SRR vs Hagler

Robinson`s movement would be too much for Hagler, Leonard beat Hagler because he just followed him around the ring without cutting him off plus Hagler was open to right hands and Robinson was great at landed sharp rights very often.

 

SRR by decision

it would be a competitive fight.

SRR was better at 147 lbs

There should be a thread : SRR v. Sugar Ray Leonard at 147 lbs. I'd favor SRR in that one, too.

 

I think Robinson at his best defeats Hagler. A hard fought decision.

Robinson's become a bit underrated at 160, I think. His resume against middleweights is one of the very best ever.

 

Agreed. His losses late in the piece and a bit of inconsistency are more than understandable. At his best at the weight he's likely the best of them.

 

As a MW, maybe the Lamotta title win & the Graziano defense is SRR best MW era. SRR would always beat Bobo Olson, but then you have those Turpin, Fullmer, Basilo multiple W/L's...and Pender loss at the end.

 

The leonard fight was Hagler on the slide more than Leonard. He seen the Mugabi fight and timed it right to take the king down..Leonard v Hagler prime, and Leonard has a torrid time keeping Marvin off him late to a points loss. I don't think Robinson beats a prime Hagler for the same reason ! The greatest welter of all time does not beat the greatest top 3 middles ever imo

 

I understand your theory, however I would say Robinson is probably a top 3 middle. Gun to my head I would choose SRR in this fight.

 

Robinson probably is among the top 3 middles ever though.

I'm not sure why Leonard has even been mentioned in this thread either.

 

He was beaten at 160 by fighters that Hagler would beat imo. He was awesome at welter, I just feel hes to inconsistent to be ranked with Hagler Monzon Hopkins and GGG at middle

 

I'm looking at his record now. He was a great fighter p4p no1 ever. I don't think he ever beats Ralph Tiger Jones though, he was just to strong for him and that was his time. I think his skill stands him in good stead with anyone ever, but hes not dominating without loses here and there, and I cant rate him with the Monzons Haglers ect because of it. I feel like I'm knocking him, but i'm not. 154 would suit him perfectly

 

Yeah I have no problem with that, you have a good argument.

 

SRR points win

 

Robinson was about 34 years to 40 years old when he was winning back and losing the title to guys like Fullmer, Basilio and Pender. That was all after he came out of retirement in 1954 or '55.

His only middleweight loss near his prime is Turpin in a very close fight on points.

He already had wins over guys like Lamotta, Villemain, Olson, Graziano. Good stoppages over ranked middleweights. His record against middles gets sold short a bit.

 

If Hagler was fighting at the stages SRR was he would have lost to middleweights SRR would have beat as well. It's amazing Robinson got the work done he did after he returned to the ring in 55. He only lost to Turpin pre 55 and avenged that instantly before beating Olsen and Graziano. He was 129-1-2 going into the Turpin fight. By this time he had a handful of wins over LaMotta as well vs one loss.

Post 55 he was well past his best and was coming off a few years break yet still got some big wins. One could argue Hagler has him at 160 resume wise (tho Robinsons wins over LaMotta and co would trump Hagler's best middleweight opposition) but one his best night even at 160 SRR was something else.