all time most balanced fighter

[silkov]

I'd go for Sugar Ray Robinson, had it all, skill, speed, power, intelligence.... best all round boxer of all time I think, ...others who come close would be Benny Leonard, Jack Johnson, Ali, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Carlos Monzon, Salvadore Sanchez, Larry Holmes... I would never describe Tyson as well balanced, too easily frustrated even in his 'prime'.... it was this flaw that kept him from reaching his potiential greatness...

holmes and ali werent great enough punchers, monzon didnt have enough speed.


i would say the choices are guys who had great boxing skills, great punchers, great defense, great speed........


guys like


sugar ray robinson
joe gans
marvin hagler
roberto duran



tyson was very well balanced. not only did he have great defense and sound boxing skills, he was one of the greatest punchers of all time

I don't know how you can say Ali and Monzon weren't well balanced and then claim that Tyson was??.... Tyson was a front runner, mentally flawed, etc, hopeless when forced backwards... Ali and Monzon were great all rounders, though not to the degree of Robinson, but they still had the attributed of speed, skill, power... people are always knocking Ali's power but he could stop people when he needed to... Bonavena, Foreman, Lyle etc.... these guys weren't put to sleep by his poetry...

[DoubleM]

Duran was a great fighter, but how good was he at fighting off the back foot?

Pretty damn good. He was an intelligent fighter. He never really ran or danced about, but he could shift backwards and jab a guy. Check out his later fights.

[evndrbsn]

Ezzard Charles...

He could box going forwards and backwards, had lateral movement, good jab, fast hands and feet, terrific power at LH, excellent defence, great variety of punches. Charles was a gifted athlete who worked so hard at thye game that he was also a very very skilled practitioner. He had exceptional boxing fundamentals and is vey hard to beat from a purist standpoint

Good post. See below.

How about you guys open up your own thread just to bitch at each other on? :P


Sal Sanchez was pretty well rounded but i'll go along with Robinson and Hagler

Sorry. We usually do this by PM, but it sometimes spills over. We're kind of gay for each other.

Like Brokeback Mountain gay?

[surf-bat]

I'd go for Sugar Ray Robinson, had it all, skill, speed, power, intelligence.... best all round boxer of all time I think, ...others who come close would be Benny Leonard, Jack Johnson, Ali, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Carlos Monzon, Salvadore Sanchez, Larry Holmes... I would never describe Tyson as well balanced, too easily frustrated even in his 'prime'.... it was this flaw that kept him from reaching his potiential greatness...

holmes and ali werent great enough punchers, monzon didnt have enough speed.


i would say the choices are guys who had great boxing skills, great punchers, great defense, great speed........


guys like


sugar ray robinson
joe gans
marvin hagler
roberto duran



tyson was very well balanced. not only did he have great defense and sound boxing skills, he was one of the greatest punchers of all time

Hagler is my all-time favorite, but he is lacking slightly in a few departments(only slightly). I think people here are overrating his speed. It was good, but he was no speed demon ala' Robinson or Leonard. Power? He was not in Ketchel's, Steele's or Robinson's class. He was a combination puncher who usually KO'd you accumulatively. He had a few spectacular one-punch KO's in his career(Fully Obel comes to mind), but they were the exception, not the rule.

Flawless fighters? Robinson is the only one who comes to mind. Perfect 10s in all departments: Speed, power, boxing skill, chin, durability, stamina, quality of opposition, jab, cross, hook, uppercut, footwork....no flaws whatsoever, except for his love of a good brawl when he would have been better off boxing.

[sweetsci]

Just for fun, I'll throw James Toney into the mix.

[DoubleM]

I'd go for Sugar Ray Robinson, had it all, skill, speed, power, intelligence.... best all round boxer of all time I think, ...others who come close would be Benny Leonard, Jack Johnson, Ali, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Carlos Monzon, Salvadore Sanchez, Larry Holmes... I would never describe Tyson as well balanced, too easily frustrated even in his 'prime'.... it was this flaw that kept him from reaching his potiential greatness...

holmes and ali werent great enough punchers, monzon didnt have enough speed.


i would say the choices are guys who had great boxing skills, great punchers, great defense, great speed........


guys like


sugar ray robinson
joe gans
marvin hagler
roberto duran



tyson was very well balanced. not only did he have great defense and sound boxing skills, he was one of the greatest punchers of all time

Hagler is my all-time favorite, but he is lacking slightly in a few departments(only slightly). I think people here are overrating his speed. It was good, but he was no speed demon ala' Robinson or Leonard. Power? He was not in Ketchel's, Steele's or Robinson's class. He was a combination puncher who usually KO'd you accumulatively. He had a few spectacular one-punch KO's in his career(Fully Obel comes to mind), but they were the exception, not the rule.

