BoxRec

2 fighting machines...One gives you too much pressure and has unbelievable power (Cerdan) and the other a complete fighter and ring technician (Hagler)

I know for certain about Hagler's stamina, but I think that Marcel's stamina was great too. I base this by watching Cerdan vs Zale, in which he applied lots of pressure to the Man of Steel. Cerdan nowdays would have make records in the compubox in HBO. He can sure throw a lot of punches. Who wins in your view???

Hagler by late stoppage or points, too consistent and remorseless for virtually any middleweight. I havent seen too much of Cerdan but if LaMotta beats him I'd back Hagler

CERDAN

Cerdan was to strong and resilent for "almost" any middleweight in boxing, his fighting 'ability' and never give an inch style could only be handled by a few elite MW fighters in boxing's history. Hagler was a similar type of fighter but Cerdan out works and out punches him.

LaMotta Did NOT 'beat Cerdan, INJURY in the 1st round did!

Cerdan was skilled, a devestating puncher, sound on defense, had good handspeed and was very tough too

Cerdan was the greatest European MW champion. But despite his magnificent record of 106 wins and four losses (?) he never fought that many top flight guys with the exception of LaMotta, Tony Zale and a few other fringe contenders.

Cerdan had a injured shoulder when he fought LaMotta and it makes you wonder how well he would have done had he had two good shoulders. One must also recall that Cerdan, when he fought Zale, was considered passed his best (at least by the European/French critics) but still ran circles around the 'Iron Man'.

Hagler had beaten virtually every solid MW of his time, in one of the greatest eras in MW history. Cerdan's untimely death cut short a promising career, he was en route to a rematch with LaMotta and died in an airplane crash.

Kind of a hard fight to pick, in my opinion, because Cerdan's career by and large was against European fighters who weren't that good, while Hagler is easily a top 5 MW champion of all time. But even the critics will say that Cerdan is a top 10 MW as well.

Cerdan was busy, very skilled; Hagler threw great combinations, had very good power and tough as nails. Its truly a pick em fight. But I'd have to go with Hagler, even though Cerdan is one of my favorites, only because Cerdan never really reached his fullest potential because of his death.

I think a better fight would be a Cerdan-Papp fight. Now that would be classic. Would be biggest European fight of all time.

"...European fighters that weren't that good..."

why this myth still perpetuates is beyond me.
the 30s & 40s was Not like the last 40 years of a dying sport, with 'less' competitors and 'multiple' champions with a 'handful' of fights..!

No it was the 'single' greatest period in boxing history-overall, and 'boasts the "greatest" period in 'middleweight' history...
fighters fought and they fought LOTS, only 1 world champion and National titles were "better" than todays Alphabet world titles.
the British and Comonwealth titles were widely sought after and 'extremely' highly regarded like a geniune world title, and 'the' World title, well most fighters KNEW it was unreachable, simply by shear numbers alone, to say nothing of politics and they accepted that and it had very little impact on their own status!

Fighters were PROUD and esteemed holders and World classed contenders with their own National, British and/or European & Commonwealth titles and in most cases it took them approx 5 years or more & 40+ fights to get them.

Boxing News did a peice on the World rating 'protesting' the partisan American favouring in the Top 10 and called it "amusing & laughable", and that was in 1939.

last but not least 'cover' any British or European fighter that proved themselves against American opposition and then go back to their 'own' opposition at home and you can honestly tell me that their 'native' boys who competed hard fought out decisions and even wins against them, weren't that good...C'mon.

Cerdan fought lots of top men.

jimglen wrote:"...European fighters that weren't that good..."

why this myth still perpetuates is beyond me.
the 30s & 40s was Not like the last 40 years of a dying sport, with 'less' competitors and 'multiple' champions with a 'handful' of fights..!

No it was the 'single' greatest period in boxing history-overall, and 'boasts the "greatest" period in 'middleweight' history...
fighters fought and they fought LOTS, only 1 world champion and National titles were "better" than todays Alphabet world titles.
the British and Comonwealth titles were widely sought after and 'extremely' highly regarded like a geniune world title, and 'the' World title, well most fighters KNEW it was unreachable, simply by shear numbers alone, to say nothing of politics and they accepted that and it had very little impact on their own status!

