Yea... Hagler could become Joe Frazier (Obelmejias, Hearns), Joe Louis (Hamsho II, Sibson), Muhammad Ali (Briscoe, Antuofermo, Hamsho I), Mike Tyson (Lee, Seales III), anyone he wanted.Grimm wrote: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.
all time most balanced fighter
My friend, if you don't know that Robinson was a perfect 10 in power(ask Gene Fullmer), speed, durability, defense and stamina, then you just plain haven't done your homework. Sounds to me like you're basing your opinion on what they're showing on ESPN Classic, which was a Robinson above his natural weight. Again, look at his record as a welter and read the newspaper write ups of his fights there. The man had blazing speed, murderous power and a granite chin. Anyone who tells you different is just plain wrong.DoubleM wrote: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.Nero3000 wrote:1. What cetegory did Robinson not have a 10 in?DoubleM wrote: 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.
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'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.
Yes, there have been faster fighters than Robby(Greb, Mel Taylor, etc) and harder hitters(Ketchel, Fitzsimmons), and superior defensive fighters(Whitaker, Pep) and guys with a harder chin(Hagler)...but that's not what this thread is about, is it?? It's about who had the best combination of all.
Nero3000 wrote:My friend, if you don't know that Robinson was a perfect 10 in power(ask Gene Fullmer), speed, durability, defense and stamina, then you just plain haven't done your homework. Sounds to me like you're basing your opinion on what they're showing on ESPN Classic, which was a Robinson above his natural weight. Again, look at his record as a welter and read the newspaper write ups of his fights there. The man had blazing speed, murderous power and a granite chin. Anyone who tells you different is just plain wrong.DoubleM wrote: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.Nero3000 wrote: 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'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.
Yes, there have been faster fighters than Robby(Greb, Mel Taylor, etc) and harder hitters(Ketchel, Fitzsimmons), and superior defensive fighters(Whitaker, Pep) and guys with a harder chin(Hagler)...but that's not what this thread is about, is it?? It's about who had the best combination of all.
My friend, if you don't know that Robinson was a perfect 10 in power(ask Gene Fullmer), speed, durability, defense and stamina, then you just plain haven't done your homework.
Uh...? You've just answered your own question right there.Yes, there have been faster fighters than Robby(Greb, Mel Taylor, etc) and harder hitters(Ketchel, Fitzsimmons), and superior defensive fighters(Whitaker, Pep) and guys with a harder chin(Hagler).
If there's anyone who has done their homework, it's me.
Robinson is not a 'ten' in power. John Mugabi gets a ten in power. Gerald McClellan gets a ten in power. Earnie Shavers gets a ten in power. Robinson admitted himself that it was his accuracy and timing that made him such a good puncher, and I agree.
Robinson is not a ten in durability either... He didn't exactly face a massive group of devastating hitters, did he? And he was hurt or dropped a few times. Hagler, for instance, faced probably the hardest hitting collection of middleweights of any champion, yet was never legitimately floored or even staggered once. You see where I'm going with this? A 'ten' is the best of the best. Let's not get carried away and start giving tens out willy-nilly.
re
I'm still anxious to hear your reasoning for this question:
How can you talk about people not being able to know what a fighter was like when there was very little film of that fighter, yet you rank Harry Greb at number one all time at middleweight, even though you have never seen him...ever? Seems to me like your just full of it and truly have no idea as to what you are talking about, but try not to run from the question this time...how can you rank one fighter that you have never seen so highly, yet say that because there are no footage of another fighter then how can anyone rate him, or even better rate him lower becasue there are no footage...whats your reasoning for that kind of hypocrital behavior?
How can you talk about people not being able to know what a fighter was like when there was very little film of that fighter, yet you rank Harry Greb at number one all time at middleweight, even though you have never seen him...ever? Seems to me like your just full of it and truly have no idea as to what you are talking about, but try not to run from the question this time...how can you rank one fighter that you have never seen so highly, yet say that because there are no footage of another fighter then how can anyone rate him, or even better rate him lower becasue there are no footage...whats your reasoning for that kind of hypocrital behavior?
re
Your words on John L. Sullivan:
>>>There's a possibility that Sullivan was a great fighter - just as there's a possibility that there are purple tigers living on Mars - but I don't find either very probable given the lack of evidence.<<<
Now how can you have that opinion on Sullivan based on no sources, yet rate Greb as the very best middleweight when there is, as you would say, no evidence? You rate Greb on the careers that other fighters had? Do you honestly have no idea about how ridiculous that sounds?
>>>There's a possibility that Sullivan was a great fighter - just as there's a possibility that there are purple tigers living on Mars - but I don't find either very probable given the lack of evidence.<<<
Now how can you have that opinion on Sullivan based on no sources, yet rate Greb as the very best middleweight when there is, as you would say, no evidence? You rate Greb on the careers that other fighters had? Do you honestly have no idea about how ridiculous that sounds?
re
>>>There's evidence that Greb was great in that he beat Gene Tunney. There is no Gene Tunney-leve fighter on Sullivan's resume<<<
Sure there are...you just don't know about them, but this isn't about Sullivan, or Greb! It's about you being such a hypocrite toward most early fighers simply because you just don't know about them!
Sure there are...you just don't know about them, but this isn't about Sullivan, or Greb! It's about you being such a hypocrite toward most early fighers simply because you just don't know about them!
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
re
What's your excuse Decagon? Why do you continue to try to yap about topics that it is obvious to everyone else that you know nothing about? Do you think anyone really listens to anything you say? We just view you like sort of stray dog that smells...dumber than other dogs, but desperate to be accepted, yet he continues to do things wrong...it's both sad and pathetic at the same time!
-
vagabundo55
- Heavyweight
Trying to get back on topic, I disagree on your comment about Sanchez.. I think he could brawl fairly well, he just was pretty good at hitting his opponent without getting hit (not saying he never got hit because he did). Anyway, my vote for the most balanced fighter goes to Robinson. Robinson is the closest comparison to the perfect boxer.Decagon wrote:Good post. See below.Ezzard wrote: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 standpointSorry. We usually do this by PM, but it sometimes spills over. We're kind of gay for each other.Lenny Albert wrote: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
About Sanchez and Charles, they couldn't really brawl, like Hagler or Robinson. It's hard to find an absolutely balanced fighter, because even the greatest fighters of all time don't need every skill in the book. Louis wasn't so great on defense, and he didn't have a very, very good chin, but he was so good offensively that it didn't matter.
I'm a closet Floyd Mayweather nutrider, and he has shown a lot of skills in the ring. He could move beautifully, like Robinson or Ali, if he had to, like against Hernandez and Corrales at 130, but he could also stand in front of you and be unhittable, like against N'Dou. He doesn't have killer power, but he puts fighters - good fighers - on their backs. But again, Mayweather wasn't a real brawler, although he does a good immitation of one when he uses that James Toney/Chris Byrd defense while standing in front of someone.