Hagler or SRR.......Who fought better opposition?

Sugar Ray fought better guys, but lost to worse fighters. I think SRR is overrated. he only lost 4 before he reached 37

This is a no brainer. Robinson.

I'd have to go with Robinson. Hagler's middlweight division wasn't the best as evidenced by the fact that his biggest wins were over former welterweight, Hearns, former lightweight Duran, and a loss to former welterweight Leonard. Still, wins over Mintor and Antuofermo and two over Mustafa Hamsho were impressive accomplishments. The thing is Hagler beat all the tough guys before he actually won the title. Robinson, on the other hand, cleaned out the Welterweight division, beating recently deposed champ Zivic in his first year as a pro as well as an up anc coming future titlist, Kid Gavilan...Robinson fought the best and never lost a fight against a welterweight while in that division. After moving up, he defeated LaMotta, Graziano, Turpin in a rematch, Olson three times I think...and past his best days, by way of rematch, defeated Tunney, and Basilio. I'd have to honestly give the edge to Robinson in terms of competion.

I have to say Hagler, because his best opponents alone are better and have a greater legacy than Robinson's. If Leonard wasn't the same when he fought Hagler after his retirement, then tell me what was diffirent about his physical abilities as a fighter. If Duran was past it, tell me why he was so succesfull at a much older age, and how HIS physical abilities as a fighter were not the same. Leonard could only fight in spurts, and was without question at his best at welterweight. He fought constantly for 15 rounds with Duran, that was a very different fighter to the Leonard that fought Hagler. But IMO Hagler was very slow and at the end of his career anyway. Duran well......just watch Duran at Lightweight. Seriously. When people talk about him as an all time great. Its not him at middleweight or welterweight. Its wen he was a lightweight IN THE 70'S!

SRR fought Armstrong.. good enough Armstrong = #2 p4p

I have to say Hagler, because his best opponents alone are better and have a greater legacy than Robinson's. If Leonard wasn't the same when he fought Hagler after his retirement, then tell me what was diffirent about his physical abilities as a fighter. If Duran was past it, tell me why he was so succesfull at a much older age, and how HIS physical abilities as a fighter were not the same.

Ray Robinson

theres a reason why people say SRR is the best lol

What link, go look it up yourself, I told you all the polls have Hagler winning the fight and you've seen this yourself! You told me "most polls have Hagler winning the fight" and I asked for a link to any of these polls. I've seen no such polls, that's why I asked for the link. I'm not interested in researching claims you make that you seem unable to back up. Like I said, lets see these "polls". :rolleyes:

Just look at all the polls on the internet, I personally had it for Leonard by a point, but still most polls have Hagler winning the fight. Polls? As I said, lets see a link. I had Leonard winning the fight and I think most people were split evenly on it.

BTW more people thought Hagler won the Leonard fight. Link please. :rolleyes:

Lol I guess you just checked boxrec, I guess I was closer, you said 121. I very well know all those fighters, none were as good as Leonard or Duran. If Hagler is one of your all time favorites, then name all the good fighters he has beaten, because I know Hagler better then anyone here. He didn't beat Leonard. And you're trying to tell me Henry Armstrong is no Duran? :rolleyes: lol, conversation over. Check please.

Actually it was 130+ - 1, this is the reason I rank him all time #1, but his opposition was not as good as Hagler. Actually, it was 128-1 when he lost his 2nd fight to Turpin. And to make a blanket statement that Hagler fought better fighters only proves you don't know very much about names like Henry Armstrong, Kid Gavilan, Carmen Basilio, Jake LaMotta, Rocky Graziano, Gene Fullmer and Fritzie Zivic etc etc. Hagler's one of my all time favorites, but he doesn't stack up to Robinson and his opposition.

You my friend don't know nothing about Hagler. Aww dont say that. :( Or at least explain urself. If u cant argue ur point than just dont post anything. Its true that wen people say Hagler fought p4p greats, they mean Duran (over the hill lightweight), Hearns (best at welterweight) and Leonard (best at welterweight and "fresh" from retirement). I love Hagler, and he fought great opponents, but Robinson IMO beat so many tough opponents that i say SRR fought AND BEAT the better fighters overall.

I think he had like a 90 fight unbeaten streak, that is very impressive. He fought like every two weeks and continued to fight until he was 45. He also went 121-1 over the 1st 11 years of his pro career.

Sugar Ray fought better guys, but lost to worse fighters. I think SRR is overrated. I think he had like a 90 fight unbeaten streak, that is very impressive. He fought like every two weeks and continued to fight until he was 45.

Robinson would've not been as good in the Hagler era, that was the best era in boxing history, where all the greats fought each other. I dont see wat that has to do with my comment about Hagler's biggest opponents being former Welterweights and Lightweights. Robinson fought absolutly everyone, several times. Fought more frequently, plus he himself moved up from welterweight fighting very strong tough middleweights, and still KOing them . Robinson could of beaten everyone Hagler beat IMO.

I think over the whole of their career SRR fought more opponents who were better... however... Hagler has several wins over fighters who are all time greats and not just because they fought Hagler.

Easily Hagler! Hagler has def fought more P4P greats then Robinson did! He fought an over the hill Duran and lost to a Leonard who came out of retirement and had never fought a middleweight before. Well, i believe he Leonard beat him.

And whos fault is that??? He has 17 losses. You're insinuating he's over rated because of those losses? WOW. Go ahead and look at his record and look at how many of those came in the last two years of his career. Fighters from the 50's and before typically have more losses because they fought much more often. It's no ones fault, it's a simple statistic.