BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote:Myself and others don't think it was a robbery. We have had this subject before a while back; some people think Antufermo should have got the decision. I gave it to Hagler by 1 point. I don't think a draw was unjust.
Even if you think Hagler was "robbed" it certainly was not an impressive performance by Hagler. Doubtful that Robinson or Monzon would have much trouble with Antufermo at all.

It was an impressive performance and he definitely was robbed.

I had it 13-2, but 10-5 would be reasonable. Anybody scoring it for Vito or close either has an agenda or really missed the mark scoring that fight.

And how did you score De La Hoya v Whitaker and Mayweather v De La Hoya ?

There's a theory that Robinson earned more for a rematch than he did for the first fight against Fullmer, Turpin and Basilio. Robinson was already having money problems by then. I just wonder?

Seamus wrote:And how did you score De La Hoya v Whitaker and Mayweather v De La Hoya ?

9-3 for Pea & Floyd. Neither of those were difficult to score either.

Just as your Hagler 13-2 over Vito would raise eyebrows, so would those other scores.

Seamus wrote:Just as your Hagler 13-2 over Vito would raise eyebrows, so would those other scores.

Raise away. The only people that thought Hagler/Antuofermo was tight at the time it happened was Cosell and the judges. That was universally panned as a robbery. Through the years Vito's gutsy effort has turned into a winning one for some. It was nowhere near one.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Myself and others don't think it was a robbery. We have had this subject before a while back; some people think Antufermo should have got the decision. I gave it to Hagler by 1 point. I don't think a draw was unjust.
Even if you think Hagler was "robbed" it certainly was not an impressive performance by Hagler. Doubtful that Robinson or Monzon would have much trouble with Antufermo at all.

It was an impressive performance and he definitely was robbed.

I had it 13-2, but 10-5 would be reasonable. Anybody scoring it for Vito or close either has an agenda or really missed the mark scoring that fight.

13-2? Wow. I mean wow. If anyting ever deserved a that you love to use that is it. Hagler gave away more than 2 rounds.

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:No the "better winning streak" does not speak volumes. The level of competition counts a lot more than the sheer number of opponents that you beat.

If you just want to go by the number of title defenses, than yes Hagler had more than Robinson. Doesn't not make him better. If that was the case, then Bob Foster should be regarded as the best light heavyweight champion because he had the most title defenses for a light heavyweight. You yourself recently stated that Foster was not the best light heavyweight.

No one here is arguing that winning the middleweight title 5 times means that Robinson is the best.
The argument that I and others are making is basically that Robinson beat far better competition than Hagler did and that there is only one loss relevant loss for Robinson at middleweight, while Hagler had more losses and unimpressive performances. That is what you need to counter.

Well, if you say that Sugar Ray at middleweight beat better quality fighters, is not that far off. Hagler and Monzon beat great fighters, too. Hagler and Monzon were better at 160 because of:
winning streaks
more title defenses
More years with the crown
Retired at the right time.

Sugar Ray best win at 160 was WTKO14 Jake LaMotta
Marvelous' best win at 160 was WTKO2 Thomas Hearns
King Carlos' best win at 160 was WTKO11 Nino Benvenutti.

Most of you criteria doesn't mean very much. Are you really that impressed with beating Caveman Lee?
More years with the crown? Johnny Kilbane had the featherweight crown for more than 11 years. Does that make him the best featherweight.
Retired at the right time? That makes you a better fighter? (I will have to remember that the next time we are talking about Henry Armstrong or Roberto Duran.) You mean retiring after losing to a guy who had 1 fight in the previous 5 years.

Look at what you listed as the best wins. Was Thomas Hearns a great middleweight? No. Was Jake LaMotta and Nino Benvenuti? Yes.

Who were the next best wins? Monzon also beat Valdes and Griffith. Great middleweights.
Robinson beat Fullmer, Basilio, Turpin. He beat LaMotta 5 times.
Hagler next best wins were what? Duran? Mugabi? Hamsho? Were they great middleweights?

Saying Hearns isn't a great MW is a little unfair though. He wasn't a great MW cause he didn't stay there long, but he was a dominant fighter who could fight just about anywhere because of his frame in a 20 pound range. I think he'd be a favorite over Benvenuti at 160 and LaMotta and he would be very close fight. I know he didn't fight much at all at 160 but he could have, and if he had he'd have been a problem. Just a tremendous fighter he was.

Agreed, Hearns was excellent at Middleweight when he fought there as a Welter and in historical contests you can take him from 154 and he'd beat way more champions than he would lose to.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:No the "better winning streak" does not speak volumes. The level of competition counts a lot more than the sheer number of opponents that you beat.

If you just want to go by the number of title defenses, than yes Hagler had more than Robinson. Doesn't not make him better. If that was the case, then Bob Foster should be regarded as the best light heavyweight champion because he had the most title defenses for a light heavyweight. You yourself recently stated that Foster was not the best light heavyweight.

