who the greatest middleweight of all time

[KingAbdullah]

Another great example of Hagler's cutting abilities was the Minter. Wow, that was a bad ass cut. Hey you know what, I post on ********Boxing forum, and there's a guy there that absolutely loves Hagler. You 2 would get along very well.

You're probably talking about manassa. Let's just say we see eye to eye.

[KingAbdullah]

Although Hagler could adjust for different styles, he wasn't quite in Monzon's league when it came to finding the holes in the style of his opponents during the fight. Hagler was better at adjusting from the first fight to the rematch with fighters who gave him trouble or defeated him. It must be noted that Hagler was murder on his opponents after seeing them the first time.

These two greats were both considered as counter punchers. The difference was Monzon would fight moving forward in a subtle fashion, where Hagler liked for his opponent to pursue him.

Monzon was a tall middleweight standing right at 6 foot, and had a long reach. Hagler was just under 5' 10", but also had long arms for his height. The fact that Monzon was 6'2'' and was as big as a light-heavyweight throws this fight in his favour. He was very athletic and quick for a man of his size/stature.

Hagler was about 5'8" but far more than a mere counter puncher. benitez was a counterpuncher. Monzon was a sharpshooter. hagler was an all around master/thoroghbred that could knock out a man whenever necessary.

You ever see Hagler against 6'2" Obel? I don't recall hagler waiting for Obel to pursue him. He was every bit as tall as Monzon who was actually six feet even according to Ring Almanac.

thomas Hearns:

people were selling Hagler short in that fight saying "he'll freeze up. he wont' be able to handle a name fighter. he won't be ableto cope with his height, his speed, his 78" reach. That is, until they saw what he could really do. And Thomas actually did go on to win his fourth belt at 175 (twice). The public thought they were going to see the same passive fighter who went the distance with Duran and out comes a fighting mad tiger. So size would not be a factor. Monzon was not nearly as quick as Tommy ( a little slow with his hands)and Tommy was at least equal in height.

I'm sure people get that idea that Marvin had to wait or rely on his opponent to come to him because of the Duran fight but people who make this claim haven't seen enough of marvin in action to know that fight was uncharacteristic for him. Marvin was a killing machine. Witness his bouts with Caveman lee and Hamani and you'll realize marvin simply had no weaknesses.

So hagler could definitely up the pace if needed but also can take his time about it. Witness his performance against Monroe in 77. hagler just ook his time about it but even so only needed two rounds. Likewise with Bobby Watts in their rematch. In his fight with Scypion you hear Merchant compare Hagler with a matador-"But he's an agressive matador" were his words.

Same with his rematch with Hamsho which lasted just three. Hagler.

So hagler too could be the aggressor in the same subtle fashion as Monzon but could become the bull he was with Minter, Obel, and Hearns. I cannot envision Monzon taking the fight to opponents in the same fashion-not with his build. Hagler just had all the tools to beat him.

[KingAbdullah]

Great study
Hagler was a righthander and of course he had very good jab and right hook from southpaw stance. But his left hand wasn't even close to Monzon's right, both Duran and Leonard said that Hagler's left hand wasn't good. But i think Leonard and Duran were only ones who exploited it.
There's actually no doubt that Hagler was lesser puncher in middleweight than Monzon or Robinson. He scored knockouts mostly because of cumulative damage. Hagler will no way KO Monzon and Monzon has style and tools to win decision. Also I think Monzon would have performed better against Duran and Leonard than Hagler.

What are you talking about? Marvin was second to none in the KO department.

marvin didn't floor leonard no matter what punch he used. he was shot and shot fighters don't cause injury.

i'm talking about a peak Hagler (late 81-83), the Hagler who made his first 7 defenses-the perfect creation.

Marvin caused knockouts mostly because of cumulative damage? Maybe against Roldan when Marvin was off an already in decline but what about Hagler ko 2 Monroe? that was two blows-a left hook and right hand.

hagler ko 3 hearns? the Doctor inspected the cut on Hagler and Marvin took him out 20 seconds later. hagler ko 1 lee? That was not caused by cumulative damage. it was 63 seconds.

hagler ko 2 Hamani? hagler ko 3 hamsho. Hamsho started butting so Marvin put more snap on his punches. hansho had that reputation for taking it but once Marvin made up his mind to end it, Hamsho could only take it for mere seconds.

Scypion in the first round of their fight got too close crowding marvin and Marvelous hurt him with a straight left flush on the chin that sent him swaying backwards. In the fourth, Wilford got back into the fight and got in Marvin's face. That's when marvin suddenly ended fight. two punches-a right hook followed by a left cross.

ergo, Marvin could end a fight whenever he wanted.

[fabulous]

What are you talking about? Marvin was second to none in the KO department.

marvin didn't floor leonard no matter what punch he used. he was shot and shot fighters don't cause injury.


i'm talking about a peak Hagler (late 81-83), the Hagler who made his first 7 defenses-the perfect creation.

Marvin caused knockouts mostly because of cumulative damage? Maybe against Roldan when Marvin was off an already in decline but what about Hagler ko 2 Monroe? that was two blows-a left hook and right hand.

hagler ko 3 hearns? the Doctor inspected the cut on Hagler and Marvin took him out 20 seconds later. hagler ko 1 lee? That was not caused by cumulative damage. it was 63 seconds.