Fighters were PROUD and esteemed holders and World classed contenders with their own National, British and/or European & Commonwealth titles and in most cases it took them approx 5 years or more & 40+ fights to get them.

Boxing News did a peice on the World rating 'protesting' the partisan American favouring in the Top 10 and called it "amusing & laughable", and that was in 1939.

last but not least 'cover' any British or European fighter that proved themselves against American opposition and then go back to their 'own' opposition at home and you can honestly tell me that their 'native' boys who competed hard fought out decisions and even wins against them, weren't that good...C'mon.

Cerdan fought lots of top men.

This is something American fans and writers have done for years,they look at the names dont recgonise anyone and decide their all bums! Not taking a pop at Rufus here , I think any fan with any knowledege of Boxing would have to admit America has been the place where by and large the best fighters have operated for many years at least in the heavier weights and it has to be said there are many examples of Europeons folding quickly in key fights but there have also been some real quality fighters from Europe who would /have been a match for any one.

the other a complete fighter and ring technician (Hagler)

Now that is funny!!

Ask Marvin what a good technican should do against guys like SRL....

Also if Marvin is consider an ATG by most on this page, why is he not picked in this one vs a guy who is never mentioned as an ATG?

ringsider wrote: the other a complete fighter and ring technician (Hagler)

Now that is funny!!

Ask Marvin what a good technican should do against guys like SRL....

Also if Marvin is consider an ATG by most on this page, why is he not picked in this one vs a guy who is never mentioned as an ATG?

Hagler at his peak was a tremendous ring technician, see his bouts vs Briscoe, Minter and Sibson to name but a few. In 1986-7 he had slowed considerably. Ray Leonard, ever the opportunist, noted this and fought him 5 years after he should when the peak Hagler who would have used his consummate technique to knock Leonard out.
I think people on here pick Cerdan because he would have caused Hagler problems, but I dont think he'd win.

Nonsense, beating up guys like Sibson (a one dimensional brit who never had a chance) Minter(an even worse southpaw one dimensional brit) and out boxing a club fighter like Briscoe....doesn't get the footwork and ring technican award. Hagler was a plodder in his so called prime. Leonard was a better fighter, period...and proved it.

Foot in the bucket, plodding, following cannot cut the ring off, off balance punch throwing lefties, are a plague.....Thank goodness for the likes of SRL to get rid of them.

He retired a quitter, and we never had to see the likes of Hagler again. Good riddance.

Have you ever seen Hagler fight or have you always been too busy putting troll posts on web sites?

Of course I have seen Hagler fight. If you actually have seen his fights you could see him plodding around. If you can not see he is a plodder, then that is your problem not mine. You might want to invest in some sort of eyecare product.

ringsider wrote: the other a complete fighter and ring technician (Hagler)

Now that is funny!!

Ask Marvin what a good technican should do against guys like SRL....

Also if Marvin is consider an ATG by most on this page, why is he not picked in this one vs a guy who is never mentioned as an ATG?

Then, what is your definition of a great fighter??? Hagler is one of the most complete fighters ever, and one of the very best that I have ever seen...He was MARRRRVVVVVVELLLLOOOUUUUUSSS!!!

For starters there is no such thing as a great southpaw, here is an example.....there are good ones, awkward ones, and clumsy ones, but no great ones.

Ladies and gentlemen we have a split decision. The scoring of the fight is as follows. Judge Jose J. Guerra scores the bout 118-110 for Sugar Ray Leonard.................................................................................................................................and judge Lou Filippo scores the bout 113-115 for Marvelous Marvin Hagler........................................................................................ ..............................................................................................and judge Dave Moretti scores the bout 115-113 for the .............NEW MIDDLE WEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD SUGAR RAY LEONARD!!!!

Great Middleweights don't get beat by fat welterweights!! That is just the way it is.

