Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-22-2012, 10:42 AM   #76
Clinton
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,849
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by redrooster View Post
thanks, I appreciate it Duranimal.

u kno I am just being honest. I am the biggest hagler fan out there. I know him thru & thru as a fighter, there was no end to his wizardry. Like they say, the man had no limitations

but, seemed ineffective with Duran. What I found very surprising is that Duran actually did land the heavier shots and made Marv miss & struggle. Marv was bragging we were going to see the best Hagler ever. Instead we got the worst (second worst if u count Leonard)

I also kno about Leonards comments. i seen them. his retirement was never for real. I dont kno why people keep insisting it was. It's like they cant accept reality

and like I said before, if it seems too good to be true, it is

Ray was just looking for someone easy, someone lifeless, someone with a reputation but who couldnt physically hurt him when he made his come back

I kno Angelo puts on a front with what Ray will do differently to Marvin when in reality their plan was to lay back until the time was right. and yeah, Ray let the cat out of the bag after watching Mugabi take him to task "I can beat him!"

well if he could beat him, why didnt he say while he was doing commentary on HBO?

but u kno his fans. they'll go on pretending, ignoring reaility to build him up

IMO, Sugar just wasnt that good. A few more wins like Pryor, Curry, Nunn wouldve helped his stature but I dont think he could handle them. Neither does he
Welcome back, Rooster!! The ESB brethren should read Steve Marantz's book for the complete story and then comment on the fight. Fact is, Leonard waited for Hagler to get slow, shopworn and unmotivated. Then he reacted. That's it!
Clinton is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-22-2012, 01:59 PM   #77
MAG1965
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dallas,Texas.
Posts: 17,399
vCash: 1010
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clinton View Post
Welcome back, Rooster!! The ESB brethren should read Steve Marantz's book for the complete story and then comment on the fight. Fact is, Leonard waited for Hagler to get slow, shopworn and unmotivated. Then he reacted. That's it!
and it worked. That is why many people do not consider Ray's win a complete win over a prime and sharp Hagler.
MAG1965 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 02:01 PM   #78
MAG1965
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dallas,Texas.
Posts: 17,399
vCash: 1010
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clinton View Post
Mag, please stop lying. Wilfred Benitez was not a naturally smaller man than Duran. Because Duran fought at 154 earlier than Benitez did, doesn't prove Duran was naturally bigger. All it proves it that he was older and fatter when they fought. Benitez' tale of the tape proves he was bigger than Duran. Stop the lying please.
It isn't a matter of lying, it is my belief. Duran could get up to 260 pounds, and he fought at 154 as early as 1978. Benitez fought great at 154, but at middleweight he reached his peak and Duran still won a title and even fought at 168. Older and fatter? Duran was 30 when he fought Benitez. Not an old man by most standards. He was only 32 when he lost to Hearns.
MAG1965 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 02:05 PM   #79
MAG1965
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dallas,Texas.
Posts: 17,399
vCash: 1010
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clinton View Post
As great as Michael Spinks was(he would have destroyed, DESTROYED your man Virgil Hill, as well as Tommy, too) and as good as the division was at that point, the lightheavyweights were not a glamorous, moneymaking division that the welters and middles were. I don't believe Michael ever had a million dollar payday as a lightheavy-perhaps the Qawi fight?
This is about Hagler and saying Hearns should have cut off his baby pinkie for 2 million dollars. The comment someone made was that Hagler was calling Hearns out in 1982 of puling out of their May of 1982 fight and fighting Benitez for his 154 pound title. So if Hagler wants to call people out, then the fact is he never even considered fighting Spinks. Now had Hearns beaten Hagler in April of 1985, Hearns and Steward already decided they would move up and fight Spinks for the Light heavyweight title. Obviously that plan did not happen.
Spinks had an advantage over Tommy, but Tommy would have fought him and done something Marvin would not have regardless of money, and Tommy started out at welterweight. Virgil Hill. Underrated fighter. I don't know how that fight would go, but Hill's style against Spinks is not good. Hill would probably be hit with that right hand so I agree with that.
MAG1965 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 06:02 PM   #80
duranimal
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of England
Posts: 4,315
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG1965 View Post
It isn't a matter of lying, it is my belief. Duran could get up to 260 pounds, and he fought at 154 as early as 1978. Benitez fought great at 154, but at middleweight he reached his peak and Duran still won a title and even fought at 168. Older and fatter? Duran was 30 when he fought Benitez. Not an old man by most standards. He was only 32 when he lost to Hearns.
What a load of wank! That age was damb well GERIATRIC back then as you damb well know & name me another blown up lightweight veteren of 70+ fights who fought for the 154/160 titles when into his 30's!!! Your twisting of the facts to suit yer own pathetic agenda is really an insight to a sad mentality.