Flawless fighters? Robinson is the only one who comes to mind. Perfect 10s in all departments: Speed, power, boxing skill, chin, durability, stamina, quality of opposition, jab, cross, hook, uppercut, footwork....no flaws whatsoever, except for his love of a good brawl when he would have been better off boxing.

But Nero - Hagler's handspeed and power weren't flaws. They were not bad points. Hagler had good speed, and good power. Check out his jabs from '80-'83 especially, they had snap on them. Hagler was very, very well rounded. The most well rounded.

Could Robinson switch stances? His defense was a bit leaky. And he couldn't swarm over a guy Joe Frazier-style as an alternative like Hagler could.

[surf-bat]

holmes and ali werent great enough punchers, monzon didnt have enough speed.


i would say the choices are guys who had great boxing skills, great punchers, great defense, great speed........


guys like


sugar ray robinson
joe gans
marvin hagler
roberto duran



tyson was very well balanced. not only did he have great defense and sound boxing skills, he was one of the greatest punchers of all time

Hagler is my all-time favorite, but he is lacking slightly in a few departments(only slightly). I think people here are overrating his speed. It was good, but he was no speed demon ala' Robinson or Leonard. Power? He was not in Ketchel's, Steele's or Robinson's class. He was a combination puncher who usually KO'd you accumulatively. He had a few spectacular one-punch KO's in his career(Fully Obel comes to mind), but they were the exception, not the rule.

Flawless fighters? Robinson is the only one who comes to mind. Perfect 10s in all departments: Speed, power, boxing skill, chin, durability, stamina, quality of opposition, jab, cross, hook, uppercut, footwork....no flaws whatsoever, except for his love of a good brawl when he would have been better off boxing.

But Nero - Hagler's handspeed and power weren't flaws. They were not bad points. Hagler had good speed, and good power. Check out his jabs from '80-'83 especially, they had snap on them. Hagler was very, very well rounded. The most well rounded.

Could Robinson switch stances? His defense was a bit leaky. And he couldn't swarm over a guy Joe Frazier-style as an alternative like Hagler could.

No, I wouldn't call it a "flaw". But I'm looking at this on a scale of 1-10. Hagler falls short of 10 in those two categories, while Robinson is a perfect 10 in all.

Could he switch stances? I dunno....I wouldn't say no. It wasn't his style. But I wouldn't say he was incapable of it.

His defense was air tight when he chose to box. When he chose to slug he didn't worry as much about it.

Couldn't swarm? Sure he could. He swarmed all over George Costner and KO'd him. Costner was a top fighter.

[RazorKO]

>>>Do you think anyone will take you serious when you say that Klondike was as solid as Larry Holmes?<<<

The difference is, I never said that Klondike was as solid as Holmes, that's just the desperation that you continue to try to hold on to...besides, do you think anyone who knows me really thinks that I would say that Klondike was as solid as Holmes? You just try to make up shit in your own little mind, hoping people will overlook your short-comings!

Ignore him Barry, he also claimed I said Frans Botha was robbed against Tyson when I exposed him saying the same insult 17 times.

[harrygreb]

[quote="barry"]>>>After five pages of people lampooning you for this statement, and begrudgingly admitting that George Foreman, out of all of Norton's other opponents, was better than Haines and Tate, you deleted the thread.<<<

People lampooning me...that's really funny! You were the only person yapping on that thread and you were crying about me exposing you for being a liar who had no idea what he was talking about and you have not been able to let it go! You see, all you can do is try to make up shit and you look like an even bigger idiot doing it.

The best thing you could do, as I have suggested many times over, is let it go, move on and quit making such ridiculous and untrue statements about an era of boxing that everyone knows you have no clue about![/quote]

actually barry, its quite clear that decagon has a very good clue about the era and boxing in general. he's spot on about tyson, he's also correct about hagler never "..getting on his bicycle". please go to the max baer/marciano thread where i have put you right on a few more things. i'm new to this site but its good to know that at least some people know what they are talking about.

[DoubleM]

Hagler is my all-time favorite, but he is lacking slightly in a few departments(only slightly). I think people here are overrating his speed. It was good, but he was no speed demon ala' Robinson or Leonard. Power? He was not in Ketchel's, Steele's or Robinson's class. He was a combination puncher who usually KO'd you accumulatively. He had a few spectacular one-punch KO's in his career(Fully Obel comes to mind), but they were the exception, not the rule.

Flawless fighters? Robinson is the only one who comes to mind. Perfect 10s in all departments: Speed, power, boxing skill, chin, durability, stamina, quality of opposition, jab, cross, hook, uppercut, footwork....no flaws whatsoever, except for his love of a good brawl when he would have been better off boxing.

