Sugar Ray Robinson v Marvin Hagler Prime vs Prime

The old partying and womanising excuse, it works for many. FACTS are Robinson was beat at 30 by Turpin, if Randolph could do it then I have no doubt the Marvellous one could too.

 

i would fancy Randolph to easily beat any version of Hagler

 

Aaah the old "still developing excuse" lol. And let me guess, he was robbed against the ordinary antuofermo, he didnt want to hurt duran, and he was shot against leonard.:roll:

 

My money would be on Hagler...

Lamotta beat Robinson, and Hagler in my opinion was bigger and better than Lamotta:yep

 

The version of Robinson we saw against Lamotta takes it. He was just too much of everything, I think. He might have gone on to rule uninterrupted for quite a while had the weird, jack-in-the-box style of Randy Turpin not showed up. Stylistically, that guy, when fully prepared, was going to be a nightmare for anyone just because of how awkward and uneven he was.

Hagler, as great as he clearly was, was not so awkward. In fact, he was a fluid yet somewhat predictable fighter if you had the tools and toughness to take him on, and the younger Robinson did.

Now the old Robinson, no. He didn't have the same legs.

 

Better perhaps, but bigger?

As for Robinson losing against Turpin, I don't think he was passed his prime, but it was his tenth (!) fight that year. If you fight that often against top competition you are bound to lose one sooner or later, and he set the record straight again by stopping Turpin in the rematch. Sure, if you make Hagler one the opponents of Robinsons european tour when he fought once every two weeks, sometimes even every week, he has a good chance to get the upset, but isnt the idea to match them on their best night? The fact that Robinson only had 3 losses in over a 130 fights before his first retirement is astonishing.

 

Nothing exists in a vacuum. Turpin and Hagler were not the same fighter and brought very different skillsets to the picture. You're trying to compare apples and oranges.

 

I'd say it"s a 50-50 proposition. Whoever wins will win by decision. I don't see either man knocking the other one out. Both could box or slug and both could take punishment. We're talking about 2 of the best MW's in history here and at that level I don't see one dominating the other. Eeking out a close one is the more likely scenario. Who that is I can't say.

 

Very close decision but to which man ?

Robinson could take it with his greater speed but it would have to be the incarnation prior to his first retirement in 1952.

 

Why am I? I'm saying if Turpin could beat a prime Robinson then the superior Hagler sure as hell as a chance!

 

The fact that you think Robinson was at his best in the first Turpin fight is whats in dispute. Its like saying that Hagler was at his best for Monroe, Leonard. I dont think anyone disputes that Hagler had lost a step for Leonard (even if it was Leonard that had more to contend with than Hagler) and I dont think anyone disputes that Hagler was just on the cusp of entering his prime when he fought Monroe. Most people, who arent just trying to blindly ignore the facts, recognize that Turpin wasnt facing the best Robinson when he fought him on his home turf after Robinson had something like 8 fights in 8 weeks and had drank and ****ed his way across Europe. You can pretend that didnt happen but it did and its well documented by better, less biased men than you.

 

It's your methodology in computing it that's skewed. It's not as simple as saying, "Oh, well Hagler has a better overall P4P standing than Turpin, so that means Hagler would beat Robinson because Turpin did." It doesn't work like that. I was trying to suggest that maybe part of the reason (a huge part, really) of why Turpin beat Robinson when he did was because of the strange style he brought to the proceedings, which badly threw Robinson off. Hagler had no such style, and was easier to predict.

That is not suggesting that Hagler was therefore an easier mark than Turpin overall. Just that for a guy like Robinson, he was difficult.

 

Robinson really did look out of sorts against Turpin first time around.Partly that can be attributed to Turpin's talent and unusual style, but it's also pretty clear to me at least that he was not as sharp as he could be.

hagler would definitely beat that Ray, but not in a best vs best scenario imo.

 

Prime-vs-Prime, Hagler wins a close one.Ray would have his problems with Marvin.

 

I don't think ANY middleweight would "easily" beat Hagler. It's just not happening.