Just how bad was Haglar robbed if at all against SRL?

[KidDynamite]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Well, yeah, but it's all part of the game.

I say Hagler was cocky because he insisted on showing he could out-BOX the guy. He was cocky enough to believe others would agree with him and see things his way.
But 'out-box' is often a subjective thing, more often than 'out-fight', and certainly more subjective than 'knock out' which is clear-cut.

One of the judges seemed to be a founding member of the SRL Fan Club anyway, or bought off by persons unknown, so it was an even steeper uphill battle. And Hagler knew all this if he stopped to think rationally. He should have gone full-on-destroyer as if his life depended on it.

Of course, you are right, it was his pride and resentment that caused his outlook and strategy.

I thought he won by a point or two anyway, however many times I score it.

Leonard had this thing so structured that it was impossible for him to lose.

Literally the perfect plan.

Leonard is the ultimate conman and strategist. Floyd is the only one today who comes close to matching his wits but comes off as a douche.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by KidDynamite

Leonard had this thing so structured that it was impossible for him to lose.

Literally the perfect plan.

Leonard is the ultimate conman and strategist. Floyd is the only one today who comes close to matching his wits but comes off as a douche.

It's all part of the game. Sometimes, the smarter fighter wins. I just don't view "I fought dumber and signed a contract that wasn't advantageous to me" as a valid excuse. Frankly, it would hurt my pride as a fighter if I heard folks making that excuse for me.

Hagler wanted the fight, he took it, he signed on the dotted line, he fought it, he came up short. He OWNS that L. And it clearly hurts him and his fans a bit, which is, ultimately, another aspect of the game. I have a loss or three that still stick in my craw. I'd just never say I was "conned" out of it. Rubs me wrong.

I prefer to heap credit on the winner of an important fight than make excuses for the loser; Particularly an ATG who doesn't need those excuses made for him.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

I disagree. That's why we fight the fights.

Fans are too quick to take a fighters victory away from them. We earn it in the gym. Hagler fought dumb, Leonard fought smart. It was such a close, competitive fight that its mystique is enhanced. Leonard W12 Hagler. Case closed.

I agree that Hagler fought dumb and Leonard fought smart. But I still think he did enough to win.
I have a little extra sympathy for Hagler in this case, because I believe a close loss for Leonard would have been a 'victory' anyway, but not so for Hagler.

In close fights, the judging system is harsh. That's compunded by the fact that one of the Leonard votes was way too wide. I mean, even in these times of the internet and all the partisan crack pots, 'fan boys' and 'haters', you wont find many defending a 118-110 score.

In close disputable fights I always feel a draw would be the fairest result.

But it's all part of the game. They both got well paid. No one died. Everyone knows Hagler was a great fighter. It is what it is.

[KidDynamite]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

It's all part of the game. Sometimes, the smarter fighter wins. I just don't view "I fought dumber and signed a contract that wasn't advantageous to me" as a valid excuse. Frankly, it would hurt my pride as a fighter if I heard folks making that excuse for me.

Hagler wanted the fight, he took it, he signed on the dotted line, he fought it, he came up short. He OWNS that L. And it clearly hurts him and his fans a bit, which is, ultimately, another aspect of the game. I have a loss or three that still stick in my craw. I'd just never say I was "conned" out of it. Rubs me wrong.

I prefer to heap credit on the winner of an important fight than make excuses for the loser; Particularly an ATG who doesn't need those excuses made for him.

I give Leonard full credit for out smarting him and I already said that I thought he won the fight ... But we all know it was Haglers fight to lose

Ali out smarted Foreman in a similar way ... and his ring smarts and intelligence is what put him at the top of the best division of heavyweights

[KidDynamite]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

I agree that Hagler fought dumb and Leonard fought smart. But I still think he did enough to win.
I have a little extra sympathy for Hagler in this case, because I believe a close loss for Leonard would have been a 'victory' anyway, but not so for Hagler.

In close fights, the judging system is harsh. That's compunded by the fact that one of the Leonard votes was way too wide. I mean, even in these times of the internet and all the partisan crack pots, 'fan boys' and 'haters', you wont find many defending a 118-110 score.

In close disputable fights I always feel a draw would be the fairest result.

But it's all part of the game. They both got well paid. No one died. Everyone knows Hagler was a great fighter. It is what it is.

How are you scoring this fight? I mean Hagler flushed all of the early rounds down the toilet

[Rex Tickard]

I think many people underestimate or mischaracterize the work Leonard did in this fight. They characterize the fight as simply "Hagler landing harder punches, while Leonard threw pity pat flurries," but I don't think it's as clear cut as that. I think there were times when Hagler's punches looked slow and sloppy, while Leonard actually landed the sharper punches (see round 6, for example). I think Leonard mixed in enough solid punches among his so-called "pity pats" to make Hagler respect him and not simply walk through him. He also did a great job of tying up or smothering Hagler, especially in the early rounds, and made him miss with a lot of punches.

Leonard largely outclassed Hagler over the first four rounds. After his ring-rusty body began to tire in the 5th, he used his guile and will to remain competitive even in the rounds he probably lost. Despite people's characterizations of Leonard as "running" and Hagler "chasing," there are times in that fight where Hagler actually looks like the more tentative and less hungry of the two.

IMO, this was a close fight that probably could've been scored either way. I think a close win for Leonard was fair and well deserved.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by Rex Tickard

I think many people underestimate or mischaracterize the work Leonard did in this fight. They characterize the fight as simply "Hagler landing harder punches, while Leonard threw pity pat flurries," but I don't think it's as clear cut as that. I think there were times when Hagler's punches looked slow and sloppy, while Leonard actually landed the sharper punches (see round 6, for example). I think Leonard mixed in enough solid punches among his so-called "pity pats" to make Hagler respect him and not simply walk through him. He also did a great job of tying up or smothering Hagler, especially in the early rounds, and made him miss with a lot of punches.