But Nero - Hagler's handspeed and power weren't flaws. They were not bad points. Hagler had good speed, and good power. Check out his jabs from '80-'83 especially, they had snap on them. Hagler was very, very well rounded. The most well rounded.

Could Robinson switch stances? His defense was a bit leaky. And he couldn't swarm over a guy Joe Frazier-style as an alternative like Hagler could.

No, I wouldn't call it a "flaw". But I'm looking at this on a scale of 1-10. Hagler falls short of 10 in those two categories, while Robinson is a perfect 10 in all.

Could he switch stances? I dunno....I wouldn't say no. It wasn't his style. But I wouldn't say he was incapable of it.

His defense was air tight when he chose to box. When he chose to slug he didn't worry as much about it.

Couldn't swarm? Sure he could. He swarmed all over George Costner and KO'd him. Costner was a top fighter.

Mate, Robinson doesn't have a ten in every category. I could name a few things Hagler had better: defense, variety (switching stances and all), uppercuts, durability and discipline. Stamina, footwork, accuracy and inside fighting are all debatable, both possessed these traits and attributes to a great degree. I would say Robinson was clearly the better boxer-mover, packed a little more power, and was faster. Hagler's combinations were not far behind Robinson's. Overrall, Hagler was the more complete fighter.

[surf-bat]

But Nero - Hagler's handspeed and power weren't flaws. They were not bad points. Hagler had good speed, and good power. Check out his jabs from '80-'83 especially, they had snap on them. Hagler was very, very well rounded. The most well rounded.

Could Robinson switch stances? His defense was a bit leaky. And he couldn't swarm over a guy Joe Frazier-style as an alternative like Hagler could.

No, I wouldn't call it a "flaw". But I'm looking at this on a scale of 1-10. Hagler falls short of 10 in those two categories, while Robinson is a perfect 10 in all.

Could he switch stances? I dunno....I wouldn't say no. It wasn't his style. But I wouldn't say he was incapable of it.

His defense was air tight when he chose to box. When he chose to slug he didn't worry as much about it.

Couldn't swarm? Sure he could. He swarmed all over George Costner and KO'd him. Costner was a top fighter.

Mate, Robinson doesn't have a ten in every category. I could name a few things Hagler had better: defense, variety (switching stances and all), uppercuts, durability and discipline. Stamina, footwork, accuracy and inside fighting are all debatable, both possessed these traits and attributes to a great degree. I would say Robinson was clearly the better boxer-mover, packed a little more power, and was faster. Hagler's combinations were not far behind Robinson's. Overrall, Hagler was the more complete fighter.

1. What cetegory did Robinson not have a 10 in?

2. Defense? Prime for prime, Robinson was superior. Unfortunately we don't have many films of the prime, WELERWEIGHT Robinson, just newspaper and eyewitness accounts. All of which point to Robinson's great defensive ability. Not sure how you can say Marvin has him here.

3. Uppercuts? Again, how do you know Marvin has him here? He might, he might not. Both were great at it. Score both a 10.

4. Durability??? You're kidding right? Both were 10s, but don't forget Robinson had over twice as many fights and was never stopped

5. Discipline? Again, what do you base this on?

And what about adaptability? Marvin had a very difficult time when things didn't go according to plan(see Antuofermo, Duran, Roldan, etc.). He could adapt, yes, but he didn't like to, preferring to see a game plan taken to it's end. It almost cost him vs. Duran. Luckily he found out that the judges were gonna rob him and he kicked it into high gear.

He never was comfortable with it, though. Leonard and Robinson were. They could change tactics in the middle of a fight flawlessly.

[DoubleM]

No, I wouldn't call it a "flaw". But I'm looking at this on a scale of 1-10. Hagler falls short of 10 in those two categories, while Robinson is a perfect 10 in all.

Could he switch stances? I dunno....I wouldn't say no. It wasn't his style. But I wouldn't say he was incapable of it.

His defense was air tight when he chose to box. When he chose to slug he didn't worry as much about it.

Couldn't swarm? Sure he could. He swarmed all over George Costner and KO'd him. Costner was a top fighter.

Mate, Robinson doesn't have a ten in every category. I could name a few things Hagler had better: defense, variety (switching stances and all), uppercuts, durability and discipline. Stamina, footwork, accuracy and inside fighting are all debatable, both possessed these traits and attributes to a great degree. I would say Robinson was clearly the better boxer-mover, packed a little more power, and was faster. Hagler's combinations were not far behind Robinson's. Overrall, Hagler was the more complete fighter.

1. What cetegory did Robinson not have a 10 in?

2. Defense? Prime for prime, Robinson was superior. Unfortunately we don't have many films of the prime, WELERWEIGHT Robinson, just newspaper and eyewitness accounts. All of which point to Robinson's great defensive ability. Not sure how you can say Marvin has him here.

