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

[Addie]

Originally Posted by Bill1234

I'm not sure how much Ray would've improved, though. He certainly didn't look much better in the fights he was involved in post-Hagler.

Ray was indeed rusty and coming off of a multiple year layoff, however I still think Marvin would've been better in a rematch with Ray. He'd have been incredibly determined, and his determination to completely destroy seemed to have faded a bit by the time he got in the ring with Leonard.

Marvin was clearly over confident and cocky going into the fight, which is what cost him early in the fight. In a rematch Hagler would be looking to kill and Ray didn't have the fire power nor the mobility to keep Hagler away for the entirety of the fight.

I still think Ray caught lightning in a bottle that April, 1987 night. Hagler showed up lethargic and allowed Ray to get into his groove for the first half of the fight and ended up narrowly winning on what seems to be 6 out of 10 people's score cards.

Was it a great performance by Ray, Bill?

[salsanchezfan]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

Yeah, Hagler was expected to kill him.
It was widely known to be a fight happening far too late. A couple of guys past their prime out for a payday, and it was considered a serious health risk for Ray.

It turned out to be a bit of a circus sideshow exhibition in its own way.
Vito Antuofermo even came out and said it was a fix.



There were some sharp minds who bet on Ray.

Jo Jo Guerra might have known one of them.

Maybe, but that's different than believing he'd actually win. With the odds given, there's precious little to lose throwing a bet on that horse. Many of those same people probably also placed bets on Hagler.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by salsanchezfan

Maybe, but that's different than believing he'd actually win. With the odds given, there's precious little to lose throwing a bet on that horse. Many of those same people probably also placed bets on Hagler.

I've laid so many bets on massive underdogs, simply because when the spread is way out of whack to what you actually believe the real odds to be, it's a smart move.

The Ravens against the Broncos two weekends ago? Shit, I didn't think they'd win, but I took those odds, because there was NO WAY one pro football team in the playoffs was nine points worse than another.

[Chaney]

Not sure if anybody's posted this yet, but it's an excellent and very in depth article about the build up, the fight and its aftermath. It's made up of lots of comments from key people, including the trainers, the judges, and Ray and Marvin. They've even got Bernard Hopkins giving his opinion on the fighters and the fight (he had it for Hagler).

Tons of info and insight...definitely worth a read.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Bill1234]

Originally Posted by Addie

Was it a great performance by Ray, Bill?

Yes and no. Yes in the fact that he performed as if he hadn't left the sport, but no in the fact that Hagler pretty much blocked and slipped everything Ray threw at him. I saw very few traps that Leonard set actually work.

Sure Ray was throwing sharp straight rights throughout the night and sneaky left hooks, but still Marvin caught most of them on the gloves and shoulders or slipped them. Marvin, on the other hand, landed a lot of good body punches in return. Marvin wasn't very smart with his pressure in the first half of the fight, but he turned it on the 2nd half and imo edged the fight 7 rounds to fight, with Leonard winning 4 of the first 6, and winning the last round. People talk of Marvin giving away the first 4 rounds (I disagree, as I earlier argued my point for scoring the 3rd for Marvin), but don't seem to mention him giving away the final round. He spent the final round trudging forward and taunting and Leonard didn't really do much to win it, but got it because Marvin simply did less.

I gave Ray 4 of the first 6, and 1 of the last 6. Obviously this means I gave Marvin 2 of the first 6 and 5 of the last 6.

[Grinder]

Seriously, if you watched the fight and then said go back in time to the start of the fight and wanted someone to fight for your life against a monster who would you pick? That pitter patter end of round shit ain't worth squat. Pro boxing is about doing damage. More damage than your opponent. Hagler took it too easily. Srl was fighting for his life. Everyone thought Hagler would chew up and spit out srl. The surprise that srl was still standing was enough to get him sympathy or whatever emotional reaction required to get a dodgy decision.

[duranimal]

Originally Posted by Grinder

Seriously, if you watched the fight and then said go back in time to the start of the fight and wanted someone to fight for your life against a monster who would you pick? That pitter patter end of round shit ain't worth squat. Pro boxing is about doing damage. More damage than your opponent. Hagler took it too easily. Srl was fighting for his life. Everyone thought Hagler would chew up and spit out srl. The surprise that srl was still standing was enough to get him sympathy or whatever emotional reaction required to get a dodgy decision.

