BoxRec

Who would win this battle of the legends?... I find it a hard call but edge towards a peak Lamotta 'bulling' Hagler about on the inside for a close decision win!... great fight!...

With two fo the hardest chins in boxing ever this definitely goes the distance. These two would go to the trenches and the pace they would set would be phenomenal.

I think La Motta outhustles Hagler in the first fight and wins a split decision. Hagler makes more of his reach advantage int he second fight and just about wins the rematch... (sorry, bit of a cop out but I think it's impossible to call).

A prime Hagler (the one who cut Hamsho in their first fight and then had a well-paid target practice or the one who dismantle rough Sibson) decisions LaMotta in my opinion.

LaMotta by KO.......Hagler was over rated.

Two of the best chins in Middleweight history.

If Hagler made one of his occational tactical errors and tried to outhustle LaMotta on the inside The Marvelous One may find himself on the wrong side of a razor tight 15 decision.

However, if Hagler used plenty of speed with brief flurries on the inside to keep The Bull 'honest' and used his reach advantage and occational switch hitting to box his way to a tight points win.

ringsider wrote:LaMotta by KO.......Hagler was over rated.

Blasphemy!

ringsider wrote:
LaMotta by KO.......Hagler was over rated.

Let me be even more specific.......Really, really, over rated

ringsider wrote:

ringsider wrote:
LaMotta by KO.......Hagler was over rated.

Let me be even more specific.......Really, really, over rated

And thats your indepth analysis is it?.. .. very deep man!... 8)

Hagler IMO is the best middleweight of all times.

Both strong with strong chins, so they kind of cancel eachother out in that department, it would all come down to one thing.

BOXING SKILLS.

Which both had and both never get credit for having.

And if it came down to this I would be tempted to give this to Hagler,he would be confusing La Motta with his switching back and forth from southpaw to orthodox.

Wow. Great call on the matchup, silkov

I think Hagler is the better middleweight champ, but I think LaMotta wins this matchup on styles. All-time great chins. Hagler, when he fought Hearns, ate tremendous right hands knowing that if he took the sting out of that punch, he would win. But LaMotta is relentless and would rain more punches on Hagler than he's ever seen. No way LaMotta would let Hagler box him. You eat enough punches, you can get inside on anyone and LaMotta would. Hagler would wonder how LaMotta took all of his punches and LaMotta would eke out a split decision by being busier.

As much as I admire Hagler, I'd see LaMotta getting to him in the later rounds and wearing him down. It took Hagler 12 rounds to finally put down John Mugabi in a very tough fight.
Hagler would cut LaMotta to pieces from the outside but Jake was exremely durable and would weather the storm.
LaMotta by a split-decision.

Hagler IMO is the best middleweight of all times.

You gotta be joking. That foot in the bucket plodding southpaw, who could not even cut the ring off on run away Ray Leonard? The best middleweight of all times........hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Despite ringsider's disdain for Hagler (misplaced, IMO), I think it would be an amazing match-up. I think Hagler was a bit more versatile--though Lamottma boxed better than most give him credit for--while Lamotta's pressure would be continual, with little chance of him running out of gas.

A close points win for Hagler if he succeeded in making most of the fight a boxing macth, a pick'em fight in a war.

wlvrne wrote:As much as I admire Hagler, I'd see LaMotta getting to him in the later rounds and wearing him down. It took Hagler 12 rounds to finally put down John Mugabi in a very tough fight.
Hagler would cut LaMotta to pieces from the outside but Jake was exremely durable and would weather the storm.
LaMotta by a split-decision.

The Hagler that fought Mugabi was a slipping version of Hagler, and the only reason why Leonard fought Hagler (because he saw a slow-slow Hagler) And he KO'd Mugabi in the 11th round.

ringsider wrote:

Hagler IMO is the best middleweight of all times.

You gotta be joking. That foot in the bucket plodding southpaw, who could not even cut the ring off on run away Ray Leonard? The best middleweight of all times........hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Hi, ringsider.

Have you seen some Hagler fight prior to his fight with Roldán, I mean, have you seen a prime Hagler boxing?

Hagler-LaMotta?
I agree that both had great chins so it's likely it would go the distance. If anyone would score a knockout, it would be Hagler. LaMotta only had 30 KO's in 106 fights, so there is no way he could stop Hagler. Hagler was the harder puncher, more accurrate, faster and was better defensively. I really don't see what advantage LaMotta would have.
Yes LaMotta was good at roughing opponents up inside, but this wouldn't work against Hagler. Hagler could keep at bay with his jab and Hagler was certainly able to fight on the inside as well.
Yes Hagler had a few off nights in his career (as everyone has). However, he went 11 years without losing a fight.

Too much is made of LaMotta's win over Robinson. Robinson was only a welterweight at the time; he outweighed Robinson 160-145.

LaMotta lost to guys like Jimmy Reeves, Nate Bolden,Cecil Hudson,Robert Villemain,Norman Hayes, Danny Nardico and Bobby Kilgore. He had draws with, Joe Shikula, Jimmy Edgar,Eugene Hairston, and a loss and a draw against Jose Basora. These are fights that are in early, middle and latter part of his career. If he had trouble with all of these guys, Hagler should be able beat him as well.

If both men fight at their normal level, Hagler wins a very lopsided decison.

Ambling Alp wrote:Hagler-LaMotta?
I agree that both had great chins so it's likely it would go the distance. If anyone would score a knockout, it would be Hagler. LaMotta only had 30 KO's in 106 fights, so there is no way he could stop Hagler. Hagler was the harder puncher, more accurrate, faster and was better defensively. I really don't see what advantage LaMotta would have.
Yes LaMotta was good at roughing opponents up inside, but this wouldn't work against Hagler. Hagler could keep at bay with his jab and Hagler was certainly able to fight on the inside as well.
Yes Hagler had a few off nights in his career (as everyone has). However, he went 11 years without losing a fight.

Too much is made of LaMotta's win over Robinson. Robinson was only a welterweight at the time; he outweighed Robinson 160-145.

LaMotta lost to guys like Jimmy Reeves, Nate Bolden,Cecil Hudson,Robert Villemain,Norman Hayes, Danny Nardico and Bobby Kilgore. He had draws with, Joe Shikula, Jimmy Edgar,Eugene Hairston, and a loss and a draw against Jose Basora. These are fights that are in early, middle and latter part of his career. If he had trouble with all of these guys, Hagler should be able beat him as well.

If both men fight at their normal level, Hagler wins a very lopsided decison.

Thank you for bringing a little light among all these mistaken posts!