The whole thing about European fighters is that many have built up big glossy records in these other countries, but when they come here in the USA they usually floop. Cerdan when he first came over, was figured to be another guy who was a sensation in France who would eventually be proven to be nothing more than a flash in the pan.

But that never came to be, he proved the critics wrong and beat Tony Zale and though losing to LaMotta, he was going to have a rematch with the Bronx Bull. He wasn't some European flunky, he was more than what he ever laid claim to be.

Seems to me he avenged that defeat.....Hagler quit......He was a quitter. Besides SRR crapped out more talent and boxing ability than Hagler EVER had. Fighting prime for prime at MW SRR would have beaten Hagler 10 for 10. He would have given him a boxing lesson.

No Hagler quit.......for the right money SRL would have fought anyone. He was all about the money, and he was the victor in the fight. So Sugar gets to call the shots. Leonard was the draw, not Hagler. People want to see guys who can box, fight, and move, not trip over their own feet.

ringsider wrote:No Hagler quit.......for the right money SRL would have fought anyone. He was all about the money, and he was the victor in the fight. So Sugar gets to call the shots. Leonard was the draw, not Hagler. People want to see guys who can box, fight, and move, not trip over their own feet.

I've always understood Hagler to be one of the leading draws of the time. He was almost certainly the best at shifting from orthodox to southpaw mid round and had power and skill to back that up…claiming Hagler to be a quitter is also incredibly stupid.

I've always understood Hagler to be one of the leading draws of the time. He was almost certainly the best at shifting from orthodox to southpaw mid round and had power and skill to back that up

Well then you understand wrong.......Hagler was no draw.......as far as Hagler shifting from one stance to the other that is pure BS. It was Haglers stupididty via fighting orthodox the first 4 rounds of his fight with SRL that cost him any chance he may have had to win the fight. He gave away the first 4 rounds.....Hagler could not "shift" anything....he was a banger who was always inshape, but he was no boxer with foot work.

ringsider wrote:

Well then you understand wrong.......Hagler was no draw.......as far as Hagler shifting from one stance to the other that is pure BS. It was Haglers stupididty via fighting orthodox the first 4 rounds of his fight with SRL that cost him any chance he may have had to win the fight. He gave away the first 4 rounds.....Hagler could not "shift" anything....he was a banger who was always inshape, but he was no boxer with foot work.

Probably you was too young when PRIME MARVELOUS WAS IN HIS PRIME. Saying that Hagler did not had NO FOOTWORK, is like saying that Muhammad Ali did not had no chin or Tommy Hearns did not had no hand speed...Watch the Marvelous in action in late 70s and early 80s and you will see a fighting machine as close as it could be. He was a very COMPLETE FIGHTER.

ringsider wrote:

I've always understood Hagler to be one of the leading draws of the time. He was almost certainly the best at shifting from orthodox to southpaw mid round and had power and skill to back that up

Well then you understand wrong.......Hagler was no draw.......as far as Hagler shifting from one stance to the other that is pure BS. It was Haglers stupididty via fighting orthodox the first 4 rounds of his fight with SRL that cost him any chance he may have had to win the fight. He gave away the first 4 rounds.....Hagler could not "shift" anything....he was a banger who was always inshape, but he was no boxer with foot work.

I think he did a fantastic job of "shifting" against a very strong and durable fighter in Mugabi and that's what got him the victory. It threw Mugabi off and he couldn't adjust to Hagler's style or styles in his case and it confused Mugabi...he perfected it and fans liked watching him do it in the ring.

Hagler beat Mugabi because Hagler was a full fledged MW and Mugabi was only a Jr. MW moving up....Hagler was the naturally bigger and stronger man. So what? It wasn't Hagler's "footwork" that won the fight.

Hagler didnt win just by being bigger, he was also much better than Mugabi. Who did Mugabi ever beat compared with the names on Hagler's record?

no one is getting knocked out but I think marcel Cerdan speed reflexes and combination would help take a decision of hagle

Hagler wins a hard fought dec