I think I have read already these excuses and your biased line seems familiar. Say whatever you can but do not give any credit to Leonard. Every site has such ****ers.
Hagler was by your definition shot when he met Hearns but he still KOd him Btw, if you get older then power is last you lose, first you lose speed and reflexes. Ali had probably better punch in 75 than in his prime (66-67).

Hagler KOs everyone he wanted? Take Marcos Geraldo for example, he couldn't put him away in 10. And Geraldo had weak chin, hearns broke it in first round.
Hagler had of course power but all this was in his leading right hand.

[gattifan24]

Where do you gys rank Bernard? Top 10? 20?

[j]

no such thing as the "greatest". but some notables i'd mention as middleweights to watch if you ever get a chance to:

tony zale
rocky graziano(had great fights with zale especially)
jake lamotta
robinson
turpin
fullmer
basilio
b hop

etc........

[KingAbdullah]

I think I have read already these excuses and your biased line seems familiar. Say whatever you can but do not give any credit to Leonard. Every site has such ****ers.
Hagler was by your definition shot when he met Hearns but he still KOd him Btw, if you get older then power is last you lose, first you lose speed and reflexes. Ali had probably better punch in 75 than in his prime (66-67).

Hagler KOs everyone he wanted? Take Marcos Geraldo for example, he couldn't put him away in 10. And Geraldo had weak chin, hearns broke it in first round.
Hagler had of course power but all this was in his leading right hand.

They aren't excuses. You're the one calling them excuses. Intelligent people know the difference. And I don't feel the need to label anyone a "****er" just out of frustration. I have much better control of my emotions and am exceedingly confident in my postition.

If you had but read my post a bit more closely, you would understand that IF NEED BE, Hagler could and usually did knock out the opponent shortly after a particular incidence occurred.

take Hearns for instance. hagler was under pressure to intensify his attack especially after the ringside Doctor started inspecting the cuts. I thought I gave enough examples to make my point clear. Hagler was in no such trouble with Geraldo.

Even so, I didn't think I was going to offend anyone with what was said.

And I dare you to show me where I stated Marvin entered the Hearns match a shot fighter. If I had thought that I would have said it don't you think????

I said this was the case with Leonard. And learn to read better.

So called expert

[LethalRight79]

I have to give the honor to "Sugar" Ray Robinson..

He did everything in a career that you can imagine..

As a amateur:

85-0
69 wins by way of knockout
40 knockouts in the 1st round
a win over Willie Pepp

As a pro:

Beat over 10 hall of famers
Started career as a lightweight
Dominated the welterweights
Dominated the middleweights
Challenged Joey Maxim for the light heavy crown and lost of exhaustion(from the heat).
After that loss,
won the title many times(was robbed in 2 title fights)
He beat everyone in dominant fashion


He is the greatest p4p fighter, the greatest welterweight, and the greatest middleweight of all time.

[Soliloquy]

I have to give the honor to "Sugar" Ray Robinson..

He did everything in a career that you can imagine..

As a amateur:

85-0
69 wins by way of knockout
40 knockouts in the 1st round
a win over Willie Pepp

As a pro:

Beat over 10 hall of famers
Started career as a lightweight
Dominated the welterweights
Dominated the middleweights
Challenged Joey Maxim for the light heavy crown and lost of exhaustion(from the heat).
After that loss,
won the title many times(was robbed in 2 title fights)
He beat everyone in dominant fashion


He is the greatest p4p fighter, the greatest welterweight, and the greatest middleweight of all time.

I think Hagler & Sugar Ray Robinson are the two greatest middleweights ever however in head-to-head combat I think Hagler would come out on top. Sugar Ray was unbeatable at welterweight but at middleweight he was definitely human.

Firstly, name one fighter who beat a prime Hagler. The man was a knockout, counter-punching machine. Robinson was defeated by Turpin & Basillo. Now, the only way I see Robinson beating Hagler is to take him off his game (like Sugar Ray Leonard did). Hagler totally outclassed Hearns in 3 rounds.

Name 1 middleweight that was quicker, faster & more powerful then Hearns, Robinson was close but Hearns takes the cake. Robinson was very good @ middle but he had obvious troubles with people of Hagler's style, such as Basilio (Hagler was a much better, sharper, more accurate version). Robinson would win some of the early rounds because of his style but the fact that Hagler could do it all, Robinson wouldn't be able to stop his fast-pace pressure style and he would make mistakes. Hagler had one of the hardest heads in history so he's definitely not going to be stopped.

Hagler via SD Sugar Ray Robinson

[LethalRight79]

Don't forget that Robinson beat LaMotta 5 times, in the rematch, Robinson underestimated LaMotta and hadn't really reached his prime at middleweight yet. At that time, Robinson wasn't training and underestimated the bull.

Robinson did lose to Turpin, but he was slacking off a lot in training, and wasn't focused on that fight. He was in Europe at the time, when he was getting very famous there, and thought he would walk right through Turpin..

He lost a decision, but in the rematch, he destroyed and humiliated Turpin. Hagler was definately one of the greatest middleweights of all time, but I can't put him past Robinson. The problem with Hearns was that he didn't have a iron chin.
Don't forget, when Robinson fought Basilio, it was when he was passed his prime, and in the rematch he had the flu and still outclassed him with ease.

Robinson fought Joey Maxim, the light heavyweight king at the time, he outboxed him easily until he collapsed from the heat. The heat was so bad that they had to change the referee during the fight.