3. Uppercuts? Again, how do you know Marvin has him here? He might, he might not. Both were great at it. Score both a 10.

4. Durability??? You're kidding right? Both were 10s, but don't forget Robinson had over twice as many fights and was never stopped

5. Discipline? Again, what do you base this on?

And what about adaptability? Marvin had a very difficult time when things didn't go according to plan(see Antuofermo, Duran, Roldan, etc.). He could adapt, yes, but he didn't like to, preferring to see a game plan taken to it's end. It almost cost him vs. Duran. Luckily he found out that the judges were gonna rob him and he kicked it into high gear.

He never was comfortable with it, though. Leonard and Robinson were. They could change tactics in the middle of a fight flawlessly.

Robinson didn't have a ten in power, speed, defense, durability, stamina, among other things. Maybe eights and nines, but let's not go overboard. Rodrigo Valdez would score a ten in power. Meldrick Taylor would score a ten in speed. Pernell Whitaker would score a ten in defense. Marvelous Marvin Hagler would score a ten in durability. Henry Armstrong would score a ten in stamina. See where I'm going? A ten is the absolute best of the best.

Robinson's defense was not great. Good, yes. I've seen him outjabbed a few times, and get caught. As a guy gets older, it's not usually his skills that go, but his speed, durability, power, stamina, the more physical things. Check out Foreman, Louis, Duran, these guys carried their skills, but not the rest of it.

I'm confident saying Hagler had the better uppercuts. I've seen quite a lot of Robinson, and he was a fabulous combination puncher, but he wasn't a great uppercut puncher. He certainly wasn't bad with them, but Hagler was better. He used them a lot on the inside, as a lead, whatever. He dissected quite a few guys with them. Cabrera, Obelmejias, Hamsho, Sibson, Briscoe, you name it.

No, I'm not kidding when I say Hagler was more durable. Robinson may have had more fights... But he was down a few times, and hurt too. He had a great chin, but not like Hagler's. Robinson never faced the same crunching hitters as Hagler did. Graziano landed his right hand once, and floored Robinson - I will admit I think he just caught Robinson off balance and by surprise, but still. Hagler faced probably the hardest hitting collection of middleweights of any champion, and was never legitimately put down. Hearns, Mugabi, Hart - these are guys who would score a ten in power, and all of them had fast hands to go with it. They all hit Hagler flush on the jaw, I have the films to prove it - and they never budged him. He gave a little wobble when Hearns hit him with a ten punch combination, but fired right back, and the next thing you hear is "and a good left by Hagler." Briscoe, Roldan, Obelmejias, Cabrera, these guys all hit very hard. In a tier slightly below, you have Scypion, Sibson, Watts, Lee and more... Hagler was in there with some serious firepower. I've even seen Hagler take hard low blows and not react. Even headbutts - no reaction. Mustafa Hamsho, that dirty little fornicator, performed a diving headbutt on Hagler, but the champion didn't move.

Hagler was definitely more disciplined. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Hagler's training regime... He used to call his training camp 'jail'. No women, no alcohol, no luxuries - he used to isolate himself away from everything but seagulls and his team. He trained as hard as anybody, and treated every fight as though it was a war. The same can't be said about Robinson.

Adaptability... Here's something people like to pick Hagler up on. It's not true that he couldn't adapt though - check out the Obelmejias fights... Hagler sees he isn't getting anywhere by boxing the taller man, so he takes the fight to him and swarms all over the challenger. Against Duran, it wasn't Hagler's fault the fight was close (though not as close as is sometimes perceived - the judges were kind to Duran) - it was the Petronellis. You can hear them in the fight telling Hagler to stay at range and box, but the clever Duran just wouldn't play ball. But still, the Petronellis continued to instruct Hagler to box.
The Leonard fight, Hagler adapted. Admittedly, he was far past his prime by this point, and anybody who has followed his career with agree with me when I say that. But Hagler became more aggressive and made the fight closer when he saw he wasn't having success trying to box Leonard.
The first Antuofermo fight isn't a black mark on Hagler's record - or rather it is, but it shouldn't be. Hagler won that fight fair and square, and any reasonable judge would have scored that fight for him by a clear margin. Antuofermo was just difficult - a fast-paced fighter with a granite chin and an awkward and dirty style... He'd have given anyone fits. The same with Roldan - Hagler wasn't required to adapt. He wouldn't have done any better by boxing or brawling, it was just Roldan, he was awkward.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

but manassa, ur not considering robinson in his absolute prime welterweight. all those things u described were when he was past his prime at middleweight.