No one here is arguing that winning the middleweight title 5 times means that Robinson is the best.
The argument that I and others are making is basically that Robinson beat far better competition than Hagler did and that there is only one loss relevant loss for Robinson at middleweight, while Hagler had more losses and unimpressive performances. That is what you need to counter.

Well, if you say that Sugar Ray at middleweight beat better quality fighters, is not that far off. Hagler and Monzon beat great fighters, too. Hagler and Monzon were better at 160 because of:
winning streaks
more title defenses
More years with the crown
Retired at the right time.

Sugar Ray best win at 160 was WTKO14 Jake LaMotta
Marvelous' best win at 160 was WTKO2 Thomas Hearns
King Carlos' best win at 160 was WTKO11 Nino Benvenutti.

Most of you criteria doesn't mean very much. Are you really that impressed with beating Caveman Lee?
More years with the crown? Johnny Kilbane had the featherweight crown for more than 11 years. Does that make him the best featherweight.
Retired at the right time? That makes you a better fighter? (I will have to remember that the next time we are talking about Henry Armstrong or Roberto Duran.) You mean retiring after losing to a guy who had 1 fight in the previous 5 years.

Look at what you listed as the best wins. Was Thomas Hearns a great middleweight? No. Was Jake LaMotta and Nino Benvenuti? Yes.

Who were the next best wins? Monzon also beat Valdes and Griffith. Great middleweights.
Robinson beat Fullmer, Basilio, Turpin. He beat LaMotta 5 times.
Hagler next best wins were what? Duran? Mugabi? Hamsho? Were they great middleweights?

What do you mean it does not mean that much? You want to throw in "some wins" that does not have nothing to do with the domination of Marvelous and Monzon at middleweight.

Marvelous had to fight FOR YEARS, TOUGH COMPETITION in Philadelphia of all places. Do you remember that? Hagler was fighting guys that NOBODY WANTED TO FIGHT. AND HE BEAT THEM. What are you talking about?
What about Eugene Hairston, Bobby Watts, Sugar Ray Seals and those guys? Marvelous had to pass through those guys in the 70s, and still, DID NOT GET A TITLE SHOT UNTIL LATER. He went 37 fights in a row, FIGHTING THE BEST, until he lost to Sugar Ray. That was a period of almost 10 years! 10 years! Did Robinson did that?

Carmen Basilio was a welterweight that beat Sugar Ray. You want to compare that to Sugar Ray Leonard win over Marvelous?
How about Sugar Ray losing to Ralph "Tiger" Jones?

Monzon also beat Bennie Briscoe, that was a tough fighter to beat. So what you are saying?

elmer, you crack me up sometimes. you are calling Basilio a welterweight? If that is the case, then Duran, Hearns, and Leonard were welterweights when Hagler fought them. You can't have it both ways.

Robinson was 35 years old and had over 140 fights when he fought Basilio. Even then, he had two great fights with him.
Tiger Jones? Robinson had been off for about 2 and a half years, just had one comeback fight less than two weeks prior, and already was old and had way more fights than Hagler did in his whole career. you want to count these losses against Robinson, yet Duran's losses when he was younger and had less fights aren't supposed to count. You can't have it both ways.

The Turpin loss is the only one that you can really hold against Robinson.

Nodody wanted to fight Hagler, yet Hagler beat all of these great opponents. That doesn't even make sense. btw-Briscoe was over the hill and Hagler did not look good in their fight.

No I don't think Thomas Hearns was a great middleweight. What is the case for him? In what fights did he look great at middleweight? Maybe Roldan ko, in what other fight did he look great at middleweight? He also got stopped by the great Iran Barkley in three rounds.

If Robinson fought Hagler's opponents and retired at 32, he probably would have had zero losses and zero draws.

I know I'm alone in the world when I say, Stanley Ketchel beats Robinson.

keithmoonhangover wrote:I know I'm alone in the world when I say, Stanley Ketchel beats Robinson.

Sort of like when you assured us that Povetkin was going to school Wlad.

Giancarlo wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:I know I'm alone in the world when I say, Stanley Ketchel beats Robinson.

Sort of like when you assured us that Povetkin was going to school Wlad.

We've all been wrong mate. I thought he could do it and I bet on it. Some posters on here (not you) tend to sit on the fence and then tell us how much they 'won' on Monday.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:I know I'm alone in the world when I say, Stanley Ketchel beats Robinson.

Sort of like when you assured us that Povetkin was going to school Wlad.

We've all been wrong mate. I thought he could do it and I bet on it. Some posters on here (not you) tend to sit on the fence and then tell us how much they 'won' on Monday.

Yep, we've all been wrong many times.

Giancarlo wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:
Sort of like when you assured us that Povetkin was going to school Wlad.

We've all been wrong mate. I thought he could do it and I bet on it. Some posters on here (not you) tend to sit on the fence and then tell us how much they 'won' on Monday.

Yep, we've all been wrong many times.

On a weekly basis, that's what makes our definitive assertions on these mythical fights silly in a lot of respects.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:Yep, we've all been wrong many times.

