hagler vs robinson

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 27 Nov 2007, 17:28

Seamus wrote:Serious question Ringsider. Do your negative opinions of southpaws apply only to boxers, or do you think guys like Babe Ruth, Steve Young etc could never really be considered great because they were lefthanded ?

Fair question.....only fighters.

Also upon thinking about your own words here Seamus:

I wish their was a way you could be put on some ESPN Show so people could see and hear you give your opinions about Marvin Hagler and Pernell Whitaker. Then afterwards people could point and laugh when they recognized you.

I think maybe Seamus, you ought to be on a sport show........anyone who actually believes that Hagler could out box Surgar Ray Robinson is truely an expert, and that opinion needs to be seen and heard. Hagler could not out box an old fat Sugar Ray Leonard, he sure ain't going to do it with the real "Sugar Ray".

Hagler wasn't that good. His big chance to prove his worth, Ray Leonard made him look like a plodding fool. Leonard would have done it earlier too. Hagler could not box oranges. He was a banger who came to his fights in shape, but he was no boxer....ever!!

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 27 Nov 2007, 18:28

Never said Hagler would outbox Robinson. Fullmer, Basilio, Turpin, LaMotta and Turpin didn't outbox Robinson either, did they ? But they did get the decision. I like Hagler's chin and his offense better than any of those guys. I can't envision Robinson trying to fight the way Leonard did either, and I thought Leonard clearly won. I really believe SRR would go to war with Hagler and he'd lose.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 27 Nov 2007, 19:35

Seamus wrote:...blah,blah,blah..... I really believe SRR would go to war with Hagler and he'd lose.

Well you can believe if you flap your arms hard and fast enough you could fly.....that doesn't make it so!!

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 27 Nov 2007, 21:33

So Ringsider, where do you rate Marvin Hagler among all time Middleweights ? Is he top 10 ? Top 20 ? Even lower ?

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 27 Nov 2007, 23:40

It doesn't matter where I rank Hagler.......but I will say I believe he is sadly very over rated. That is the problem.

Like I have said a million times, just watch his fights. He was painful to watch. Plodding southpaw. Terrible footwork. His strong points were he could bang and he was always in shape. He loved to fight. But I really don't think he was that "skilled" of a fighter technically. He fought a lot of medicore MW who were the best that were out there at the time. All his big fights were against smaller men coming up from lower weights trying to beat Hagler the "natural" MW. You don't get any credit from me for beating up smaller men.

Let us reverse it for a minute here. You take Hagler and his skill level and drop him down to fight a LW Duran.......now you tell me who wins? I know who I would be betting on.

To say Hagler out boxes the likes a of Sugar Ray Robinson is just fantasy talk.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 28 Nov 2007, 17:18

i have some sympathy with this opinion. the incredible 3 rounds with hearns could easily have been a ko for either man. if it had gone to tommy where would haglers rep be today?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 29 Nov 2007, 01:51

Hagler wins this fight.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 29 Nov 2007, 01:59

harrygreb wrote:i have some sympathy with this opinion. the incredible 3 rounds with hearns could easily have been a ko for either man. if it had gone to tommy where would haglers rep be today?

No way. Hearns hit Hagler with an absolute peach of a punch and Hagler hardly budged. When Hagler hit Tommy though...

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 29 Nov 2007, 07:40

true, but my point is the fight was great because it could have gone either way at various times, short though it was. great beard, hagler.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 29 Nov 2007, 08:33

elmersalsa wrote:Hagler wins this fight.

Yeh right, Hagler couldn't beat Sugar Ray Leonard.....but he is going to beat Sugar Ray Robinson.

Have another drink.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 29 Nov 2007, 10:54

Leonard beat a faded Hagler, and the decision was debatable. He wouldnt have beaten the peak version. Robinson might have, fight would have gone the distance with a close nod either way

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 30 Nov 2007, 03:22

dr_devious wrote:Leonard beat a faded Hagler, and the decision was debatable. Blah,blah,blah......

Oh BS.........Leonard wasn't in his prime either. Prime for prime Leonard would have beaten Hagler everytime out. Hagler could not box, Leonard could........open your eyes!!

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 30 Nov 2007, 06:44

So how did Hagler win something like 63 out of 67 fights, with most of his career fighting at contender or world level Ringlicker? Look at the names on his ledger even before he won the title, look at his fights and say he cant box. Youre a troll

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 30 Nov 2007, 08:31

SRR takes a competitive but comfortabe UD over Hagler. SRR is a bad matchup for Hagler.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 30 Nov 2007, 09:10

Hagler boxed brilliantly in Hamsho I and vs Sibson, but something tells me Ringsider is going to say his grandmother could outbox those guys. What's this obsession with Hagler's footwork ? Fullmer, Basilio, Turpin and LaMotta DIDN'T outbox Robinson, they narrowly beat him in the trenches. All time, Robinson is clearly ahead of Hagler, but if you watch him in his losses, he sometimes made the mistake of going toe to toe for long periods with guys he could easily have outboxed. If Robinson slugs it out with Hagler, why would Marvin need to have footwork ?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 30 Nov 2007, 09:38

Seamus wrote:Hagler boxed brilliantly in Hamsho I and vs Sibson, but something tells me Ringsider is going to say his grandmother could outbox those guys. What's this obsession with Hagler's footwork ? Fullmer, Basilio, Turpin and LaMotta DIDN'T outbox Robinson, they narrowly beat him in the trenches. All time, Robinson is clearly ahead of Hagler, but if you watch him in his losses, he sometimes made the mistake of going toe to toe for long periods with guys he could easily have outboxed. If Robinson slugs it out with Hagler, why would Marvin need to have footwork ?

Even when fighting in close footwork matters, but I think Hagler’s footwork, while probably his weakest link, was still decent, especially when fighting in close. However, please consider that SRR was quite old when he lost several of the fights you mentioned, and even though he was only around 30 when he lost to Turpin, he had been fighting on a weekly basis for a while prior to that and may have been a little worn out. Many are quick to explain away loses of more recent fighters who fight maybe 2-3 times a year, but will give absolutely nothing to guys who fought at a time when life, travel, and the sport in general was MUCH tougher.

No doubt Hagler was an ATG and one of my favorites, but SRR when he was at his peak was about as unbeatable as any fighter in history. Of course during most of those years he was more a WW than a MW, but he was also fighting and beating most of the best MWs of the era as well at a time when the talent was much deeper than even Hagler’s era.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 30 Nov 2007, 12:57

Oh boy....out boxing Hamsho & Sibson. Two medicore MW at best, and that is how you judge Hagler's boxing ability? Hell just watch his fight with Vito and all his "boxing ability". Just sad really. :( Hagler was a banger, he wasn't a boxer. Just watch the Sugar Ray Leonard fight, as SRL makes him look like the stumbling slow plodding southpaw he was.