Using that premiss: Chavez should have won every round against Taylor in the 1st fight.

[Rexrapper 1]

I don't think it was a robbery. It was a really close fight. I score it 7-5 for Hagler every time though.

[MagnaNasakki]

Originally Posted by duranimal

Using that premiss: Chavez should have won every round against Taylor in the 1st fight.

Exactly.

Thing is, folks, pro boxing is NOT about what you want it to be about. Commissions actually have rules. Seriously. The Harold Lederman thing before a fight? Not for show. When a judge is hired and trained, it is to THOSE rules.

Not: Clean Punching, Effective Aggression, Defense, and Ring Generalship, AND damage, or any other such nonsense.

If a guy hires me to appraise some wine according to the finish and the bouquet, I'm not gonna say, "eff you, bro, wine is all body!"

It's okay to have different criteria yourself, but if you have different criteria than the judges are given, you can't necessarily put down their decision in any way.

It's just time all boxing fans got their head around this concept, whether they agree and accept it or not.

[Goyourownway]

Given Hatton's recent loss to the Ukranian peasant farmer,it really puts Leonard's victory over Hagler into perspective.The level of revisionism poured into this topic in Hagler's favour is as embarrassing as the man's little victory jig following the fight.


Leonard's probably the only boxer that can have one fight in five years,move up two weight classes above his best weight and fight a man universally regarded as being the very best in the sport and still be accused of cherry-picking.


History has a way of vindicating the greatest of men,though.I'm sure there was a fair few who thought that Jesus fella was a bit of a charlatan and a fruit-loop in his day,and yet he's been flavour of the month for a few years now - got a best-selling book and everything.

[lora]

Jesus was always open to a good cross though, to be fair.

[Gesta]

Originally Posted by TheSouthpaw

Well said!..I have alot of respect for Haglar for staying away and not coming out of retirement for glory he obviously already gained!..Cant say the same for Leonard..Ive always wondered what the hell possessed him to get into the ring with Camacho!?.

Well Camacho was past prime , feather fisted former FW. Seems pretty safe

[Bill1234]

Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki

Exactly.

Thing is, folks, pro boxing is NOT about what you want it to be about. Commissions actually have rules. Seriously. The Harold Lederman thing before a fight? Not for show. When a judge is hired and trained, it is to THOSE rules.

Not: Clean Punching, Effective Aggression, Defense, and Ring Generalship, AND damage, or any other such nonsense.

If a guy hires me to appraise some wine according to the finish and the bouquet, I'm not gonna say, "eff you, bro, wine is all body!"

It's okay to have different criteria yourself, but if you have different criteria than the judges are given, you can't necessarily put down their decision in any way.

It's just time all boxing fans got their head around this concept, whether they agree and accept it or not.

Using the same criteria I still score the fight for Hagler. Leonard didn't do enough to get the W imo.

On a side note, Harold Ledderman has come out with some truly awful scorecards and tends to score a fight for whomever throws more and walks forward more, regardless of actually effectiveness.

[Gesta]

Originally Posted by Goyourownway

Given Hatton's recent loss to the Ukranian peasant farmer,it really puts Leonard's victory over Hagler into perspective.The level of revisionism poured into this topic in Hagler's favour is as embarrassing as the man's little victory jig following the fight.


Leonard's probably the only boxer that can have one fight in five years,move up two weight classes above his best weight and fight a man universally regarded as being the very best in the sport and still be accused of cherry-picking.


History has a way of vindicating the greatest of men,though.I'm sure there was a fair few who thought that Jesus fella was a bit of a charlatan and a fruit-loop in his day,and yet he's been flavour of the month for a few years now - got a best-selling book and everything.

Ray plays everyone for a fool, fakes retirements , waits til Hagler's past it to fight him etc.... and you compare him to Jesus

So it Duran the devil then?

[Goyourownway]

We have video evidence that validates Leonard's greatness.Can't really say the same for Jesus himself,unfortunately.Can't really rely sorely on the word of a bunch of nostalgic,crusty old geezers.