Where would Hagler be ranked had he beaten SRL?

If Marv had been awarded the decision, the pressure for him to defend against Ray in an immediate return bout would have been tremendous, likewise for SRL to challenge in a championship distance rematch.

The decision will be argued about as long as boxing is discussed. What's not open to debate is that Marv didn't stop Ray, or even deck him, while SRL was definitely tiring at the end. Hagler's legacy was adversely affected the moment the final bell rang, regardless of the scoring. He entered that bout the consensus P4P best in the world, while Ray came in off a dreadful showing against Kevin Howard three years earlier. It took Hearns to redeem Marv's reputation after Duran, something which would have been extremely difficult after he'd also let SRL go the limit in such a close match. As has already been mentioned, it's a sharp contrast to how Monzon went out in the Valdez rematch.

 

I genuinely don't understand that way of thinking though.

Do you credit paul williams with earning a draw against lara? Or chavez with earning a draw against whittaker?

Ray himself admits he went 1-1 with tommy and incompetent scoring doesn't change what we can see with our own eyes watching the fight.

 

Well that is ok. Ray can say what he wants. Tommy never beat him. I never have said a guy beat someone if the scorecards did not go with it. Same as I never believe in fixes in boxing, whether if they ever happened I am not sure. But to love the sport I have to have a little faith in it.

 

Ok then, you can believe ray and tommy were fighting on an equal footing that night but anyone being objective can clearly see that tommy was the superior man that night.

 

oh I agree. But Tommy did not win. It helped his legacy a little, but the scorecards saying he won would have helped even more.. what is written on paper does matter a little.

 

I'm not bothered about paper in the slightest. Once a fight is available to watch it makes absolutely no difference how the judges score it.

Why bother ranking fighters at all if you aren't going to go by your own observations?

You do appreciate that having better judges at ringside for tommy v ray 2 wouldn't change the performance of the two men. They still threw the punches, they threw and still blocked the punches they blocked.

 

I do rate them myself. you have seen my opinions on esb.. I have them just as much or more than most people on here, which angers many in regards to Roberto Duran, who I think is great, just not 1-10. It is a matter of using my own opinions and also the results. But I am not going to say because I think Hearns beat Leonard, that he beat him.. it did help his legacy.. I am not sure you are reading what I am saying.. I am saying what is on paper has some weight. The boxers know that. Why would they get upset or not if they win the title or not, or win a fight? If all which was needed was what they believed, who would care about the judges.

 

If you're gonna be a stickler to official results why not just use some official rankings like the ring top 100 etc.

The fighters care because they get paid money based on official results.

But when you're giving your own opinion on rankings it should be based on your own opinion of fights.

Anyone giving ray and tommy equal credit for the rematch is delusional imo.

 

It's like anyone who doesn't give credit to Whitaker for beating Chavez or Wright against Vargas

 

Agree on both points.

 

I rate my own but I do not make my own winner or losers. Then why not turn off the television when the fight is over and say who the winner is. It does matter in an official sense. I disagreed with Thomas getting a draw with Leonard, but when it was announced as a draw I knew it will never be a win no matter what I said or what Hearns said or the public ( who most thought Tommy won). Official results do matter. But as far as opinion over results, well I always believed Hearns fought better guys and beat better guys than say Hagler. So I think he is greater. The fighter on paper who was greater most would say Hagler because he beat Hearns h2h, which is usually how people rate Tommy and Marvin in a simplistic fastion since most people think because Duran beat Ray in June of 1980, that it means he beat the Ray who moved and knew the whole game. I saw that result, but disregard it since the next fight proved more than the first one I think.

About opinions and who won and all that. I have a friend who used to train fighters. His fighter would be taking a beating and I was hoping the fight would be stopped. It eventually was, but my friend was there in the dressing room saying how it was a bad stoppage and he was going to file a protest. I was thinking what fight was he watching? It was just his opinion that his guy was doing better than he was because he was emotionally involved in it. No matter what I would say, he would never see that his fighter was overmatched, so what would my friends opinion matter if there were no official result?
I think you are confusing going with official results opposed to greatness of a fighter. My point is the Hagler result in 1987 matched the decision, yet in the overall scheme a positive result for a fighter gives that fighter an argument for a higher ranking than not, no matter what. But about the Hagler/Leoanrd fight, I had no argument with the decision except for Guerra going 118-110, yet the final result does make a difference overall. Had Hearns beaten Leonard in 1989, he would have beaten Benitez,Leonard,Duran,Cueves and Hill. It would have added that much to the argument just on a paper result. It does matter regardless of what people say.

 

i don't see why hagler can't be ranked above leonard because of one very close fight.

 

Ray beat Duran,Hearns,Benitez and Hagler. Even if they never fought and Hagler had his career up to that point and retired, and think Ray is greater. But it is much closer.

 

He did beat srl he just got robbed

 

I had the fight if I recall at 116-112, yet officially I think it was 115-113 on two cards, and 118-110. Hagler blew it by coming out righty in rounds one and two. He would have been better to fight a more aggressive fight. I don't think he had another Hagler/Hearns kind of fight in him to come out that way, but being more aggressive would have helped him. He was rusty having only 1 fight since Hearns in 1985 and Leonard didn't get him mad. Either way he didn't come out for a tough fight.