You absolutely refuse to see anything wider than your own micro tunnelled vision, even when confronted with the irrifutable proof & truth, it would'nt be so bad if it could be viewed as a wind up, but it ai'nt, you actually believe this ignorant deluded crap you write & SRL being still GREEN in the montreal fight & PRIME 15 months later just about sums up your biased idiocy along with it being extreamly insulting & rude to the many quality posters on here. Hang yer head in shame & continue sucking.
duranimal is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 06:24 PM   #81
MAG1965
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dallas,Texas.
Posts: 17,399
vCash: 1010
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by duranimal View Post
What a load of wank! That age was damb well GERIATRIC back then as you damb well know & name me another blown up lightweight veteren of 70+ fights who fought for the 154/160 titles when into his 30's!!! Your twisting of the facts to suit yer own pathetic agenda is really an insight to a sad mentality.

You absolutely refuse to see anything wider than your own micro tunnelled vision, even when confronted with the irrifutable proof & truth, it would'nt be so bad if it could be viewed as a wind up, but it ai'nt, you actually believe this ignorant deluded crap you write & SRL being still GREEN in the montreal fight & PRIME 15 months later just about sums up your biased idiocy along with it being extreamly insulting & rude to the many quality posters on here. Hang yer head in shame & continue sucking.
I have not said anything in my posts to ever be insulting and rude. As a matter of fact I always stay on point and just bring my opinions, which is what this message board format is about isn't it? So I don't understand that. You can ask anyone on these boards if I have ever insulted anyone or have been rude and most will say no. I keep it very objective. This is boxing. Yet you tell me I should hold my head in shame and keep sucking. Who is the one being rude and insulting?
About Ray, I never said Ray was prime 15 months later with Hearns, I said he was the closest to prime in a big fight since he retired soon after the Finch fight. He retired so he never fought when he would have been prime.

You say into his 30s, Duran was 30 when he fought Benitez and 32 when he fought Hearns, and there are many guys who won titles in their 30s who fought at lighter weights when they were younger. Jones,Toney,Hearns,Leonard,etc etc.
What am I twisting? Duran fans want to say he was washed up at 30 years old and overweight and slow just so he has an excuse to losing to the greats he fought at 147,154. I don't think that is accurate.
When Duran won and beat Moore and Barkley people say it proves he was so great. When he loses he had an excuse that he was too old or out of shape.
MAG1965 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 06:32 PM   #82
Pat_Lowe
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 593
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by duranimal View Post
What a load of wank! That age was damb well GERIATRIC back then as you damb well know & name me another blown up lightweight veteren of 70+ fights who fought for the 154/160 titles when into his 30's!!! Your twisting of the facts to suit yer own pathetic agenda is really an insight to a sad mentality.

You absolutely refuse to see anything wider than your own micro tunnelled vision, even when confronted with the irrifutable proof & truth, it would'nt be so bad if it could be viewed as a wind up, but it ai'nt, you actually believe this ignorant deluded crap you write & SRL being still GREEN in the montreal fight & PRIME 15 months later just about sums up your biased idiocy along with it being extreamly insulting & rude to the many quality posters on here. Hang yer head in shame & continue sucking.
I don't ever post here because of idiots like you. All just double standards and hypocrisy. If I recall correctly, you said Leonard fought scared in New Orleans, yet who quit? Because of a little pain in his tummy. Fighters have fought with broken hands, broken faces, cuts, swelling and all kinds of injuries. Klitschko's eyelid was pretty much removed vs Lewis, yet he wanted to continue.