[DoubleM]

but manassa, ur not considering robinson in his absolute prime welterweight. all those things u described were when he was past his prime at middleweight.

I am considering him at welterweight. But the thing is, we have no film of him there, or at least I don't.

Iwon't say anything about who was better between Hagler and Robinson... But Hagler was more complete, and that's the end of it. He could just do more things and carry out more tasks to a high degree.

[ferroz]

Ray Robinson. You'll never see such a fast defensive genius that you'll be scared shitless to trade with.

I agree.

[DoubleM]

I am considering him at welterweight. But the thing is, we have no film of him there, or at least I don't.

I've seen Robinson fight at lightweight, as an amateur.

You know, I actually have some Golden Gloves footage of him... But the file won't open.

[Collins2000]

Robinson didn't have a ten in power, speed, defense, durability, stamina, among other things. Maybe eights and nines, but let's not go overboard. Rodrigo Valdez would score a ten in power. Meldrick Taylor would score a ten in speed. Pernell Whitaker would score a ten in defense. Marvelous Marvin Hagler would score a ten in durability. Henry Armstrong would score a ten in stamina. See where I'm going? A ten is the absolute best of the best.

Robinson's defense was not great. Good, yes. I've seen him outjabbed a few times, and get caught. As a guy gets older, it's not usually his skills that go, but his speed, durability, power, stamina, the more physical things. Check out Foreman, Louis, Duran, these guys carried their skills, but not the rest of it.

I'm confident saying Hagler had the better uppercuts. I've seen quite a lot of Robinson, and he was a fabulous combination puncher, but he wasn't a great uppercut puncher. He certainly wasn't bad with them, but Hagler was better. He used them a lot on the inside, as a lead, whatever. He dissected quite a few guys with them. Cabrera, Obelmejias, Hamsho, Sibson, Briscoe, you name it.

No, I'm not kidding when I say Hagler was more durable. Robinson may have had more fights... But he was down a few times, and hurt too. He had a great chin, but not like Hagler's. Robinson never faced the same crunching hitters as Hagler did. Graziano landed his right hand once, and floored Robinson - I will admit I think he just caught Robinson off balance and by surprise, but still. Hagler faced probably the hardest hitting collection of middleweights of any champion, and was never legitimately put down. Hearns, Mugabi, Hart - these are guys who would score a ten in power, and all of them had fast hands to go with it. They all hit Hagler flush on the jaw, I have the films to prove it - and they never budged him. He gave a little wobble when Hearns hit him with a ten punch combination, but fired right back, and the next thing you hear is "and a good left by Hagler." Briscoe, Roldan, Obelmejias, Cabrera, these guys all hit very hard. In a tier slightly below, you have Scypion, Sibson, Watts, Lee and more... Hagler was in there with some serious firepower. I've even seen Hagler take hard low blows and not react. Even headbutts - no reaction. Mustafa Hamsho, that dirty little fornicator, performed a diving headbutt on Hagler, but the champion didn't move.

Hagler was definitely more disciplined. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Hagler's training regime... He used to call his training camp 'jail'. No women, no alcohol, no luxuries - he used to isolate himself away from everything but seagulls and his team. He trained as hard as anybody, and treated every fight as though it was a war. The same can't be said about Robinson.

Adaptability... Here's something people like to pick Hagler up on. It's not true that he couldn't adapt though - check out the Obelmejias fights... Hagler sees he isn't getting anywhere by boxing the taller man, so he takes the fight to him and swarms all over the challenger. Against Duran, it wasn't Hagler's fault the fight was close (though not as close as is sometimes perceived - the judges were kind to Duran) - it was the Petronellis. You can hear them in the fight telling Hagler to stay at range and box, but the clever Duran just wouldn't play ball. But still, the Petronellis continued to instruct Hagler to box.
The Leonard fight, Hagler adapted. Admittedly, he was far past his prime by this point, and anybody who has followed his career with agree with me when I say that. But Hagler became more aggressive and made the fight closer when he saw he wasn't having success trying to box Leonard.
The first Antuofermo fight isn't a black mark on Hagler's record - or rather it is, but it shouldn't be. Hagler won that fight fair and square, and any reasonable judge would have scored that fight for him by a clear margin. Antuofermo was just difficult - a fast-paced fighter with a granite chin and an awkward and dirty style... He'd have given anyone fits. The same with Roldan - Hagler wasn't required to adapt. He wouldn't have done any better by boxing or brawling, it was just Roldan, he was awkward.

Some excellent points. One thing I'd disagree on though is the statement that Antuerfermo would give anyone fits. Minter handled him without much trouble when winning the title and even more so when stopping him in the rematch. In fact, their respective showings against Antuerfermo were probably why the British bookies had Minter a slight favourite going into the Hagler defence. With hindsight this meant bugger all but it does show to me that Vito didn't have a style that gave everyone trouble.