On a weekly basis, that's what makes our definitive assertions on these mythical fights silly in a lot of respects.

It's just a bit of fun. I don't take it seriously; I don't think you do either. It passes a few hours at work.

Giancarlo wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:Yep, we've all been wrong many times.

On a weekly basis, that's what makes our definitive assertions on these mythical fights silly in a lot of respects.

It's just a bit of fun. I don't take it seriously; I don't think you do either. It passes a few hours at work.

Absolutely, and no I don't, though I think we're all more stubborn when it comes to opinions formed over a long period of time with no current activity to waver them. My 'arguments' on here that everyone thinks I'm fired up about are often taking place while I'm discussing business on the phone.

BUMP

elmersalsa wrote:To call the great Sugar Ray Robinson the best middleweight is overrated. He lost the MAJORITY of his fights at 160lbs. He beat a guy that he was already accustom to beat in the great Jake LaMotta. Loses to Randy Turpin and almost lost the rematch. After his comeback in 1955, who did he beat? He beats Bobo Olson to regain the crown. Then loses to Gene Fullmer and regains it. Fullmer beats him once more and they drew once. And the great Carmen Basilio, a welterweight, took his title in '57.

The greats Carlos Monzon and Marvin Hagler at 160, were CLEARLY BETTER. AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEATEN THE SUGAR MAN, TOO. THEY HAD BETTER RESUMES AT MIDDLEWEIGHT THAN SUGAR RAY. Winning the middleweight title 5 times was one of the most overrated feats in boxing history.

SRR when he was 31 year's old in 1952 his record was 131-2-2-85 KO's and was already the Former Welterweight World Champion did you hear that FORMER and was already the two time World Middleweight Champion you people just cannot get it in your head's that when he vacated the welterweight Title he was no longer a Welterweight his most famous win's were at Middleweight SRR was 5 time's Middleweight Champion when he came back to boxing after having two and half off when he was going on 34 year's old he went 42-17-4-23 before that he was the most dominating fighter on the planet his 131-2-2-85 KO's makes Floyd Mayweather and his 49-0 kindergarten stuff better resume's who Monzon/Hagler YOUR KIDDING Monzon/Hagler need to combine their resume's to even be on par with SRR

Giancarlo wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:
Sort of like when you assured us that Povetkin was going to school Wlad.

We've all been wrong mate. I thought he could do it and I bet on it. Some posters on here (not you) tend to sit on the fence and then tell us how much they 'won' on Monday.

Yep, we've all been wrong many times.

It's called EXPERIANCE....... I got heap's its essentially all the mistake's you'v made and learnt from

I don't see any Middleweights who Robinson beat who were great boxers -- along the lines of an Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Charley Burley, Roy Jones, James Toney, Mike McCallum, Emile Griffith, Bernard Hopkins, Rodrigo Valdez, or Michael Nunn... You have to say the Middleweights who beat Robinson, such as: Fullmer, Turpin, Basilio, Ralph Jones, and LaMotta were really never considered skillful boxers by anybody... Welterweight Emile Griffith easily outboxed Dick Tiger twice and Tiger beat Gene Fullmer 3 times without a loss. Even though 1 fight was called a "draw" where Fullmer ran all night and was given a gift, he couldn't beat crude swinger Tiger in 3 tries.

Monzon and Hagler had Middleweight Title Defense records of 14-0 and 12-1... Robinson's record was 3-3 with only 2 KO wins in those 6 defenses. Consecutive Title Defenses has always been the Gold Standard. A lot of good fighters could run up an impressive non-title record fighting 150 cream puffs.

Kalan wrote:I don't see any Middleweights who Robinson beat who were great boxers -- along the lines of an Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Charley Burley, Roy Jones, James Toney, Mike McCallum, Emile Griffith, Bernard Hopkins, Rodrigo Valdez, or Michael Nunn... You have to say the Middleweights who beat Robinson, such as: Fullmer, Turpin, Basilio, Ralph Jones, and LaMotta were really never considered skillful boxers by anybody... Welterweight Emile Griffith easily outboxed Dick Tiger twice and Tiger beat Gene Fullmer 3 times without a loss. Even though 1 fight was called a "draw" where Fullmer ran all night and was given a gift, he couldn't beat crude swinger Tiger in 3 tries.

Monzon and Hagler had Middleweight Title Defense records of 14-0 and 12-1... Robinson's record was 3-3 with only 2 KO wins in those 6 defenses. Consecutive Title Defenses has always been the Gold Standard. A lot of good fighters could run up an impressive non-title record fighting 150 cream puffs.

133-2-2-85ko's this was SRR at his BEST when he was 31 year's old after that he was a peg or two down the ladder it's called age Monzon/Hagler wouldn't fight outside of Their natural fighting weight if you payed them double what Floyd got against Pacman Both Legendary fighter's just not as good as the P4P KING

Kalan wrote:I don't see any Middleweights who Robinson beat who were great boxers

That level of trolling should be enough to get you banned from the forum.