I personally find it laughable the amount of historical revisionism (that goes both ways though) when it comes to Duran. Apparently he was prime in Montreal against Leonard, but lo and behold, when it comes to New Orleans it turns out that evidently Duran was FORCED to take the fight and because Leonard won, there is no way Duran was prime.
Pat_Lowe is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 08:31 PM   #83
duranimal
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of England
Posts: 4,315
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat_Lowe View Post
I don't ever post here because of idiots like you. All just double standards and hypocrisy. If I recall correctly, you said Leonard fought scared in New Orleans, yet who quit? Because of a little pain in his tummy. Fighters have fought with broken hands, broken faces, cuts, swelling and all kinds of injuries. Klitschko's eyelid was pretty much removed vs Lewis, yet he wanted to continue.

I personally find it laughable the amount of historical revisionism (that goes both ways though) when it comes to Duran. Apparently he was prime in Montreal against Leonard, but lo and behold, when it comes to New Orleans it turns out that evidently Duran was FORCED to take the fight and because Leonard won, there is no way Duran was prime.
You don't post here for 2 good reasons, because you know **** all about the subject & even less about Boxing. Who ever said Duran was PRIME in Montreal? NO ONE! & who ever said Duran was FORCED to take the fight in New Orleans???? NO ONE!!

It's wankers like you that dilute the classic, now PISS OFF back to the general where you belong
duranimal is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 08:34 PM   #84
duranimal
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South of England
Posts: 4,315
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG1965 View Post
I have not said anything in my posts to ever be insulting and rude. As a matter of fact I always stay on point and just bring my opinions, which is what this message board format is about isn't it? So I don't understand that. You can ask anyone on these boards if I have ever insulted anyone or have been rude and most will say no. I keep it very objective. This is boxing. Yet you tell me I should hold my head in shame and keep sucking. Who is the one being rude and insulting?
About Ray, I never said Ray was prime 15 months later with Hearns, I said he was the closest to prime in a big fight since he retired soon after the Finch fight. He retired so he never fought when he would have been prime.

You say into his 30s, Duran was 30 when he fought Benitez and 32 when he fought Hearns, and there are many guys who won titles in their 30s who fought at lighter weights when they were younger. Jones,Toney,Hearns,Leonard,etc etc.
What am I twisting? Duran fans want to say he was washed up at 30 years old and overweight and slow just so he has an excuse to losing to the greats he fought at 147,154. I don't think that is accurate.
When Duran won and beat Moore and Barkley people say it proves he was so great. When he loses he had an excuse that he was too old or out of shape.
don't get so tetchy i was'nt being personaljust taking the PISS
duranimal is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 09:34 PM   #85
redrooster
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,534
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SugarAli View Post
Are you really saying these words again. Ray stayed outside and won the rubbermatch and that somehow proves he beats prime Duran. You are actually comparing Montreal Duran or even NO Duran and to the 89 Duran? Which Duran Ray has to fight means nothing? You do this with only Duran or every fighter? Any version of Ray loses to Norris every time? Frazier still with footspeed wont make it tougher for Ali like in 71 or does that not mean anything becasue Ali won the next two? Lewis easily beat Tyson. Which Tyson means **** all as long as Lewis boxes him i guess.

I think any best 70's version of Ali gets beaten by the best 70's version of Frazier. Im not 100% sure Montreal Duran beats NO Ray but you are 100% sure Ray wins despite Duran was not the same fighter. Its werid.

And one thing about the Montreal fight. It was not like they were trading bombs from the get go. Ray was hurt in the 2nd round and you are not gonna just easily outbox an intense Duran versiion with foot and handspeed , feints and the whole damn skillset away from you easily when you are hurt. And the beating Ray took to the body in the following round does not help either.

Im seriously losing it when you somehow manages to try make Duran naturally the bigger man than the legends that he fought after 80. Becasue he was the oldest guy and had some bad habits at that point and took a fight at 154 means just that.Yeah he looked great still at 147 but come on. Duran could probably come in at 175 and fight Spinks as well at some point in the 80's. Does not mean a small guy is a his best there now does it. Its retarded. He fought there before Heanrs so that makes him naturally than Benitez and Hearns sure.


Back to the topic. I think Hagler had the advatage with Ray beeing inactive that long despite Hagler beeing fairly inactive himself and this being his last fight. 5 yearsoff and beating a pound for pound beast at the time. Really is absurd.