Leonard largely outclassed Hagler over the first four rounds. After his ring-rusty body began to tire in the 5th, he used his guile and will to remain competitive even in the rounds he probably lost. Despite people's characterizations of Leonard as "running" and Hagler "chasing," there are times in that fight where Hagler actually looks like the more tentative and less hungry of the two.

IMO, this was a close fight that probably could've been scored either way. I think a close win for Leonard was fair and well deserved.

I agree completely. Over the first half of the fight, Leonard was hitting him sharp and hard, and making him miss to the degree he looked clumsy. He was completely the ring general- Hagler was chasing him with no real skill, purpose, or effect. Leonard won anywhere between 4 of the first 6, to, on some cards, all 6. I only gave Hagler round 5 myself.

118-110 is a bad card, but it's not so far off as to imply corruption. Once you bank half the fight, and the other half is gritty and competitive give and take, a scorecard can conceivably come back wide. It's possible. After the first 6, it was 100% Leonard's fight to lose, he was a mile ahead.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by KidDynamite

How are you scoring this fight? I mean Hagler flushed all of the early rounds down the toilet

The early rounds were close. It's become a cliche to say Leonard swept the first 5 rounds. But Leonard was diving in and grabbing a lot from the opening round on, impressed a lot of people I guess. Even if I give Leonard the close early rounds, Hagler won the fight.

[Stevie G]

Originally Posted by TheSouthpaw

Ive seen this fight I dont know how many times and for the life of me I just dont see Haglar being robbed of anything. I thought it was genius on Leonards part to wait till there was 30 seconds left to steal each round, and had Haglar been a little more busy and patient and fought his own fight instead of falling right into Rays trickery...It might have been a different outcome.

Leonard won the first few rounds at a canter. That's what won the fight for him. Hagler stalked him when he should have charged out,and not given the rusty Leonard a chance of building up a rhythm. Had he done this,he could have turned the decision his way. The right guy got given the nod by the judges.

I made it 7-4-1 Leonard.

[Rex Tickard]

Originally Posted by Bill1234

I know I'll sound like a broken record to those who have seen my comments on it previously, but oh well.

I thought Hagler landed the harder, cleaner shots, and also put in a lot of good body work that seems to go unappreciated. Much of Leonard's flash was caught on the gloves and shoulders on Marvin, and many of the shots that did get through were grazing, few landed really flush.

I've scored it 3 or 4 times with an open mind, and every time I have it come out 7-5 in favor of Marvin.

Round 1: 10-9 Leonard
Round 2: 10-9 Leonard (20-18 Leonard)
Round 3: 10-9 Hagler (29-28 Leonard)
Round 4: 10-9 Leonard (39-37 Leonard)
Round 5: 10-9 Hagler (48-47 Leonard)
Round 6: 10-9 Leonard (58-56 Leonard)
Round 7: 10-9 Hagler (67-66 Leonard)
Round 8: 10-9 Hagler (76-76)
Round 9: 10-9 Hagler (86-85 Hagler)
Round 10: 10-9 Hagler (96-94 Hagler)
Round 11: 10-9 Hagler (106-103 Hagler)
Round 12: 10-9 Leonard (115-113 Hagler)

I'll gladly discuss any rounds with people who question why I gave it to the said fighter.

I still believe Leonard won round 3 - I read your case for Hagler, but I still feel Hagler did too little over the second half of the round, while Leonard scored with numerous lead rights.

I'm more surprised at your scores for the last two rounds. I thought Leonard clearly won the 11th while Hagler won the 12th.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by Rex Tickard

He also did a great job of tying up or smothering Hagler, especially in the early rounds, and made him miss with a lot of punches.

I guess it's subjective, but I tend not to reward fighters for ducking in and grabbing their opponent.
If a fighter is backing away from his opponent, and then when the opponent gets a little bit closer he just moves in a claims the opponent, I don't think that merits points.

There are different ways to score fights, I'm sure.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by Stevie G

Leonard won the first few rounds at a canter. That's what won the fight for him. Hagler stalked him when he should have charged out,and not given the rusty Leonard a chance of building up a rhythm. Had he done this,he could have turned the decision his way. The right guy got given the nod by the judges.

I made it 7-4-1 Leonard.

The first two are the most dramatic. Hagler got just about zero done in them. Quite literally, zero. They may be the most decisive rounds in the fight outside of 8.

[Rex Tickard]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

If a fighter is backing away from his opponent, and then when the opponent gets a little bit closer he just moves in a claims the opponent, I don't think that merits points.

It doesn't - it prevents the opponent from scoring points, while the other fighter scores with punches in between tying up.

And that's precisely what Leonard did through the first four rounds IMO.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by Rex Tickard

It doesn't - it prevents the opponent from scoring points, while the other fighter scores with punches in between tying up.

And that's precisely what Leonard did through the first four rounds IMO.

It's a valid tactic. I'm not gonna penalize what a guy is doing when the ref isn't. If he's the general, and he's landing, and the opponent isn't and can't force different behavior, one guy is outboxing the other guy.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by Rex Tickard

It doesn't - it prevents the opponent from scoring points, while the other fighter scores with punches in between tying up.

And that's precisely what Leonard did through the first four rounds IMO.

Hagler landed some punches too. The second and third round look about even.

But, hey, I give Leonard the rounds just to appease the majority. And Hagler still ends up in front after 12.