[barry]

>>>Thanks, Greb. Barry and I have extremely different views on the pre-Dempsey era, and it'll take a few more months for us to reconcile them. His is mostly based primarily on newsprint, and mine is based primarily on video.<<<

Which is why you know absolutely nothing about this era and before, or actually, aside from the one book that you have read on Charley Burley (which doesn't mean anything as to you print doesn't count), you know nothing about any pre-1960 fighters because there just isn't much film that is out for the public, except the few films that espn classic shows over and over and over and unless you know someone who works for ESPN, or someone who was close enough to Jim Jacobs, or Bill Cayton, then you haven't seen much film of any fighter pre-1960, except the ESPN regulars and that little bit of viewing is the "video" that you base your ridiulous views on! So quit trying to pretned like you have really seen viedo of all of the fighters when you have only seen a very, very few, or else you'll be questioned about several of the fighters and the fights and we already know that you don't want that because you can't answer it!

Besides, as I mentioned in another thread, how can you dis-credit one fighter while praising someone like Harry Greb to the sky...you have never seen Greb...ever, so based on what you say, how can you rate him at all...hmmm!

You yourself have stated that you have did virtually no research on the time, so how can you even speak on any of the fighters? Oh, I know, you do what you always do, make shit up, or lie about it...thats why no one takes you seriously! And if by chance anyone does, then they are more clueless than you are!

[DoubleM]

Robinson didn't have a ten in power, speed, defense, durability, stamina, among other things. Maybe eights and nines, but let's not go overboard. Rodrigo Valdez would score a ten in power. Meldrick Taylor would score a ten in speed. Pernell Whitaker would score a ten in defense. Marvelous Marvin Hagler would score a ten in durability. Henry Armstrong would score a ten in stamina. See where I'm going? A ten is the absolute best of the best.

Robinson's defense was not great. Good, yes. I've seen him outjabbed a few times, and get caught. As a guy gets older, it's not usually his skills that go, but his speed, durability, power, stamina, the more physical things. Check out Foreman, Louis, Duran, these guys carried their skills, but not the rest of it.

I'm confident saying Hagler had the better uppercuts. I've seen quite a lot of Robinson, and he was a fabulous combination puncher, but he wasn't a great uppercut puncher. He certainly wasn't bad with them, but Hagler was better. He used them a lot on the inside, as a lead, whatever. He dissected quite a few guys with them. Cabrera, Obelmejias, Hamsho, Sibson, Briscoe, you name it.

No, I'm not kidding when I say Hagler was more durable. Robinson may have had more fights... But he was down a few times, and hurt too. He had a great chin, but not like Hagler's. Robinson never faced the same crunching hitters as Hagler did. Graziano landed his right hand once, and floored Robinson - I will admit I think he just caught Robinson off balance and by surprise, but still. Hagler faced probably the hardest hitting collection of middleweights of any champion, and was never legitimately put down. Hearns, Mugabi, Hart - these are guys who would score a ten in power, and all of them had fast hands to go with it. They all hit Hagler flush on the jaw, I have the films to prove it - and they never budged him. He gave a little wobble when Hearns hit him with a ten punch combination, but fired right back, and the next thing you hear is "and a good left by Hagler." Briscoe, Roldan, Obelmejias, Cabrera, these guys all hit very hard. In a tier slightly below, you have Scypion, Sibson, Watts, Lee and more... Hagler was in there with some serious firepower. I've even seen Hagler take hard low blows and not react. Even headbutts - no reaction. Mustafa Hamsho, that dirty little fornicator, performed a diving headbutt on Hagler, but the champion didn't move.

Hagler was definitely more disciplined. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Hagler's training regime... He used to call his training camp 'jail'. No women, no alcohol, no luxuries - he used to isolate himself away from everything but seagulls and his team. He trained as hard as anybody, and treated every fight as though it was a war. The same can't be said about Robinson.

Adaptability... Here's something people like to pick Hagler up on. It's not true that he couldn't adapt though - check out the Obelmejias fights... Hagler sees he isn't getting anywhere by boxing the taller man, so he takes the fight to him and swarms all over the challenger. Against Duran, it wasn't Hagler's fault the fight was close (though not as close as is sometimes perceived - the judges were kind to Duran) - it was the Petronellis. You can hear them in the fight telling Hagler to stay at range and box, but the clever Duran just wouldn't play ball. But still, the Petronellis continued to instruct Hagler to box.
The Leonard fight, Hagler adapted. Admittedly, he was far past his prime by this point, and anybody who has followed his career with agree with me when I say that. But Hagler became more aggressive and made the fight closer when he saw he wasn't having success trying to box Leonard.
The first Antuofermo fight isn't a black mark on Hagler's record - or rather it is, but it shouldn't be. Hagler won that fight fair and square, and any reasonable judge would have scored that fight for him by a clear margin. Antuofermo was just difficult - a fast-paced fighter with a granite chin and an awkward and dirty style... He'd have given anyone fits. The same with Roldan - Hagler wasn't required to adapt. He wouldn't have done any better by boxing or brawling, it was just Roldan, he was awkward.