The fight is really close imo. Some special guys like Ali or Ray are gonna get the decision when its close. Im saying that as a huge Ali fan. But its close and I don't have a problem with Ray getting it. Haglers own fault for not making it tougher for Ray early.

That being said as some have stated in this thread its an amazing win after that layoff. Even if its against a sliding Hagler its still an huge win. Just an unbeliveable will to win to go with all that speed.

Just a damn shame they did not fight when they were prime. This thread makes me wonder what the thoughts were back when they were close to fight before the layoff ( Only Ray knows if was really close obviously) On Rays chances. Big underdog in 87 but how much of an underdog before the layoff? Anyone older than me knows that?

Personally I think prime Ray would beat prime Hagler. Most of the time at least.
none of the time. The first time would be his last.

by 1987, Hagler was an old fart with nothing to offer. Just like those race horses put out to pasture

But if you're talking about someone like Norris, young, hungry, that is a different story altogether!

The Norris speed was a dimension Ray never had to deal with, combined with his all around defense in which ray could not break thru

cuz Like I been saying all this time: When Terry didnt want to be touched,,,, HE WASNT!

Too bad Ray didnt get Terry to sign a contract to have both feet shackled together

Terry was slick, quick, N made Sugar SICK
redrooster is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 09:39 PM   #86
redrooster
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,534
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PityTheFool View Post
The question was about who had the advantage.
Are you honestly trying to say Hagler didn't have it here?
obviously, Ray had his legs & reflexes

Hagler didnt

advantage Ray
redrooster is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 09:42 PM   #87
sugarkills
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 472
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

LOL Ray Leonard's CAREER has been all about having the advantage over his opponents!
sugarkills is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 09:54 PM   #88
MAG1965
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dallas,Texas.
Posts: 17,399
vCash: 1010
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by duranimal View Post
don't get so tetchy i was'nt being personaljust taking the PISS
I know.. I wasn't upset, but at the same time I do not try and be rude when it comes to Duran since I know people love him so much. I am not trying to upset you guys about Duran at all when I comment. Great fighter, the only thing I comment on is when people say he had Hagler's number. I cannot accept that. If he had Hagler's number he would have beaten him. Now I think if someone said Leonard had Hagler's number I would agree. Having someones number has to do with beating them. I don't even think Hearns had Duran's number because had Duran taken those punches, he could have come back and given Tommy a tough fight, and most people don't takes Tommy's punches so it was not surprising.
MAG1965 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 10:00 PM   #89
Clinton
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,849
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG1965 View Post
It isn't a matter of lying, it is my belief. Duran could get up to 260 pounds, and he fought at 154 as early as 1978. Benitez fought great at 154, but at middleweight he reached his peak and Duran still won a title and even fought at 168. Older and fatter? Duran was 30 when he fought Benitez. Not an old man by most standards. He was only 32 when he lost to Hearns.
You are a liar. Duran was not naturally bigger than Benitez.
Clinton is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 10:09 PM   #90
Clinton
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,849
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Hagler vs Leonard - Who had the advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAG1965 View Post
This is about Hagler and saying Hearns should have cut off his baby pinkie for 2 million dollars. The comment someone made was that Hagler was calling Hearns out in 1982 of puling out of their May of 1982 fight and fighting Benitez for his 154 pound title. So if Hagler wants to call people out, then the fact is he never even considered fighting Spinks. Now had Hearns beaten Hagler in April of 1985, Hearns and Steward already decided they would move up and fight Spinks for the Light heavyweight title. Obviously that plan did not happen.
Spinks had an advantage over Tommy, but Tommy would have fought him and done something Marvin would not have regardless of money, and Tommy started out at welterweight. Virgil Hill. Underrated fighter. I don't know how that fight would go, but Hill's style against Spinks is not good. Hill would probably be hit with that right hand so I agree with that.
Once again, Michael never had a pay that high at 175, but Hagler NEVER EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO MOVE TO 175. His desire was to be the greatest middle ever. That's on record, btw. Having written that, Spinks would have ****ING DESTROYED any version of Hill and Hearns. Easily. Easily. Hill's underrated,lol? Had he fought in Spinks' era, he wouldn't have broken into the top 5, maybe not even top 10 come to think of it. Btw, I've nothing but respect for Tommy, but what makes you think that he would have fought Spinks? Is there something we've all missed?
Clinton is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013