns, Lee, hamani, Scypion, Monroe 3, Seales 3

that's REAL power

Hagler can end a fight whenever he decides to end it in contrast to Robinson's one sudden one punch KO of Fullmer.

If Robinson does it once and gets fawned over by the press for it, I can rightfully give Hagler his props

and no, Marvin does NOT need for Robinson to be long in the tooth to beat him. Marvin thrives on competition. Use your imagination for once

 

Again, you didn't answer my question.... I asked if Hagler had fought as much as SRR did, throughout his career really, you don't think Hagler would have some more losses?

 

You can't just go by boxrec.

So what if Lamotta had some losses pre-prime?

And the "FIVE losses to the same welter with a significant edge in weight" was Sugar Ray Robinson, who we all acknowldege is one of the best if not best welterweights in history. And of course, he did beat Robinson once.

But, if you're gonna hold LaMotta's losses to Dauthille (at 175 lbs, no less), Villemain, Hudson, Basora and Fox against him, scanning Vito's record, he also had some bad losses: Harold Weston, Maurice Hope and the immortal Fred Wessenbach.

Finally, as I noted in an earlier post, you really lost the plot when you said SRR may not have been a better Middleweight than Sibson, Hart, Roldan and Mugabi.

BTW: I still think Hagler would edge Robinson, though.

 

"Hagler can end a fight whenever he decides to end it in contrast to Robinson's one sudden one punch KO of Fullmer." Marvin should have used that theory against SRL; instead he used the "reverse theory", and boxing had a new middleweight champion...i.e., SRL.