Some excellent points. One thing I'd disagree on though is the statement that Antuerfermo would give anyone fits. Minter handled him without much trouble when winning the title and even more so when stopping him in the rematch. In fact, their respective showings against Antuerfermo were probably why the British bookies had Minter a slight favourite going into the Hagler defence. With hindsight this meant bugger all but it does show to me that Vito didn't have a style that gave everyone trouble.

He ran Minter pretty close (not as close as the scorecards implied though), but you may have a point. I should have said Antuofermo had a style that would give most trouble. I'm pretty sure Robinson would have his hands full too, and even Monzon.

[silkov]

But Nero - Hagler's handspeed and power weren't flaws. They were not bad points. Hagler had good speed, and good power. Check out his jabs from '80-'83 especially, they had snap on them. Hagler was very, very well rounded. The most well rounded.

Could Robinson switch stances? His defense was a bit leaky. And he couldn't swarm over a guy Joe Frazier-style as an alternative like Hagler could.

No, I wouldn't call it a "flaw". But I'm looking at this on a scale of 1-10. Hagler falls short of 10 in those two categories, while Robinson is a perfect 10 in all.

Could he switch stances? I dunno....I wouldn't say no. It wasn't his style. But I wouldn't say he was incapable of it.

His defense was air tight when he chose to box. When he chose to slug he didn't worry as much about it.

Couldn't swarm? Sure he could. He swarmed all over George Costner and KO'd him. Costner was a top fighter.

Mate, Robinson doesn't have a ten in every category. I could name a few things Hagler had better: defense, variety (switching stances and all), uppercuts, durability and discipline. Stamina, footwork, accuracy and inside fighting are all debatable, both possessed these traits and attributes to a great degree. I would say Robinson was clearly the better boxer-mover, packed a little more power, and was faster. Hagler's combinations were not far behind Robinson's. Overrall, Hagler was the more complete fighter.

I don't really see why Hagler is the more complete fighter to Robinson, I'm a big Hagler fan but Robinson was faster, had a touch more skill and he had the edge in power too. Robinsons combinations even at 37 were a marvel to behold... he had the stamina to do 15 hard rounds when past 40... for me Robinson pips Marvin a little at everything... if they had fought in their primes I think Ray would just be too quick and tough all round for even a peak Hagler...

[DoubleM]

No, I wouldn't call it a "flaw". But I'm looking at this on a scale of 1-10. Hagler falls short of 10 in those two categories, while Robinson is a perfect 10 in all.

Could he switch stances? I dunno....I wouldn't say no. It wasn't his style. But I wouldn't say he was incapable of it.

His defense was air tight when he chose to box. When he chose to slug he didn't worry as much about it.

Couldn't swarm? Sure he could. He swarmed all over George Costner and KO'd him. Costner was a top fighter.

Mate, Robinson doesn't have a ten in every category. I could name a few things Hagler had better: defense, variety (switching stances and all), uppercuts, durability and discipline. Stamina, footwork, accuracy and inside fighting are all debatable, both possessed these traits and attributes to a great degree. I would say Robinson was clearly the better boxer-mover, packed a little more power, and was faster. Hagler's combinations were not far behind Robinson's. Overrall, Hagler was the more complete fighter.

I don't really see why Hagler is the more complete fighter to Robinson, I'm a big Hagler fan but Robinson was faster, had a touch more skill and he had the edge in power too. Robinsons combinations even at 37 were a marvel to behold... he had the stamina to do 15 hard rounds when past 40... for me Robinson pips Marvin a little at everything... if they had fought in their primes I think Ray would just be too quick and tough all round for even a peak Hagler...

Silkov... I respect your opinion. But look - a complete fighter is one that has everything or can perform anything to a high degree. When it comes to this, there is not a single category Hagler was even average in. Could Robinson switch stances? His defense was a little leaky. Robinson might be better at some things, but Hagler was better all around. Hagler was good-to-very good at anything you can name, and he possessed certain things which were better than Robinson.

[silkov]

Mate, Robinson doesn't have a ten in every category. I could name a few things Hagler had better: defense, variety (switching stances and all), uppercuts, durability and discipline. Stamina, footwork, accuracy and inside fighting are all debatable, both possessed these traits and attributes to a great degree. I would say Robinson was clearly the better boxer-mover, packed a little more power, and was faster. Hagler's combinations were not far behind Robinson's. Overrall, Hagler was the more complete fighter.

