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

Doesn't this mean you would have Chavez of Taylor since he clearly landed the harder punches.

 

I try to score by sharpness...

"Hard punches" is so nebulous. It's easier to look at how well it landed, and how well it was thrown. This accurately extrapolates power.

Hagler landed some garbage arm punches in the fight, in addition to some sharp, good ones. Leonard landed a LOT of good punches, but because he's the smaller, weaker fighter and Hagler has the best chin in history, he's the "weaker puncher" and gets a scoring handicap. I don't think that's appropriate.

Round 9 has a ton of good, hard punches by Hagler. Most of what he lands in the 3rd has NOTHING behind it.

 

yes if you are going to decide how good a punch is by how visibly hard it looks, then good luck doing that with Marv, he never looked to ****ed any which way. It would mean that Tommy only landed one decent punch on him too.

 

I completely disagree. Hagler often shifted his weight on his feet astoundingly. It moved opponents, and their necks, in addition to demonstrating impacts throughout the torso.

He also had a habit of swatting and poking until he found the opening he wanted to let something stick. I dont give him much for those.

I've never had an issue deciding which punches in Hagler-Hearns had impact vs. The ones that should be scored lesser because they truly did not.

 

it was significant becuz Leonard didnt do enough to win

Round 1 was only even. so was 3. anyone saying Sugar deserved those is lying and only decieving themselves

round 2, 4, 12 to Leonard altho I believe a point deduction was warranted becuz of the flagrant bolo/groin shot (rd 4)

rds 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 to Hagler

rd. 7 even altho a point deduction is also warranted here becuz of the combination Leonard waited to strike Hagler with after the bell (inspired by John Mugabi)

I dont see why Sugar gets a free ride with fouling altho Hagler didnt need deductions. He won legit without them

 

you can't say that as if it's fact though red. plenty of people, myself included, have scored the first 4 for leonard. if you don't think leonard deserved it for moving, punching, and controlling the tempo, what the heck did hagler do to deserve it?

 

My take:

Leonard won closely but clearly. He didn't 'run', he boxed precisely off the back foot. Any talk of needing to take the title is bull ****, otherwise Willie Pep would never have regained his featherweight championship.

Excellent display by a former welterweight to beat the middleweight king.

No shame in losing to Leonard; he'd have beaten several great middleweights, I'm sure of it. He always had that special talent and looked comfortable at 160lbs.

Hagler seemed to age very quickly. For whatever reason, he already looked slow by the Hearns fight and as a former student of Hagler's career, I in fact first noticed the decline in the Hamsho rematch, 1984, even if there was a great knockout on the end of it. By 1985, aggression was enough to cover up the fact he no longer had the speed and footwork to counter punch and box. Any snap in his punches had long disappeared by 1986 - seriously - see for yourself and compare the velocity from earlier showings. 1987 was worse.

Hagler simply couldn't keep up with Leonard and walked in with his head down and swung hooks slowly.

I'm absolutely convinced that a 1980-'83 Hagler would have dominated Leonard, and rightly so, seeing as 160lbs was his territory. He was a sharp hitting technician back then, as opposed to a slow, hittable, not-that-powerful clubber with only remnants remaining of a once stiff jab.

 

Bull****... If you want the belt, you earn it. I don`t agree with your old-timer talk. You have to take the title and I am sure most people agrre with this sentiment. Clay, TOOK it from Liston, Louis/Braddock,Duran Buchanan. What you don`t realize that thsese types of calls and the truly horrid decisions that we are forced to endure, hurt the sport. Close rds, should then go to the fighter who is trying to make the fight !And damn it, you SHOULD work harder to take the belt. Who wants to see titles change hands with a guy just trying to squeak buy... Maybe thats the type of fights you enjoy...

 

Terry Norris beats them both on the same night !!

 

Hagler just wasn't a natural puncher when he switched to orthodox.

Still one of THE classic ****ups in boxing history is his early rounds strategy here.

 

but how do you score a round or a fight if the challenger wins it close but doesn't "take the fight"? what if the person who won the close round wasn't trying to make the fight/brawl? they just won it by outboxing the other guy. do you score that for the champ? do you score ALL close rounds for the champ or redo your scorecard at the end if the challenger won?

it's so vague a definition as not to be applicable and is frankly, unfair to an extreme. by your definition you'll score a fight completely differently if there's a belt on the line than if there isn't a champion to favour. that sounds dangerous to me...

 

Do you guys who say you don`t have to beat a champ, conclusively, really believe that ? Similar comparison, fighter A fights fighter B in B`s back yard. Whoever wins, no matter how close, gets the true decision ??? What planet are you from ? Judging isn`t just the technical aspect, you have human beings doing the scoring. If you don`t think you have to factor that in and make it definitve...

 

Really, and favored fighters don`t get unfair decisions? You are pathetic ... BTW, boxiing Einsein, have you watched some of the decisions that get handed out and still bakc that opinion ???

 

spot on! M