Could ray Robinson KO Hagler?

[GunStar]

U made the statement that Hagler was the physically strongest middleweight ever.

No matter how great his training was, there are no test results to prove he was stronger than anyone.

I agree, he was strong. But to say he was stronger than another middleweight champion from another era....u have no proof and are saying things based on ur opinion without being able to back it up.

Boxing isnt weightlifting. It isnt a measure of strength. And there is no evidence to prove such a remark.

Hagler could've benched over 400 LBS, but he rarely used weights! His stamina was great, he was the most physically strongest middleweight of all time, do some reserach!

[K-DOGG]

Hagler could've benched over 400 LBS, but he rarely used weights! His stamina was great, he was the most physically strongest middleweight of all time, do some reserach!

"physically strongest middleweight"?

I don't know about that. Stanley Ketchel was strong as an ox, LaMotta was strong, so was Graziano...Monzon too, though he was more of a "boxer"....Harry Greb was strong, Micky Walker fought heavyweights.

I dont' know about Hagler being the "strongest"....really.

[Kid Achilles]

Bassilio, and Fullmer were immensely strong but you wouldn't know that from looking at their KO percentages. I would rather take Hagler's best shot than Fullmer's, who many believe did the real damage to Kid Paret before he fought Griffith in what was to be the last night of his life.

A punching bag with little power? Gene Fullmer was a ****ing miniature grizzly bear. Have you ever seen his fight with Kid Paret or Robinson and the vicious shots he throws? You can see the hitting power in those punches. I really can't believe this forum sometimes.

As far as Hagler's strength goes, please. LaMotta fought light heavyweights and heavyweights through his career. He had the strength to bull them around and the power to hurt them. Monzon was pretty much a dried out light heavy fighting at middleweight. His frame and natural strength were immense for that weight.

Hagler was a relatively small boned middleweight who was strong and could punch but was not exceptional in either area.

Fullmer, Bassilio, Monzon, and LaMotta. All fought at middleweight and all were stronger than Hagler IMO.

Hagler was amazing and a well rounded fighter and champion but let's not go overboard on his strength.

[The Noose]

Hagler could've benched over 400 LBS, but he rarely used weights! His stamina was great, he was the most physically strongest middleweight of all time, do some reserach!

lol
And how much could Stanley Ketchel, LaMotta, Harry Greb, Monzon, Graziano, and Micky Walker benchpress??
Seriously, id like u to answer. But of course u cannot.

Its a plain ****** comment to say Hagler was the strongest.


So lets just end this ****.

[Kid Achilles]

I don't know about bench pressing but Walker, Ketchel, and Greb were strong enough to hold their own in clinches with heavyweights 30, 40, or more pounds heavier.

Besides, who gives a **** about benchpressing when it comes to boxing. Shane Mosley pressed more for his weight than any boxer I've ever heard of and there's nothing exceptional about his strength in the clinches.

Edit: You do make a good point though that how the hell can you prove any of this **** about Hagler? Show me the links to this evidence Gunstar of how strong he was.

All I know is I can't for the life of me remember him ever fighting any heavyweights and proving his strength against them so I'd go with Ketchel, Greb, Fitzsimmons, and Walker who actually did.

[GunStar]

lol
And how much could Stanley Ketchel, LaMotta, Harry Greb, Monzon, Graziano, and Micky Walker benchpress??
Seriously, id like u to answer. But of course u cannot.

Its a plain ****** comment to say Hagler was the strongest.


So lets just end this ****.

I was not the idiot who called Lamotta the strongest middleweight of all time.

[Kid Achilles]

I never called LaMotta the strongest middleweight of all time. I called him stronger than Hagler seeing as he fought bigger men (light heavyweights, heavyweights) and proved himself to be just as strong or stronger. Because of this, an excellent case can be made for LaMotta possessing greater strength than Hagler who only fought middleweights and never distinguished himself as being much stronger than those middleweights.

[K-DOGG]

kd different from ko? no ****

if you concede realninja's point, why did you write as if he could have NOT known that robinson was only stopped by heat in his entire career.

anyway's back to your post

robinson was dropped in his prime, too. by jake la motta. and in the mid 50s was not far from his prime either.

(and how can you write "frequently" in quotes, when I NEVER wrote the word frequently in any of my posts)

no **** hagler showed signs of slipping. too bad his chin did NOT show any signs of slipping (see the mugabi fight).

your interpretation of the evidence tells you robinson would be doing the knocking out. other ppl, might be disagreeing. I think robinson had more power than hagler, and hagler had a better chin. you can show me AGAIN all the footage of both fighters, read me AGAIN excerpts from articles, books, bios and I will not change my mind because it is a well informed opinion and I am able to understand what I read/watch without anyone explaining me how to do it.

hagler lost to willie monroe, just like robinson lost to la motta. what happened in the other fights? yes that's right hagler ****d monroe and robinson beat la motta sometimes convincingly, sometimes not quite.

I dont think hagler is a god. He has his shortcomings: lack of power in his let hand nad most important he was a "******" fighter in the 80s when he decided he would fight according to his ****** mantra...

and one more thing. my rating of lamotta does not show any bias or lack of learning. it is a consequence of reading, thinking, watching and thinking again. Your calling others' informed opinions biased or uninformed is arrogant.

1. You're the one that kept emphasizing Robinson gettin knocked down....most of which happened late in his career, so I figured I needed to point out the difference for your benefit.

2. I wasn't directing any of the lecture at The Real Ninja becauase I know he knows his stuff...you, on the other hand, I am quite unsure of.

3. Mid-50's equals Robinson fighting at Middleweight and in his early to mid-30's....ergo, he's past his prime fighting weight of 147...nuff said.

4. I was wrong to put "frequently" in quotations, seeing as how you didn't use that particular word. However, the implication was there.

5. Hagler was rocked by Mugabi...have you seen the fight?

6. Monroe shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as LaMotta, to paraphrase your thoughts on LaMotta and Hagler. Also, Hagler didn't fight Monroe 6 times....'course, there was no need to; but that merely points out the obsurdity of your comparison.

7. Calling Hagler "******" is far more arrogant than any pretense I set forth; but for my part, I'll take my arrogance to ignorance any day of the week.

Nice talking with you..

[GunStar]

I never called LaMotta the strongest middleweight of all time. I called him stronger than Hagler seeing as he fought bigger men (light heavyweights, heavyweights) and proved himself to be just as strong or stronger. Because of this, an excellent case can be made for LaMotta possessing greater strength than Hagler who only fought middleweights and never distinguished himself as being much stronger than those middleweights.

[Kid Achilles]

Posting pictures of both men's physiques doesn't add anything new to the conversation and proves nothing. Show me the evidence of Hagler having light-heavyweight strength such as Jake LaMotta and Marcel Cerdan possessed.