I don't really see why Hagler is the more complete fighter to Robinson, I'm a big Hagler fan but Robinson was faster, had a touch more skill and he had the edge in power too. Robinsons combinations even at 37 were a marvel to behold... he had the stamina to do 15 hard rounds when past 40... for me Robinson pips Marvin a little at everything... if they had fought in their primes I think Ray would just be too quick and tough all round for even a peak Hagler...

Silkov... I respect your opinion. But look - a complete fighter is one that has everything or can perform anything to a high degree. When it comes to this, there is not a single category Hagler was even average in. Could Robinson switch stances? His defense was a little leaky. Robinson might be better at some things, but Hagler was better all around. Hagler was good-to-very good at anything you can name, and he possessed certain things which were better than Robinson.

I just don't see what Hagler was better than Ray at?... stamina? no, speed? no, power? no.... remember we are talking about a peak Robinson here, ...but also Robinsons longevity itself is a sign of his talents, when Hagler slowed down he became a somewhat one-paced maurader, Ray had far better skills imo... the fact that Ray won titles at different divisions (almost 3) is testament to him being a better all round boxer I think... Hagler was a great middleweight but Ray pips him pound for pound and was a better all round boxer for my money...
This is why I'd rate Duran higher than Hagler too as an all round boxer...

[DoubleM]

I don't really see why Hagler is the more complete fighter to Robinson, I'm a big Hagler fan but Robinson was faster, had a touch more skill and he had the edge in power too. Robinsons combinations even at 37 were a marvel to behold... he had the stamina to do 15 hard rounds when past 40... for me Robinson pips Marvin a little at everything... if they had fought in their primes I think Ray would just be too quick and tough all round for even a peak Hagler...

Silkov... I respect your opinion. But look - a complete fighter is one that has everything or can perform anything to a high degree. When it comes to this, there is not a single category Hagler was even average in. Could Robinson switch stances? His defense was a little leaky. Robinson might be better at some things, but Hagler was better all around. Hagler was good-to-very good at anything you can name, and he possessed certain things which were better than Robinson.

I just don't see what Hagler was better than Ray at?... stamina? no, speed? no, power? no.... remember we are talking about a peak Robinson here, ...but also Robinsons longevity itself is a sign of his talents, when Hagler slowed down he became a somewhat one-paced maurader, Ray had far better skills imo... the fact that Ray won titles at different divisions (almost 3) is testament to him being a better all round boxer I think... Hagler was a great middleweight but Ray pips him pound for pound and was a better all round boxer for my money...
This is why I'd rate Duran higher than Hagler too as an all round boxer...

Durability, discipline, defense, uppercuts, stance switching - Hagler did it all better than Robinson. Hagler was a rare fighter whose skills actually diminished as he got older and slower. I can see that from the film. Check him out between '77 and '80. He was the complete professional.

[silkov]

Silkov... I respect your opinion. But look - a complete fighter is one that has everything or can perform anything to a high degree. When it comes to this, there is not a single category Hagler was even average in. Could Robinson switch stances? His defense was a little leaky. Robinson might be better at some things, but Hagler was better all around. Hagler was good-to-very good at anything you can name, and he possessed certain things which were better than Robinson.

I just don't see what Hagler was better than Ray at?... stamina? no, speed? no, power? no.... remember we are talking about a peak Robinson here, ...but also Robinsons longevity itself is a sign of his talents, when Hagler slowed down he became a somewhat one-paced maurader, Ray had far better skills imo... the fact that Ray won titles at different divisions (almost 3) is testament to him being a better all round boxer I think... Hagler was a great middleweight but Ray pips him pound for pound and was a better all round boxer for my money...
This is why I'd rate Duran higher than Hagler too as an all round boxer...

Durability, discipline, defense, uppercuts, stance switching - Hagler did it all better than Robinson. Hagler was a rare fighter whose skills actually diminished as he got older and slower. I can see that from the film.


Check him out between '77 and '80. He was the complete professional.

Well for me Ray was better all round, he could box and he could slug, he could take a man out with one punch, something that Hagler really couldn't do... Ray was also as adept at infighting as he was fighting on the outside. I've got all the available stuff on Hagler and he's a favourite of mine but personally I've never seen a better all round boxer, that is a man who has every facet in his game, ...I've never seen a better all round boxer than Robinson imo...

[Grimm]

The thing Hagler was definitely better at was being the bull he could get inside and absorb punishment to land one big shot Robinson would get inside when he had to but not the same way he wasn't as rugged and as good at cutting the ring off.

For me Hagler was definitely better on an inside and outside game.