Influenced by the Commentators?

So considering all that, anyone else but the OP believe that Hagler should have gotten the decision? DID Leanord/s shrewd antics, like losing 5/6ths of a round & pouring it on the last 30 seconds, mean he got an undeserved decision?

 

I guess it would be unfair of me to say that my opinion is completely unbiased, as Hagler is my favourite boxer of all time. But whenever watching it and trying to score it I have always felt a draw would have been a good decision. Hagler would have kept the belt, and Leonard would have everyone kissing his ass for the performance....everyone wins

 

The fact that Hagler is disgruntled more than a quarter century later tells me he's got personality trait issues and not much else. Time to let it go.

Also, to simply dismiss Leonard's effort that night as merely being smoke and mirrors and due almost solely to riding the crest of the wave of public opinion regardless of what happened in the ring tells me you either haven't seen the fight or aren't terribly good at judging what you see. Leonard deserved to win the fight. All this "Hey, Hagler was robbed" silliness is nothing but revisionist history.

There are a lot of close decisions in boxing history. The loser in those will always scream "foul." Big deal.

 

I agree. I was always a big fan of Marvin Hagler, and I still am. The problem with Hagler being mad decades later is Leonard agreed to a rematch, everyone wanted a rematch, and Hagler is the one who turned it down and walked away.

Hagler not only walked away, he divorced his wife, took his check and left the freaking country.

Whether he thought he won or not, it was a close fight. If he wanted to exact his revenge, the opportunity was there. He would've been paid more than he had for the first fight - it would've been the biggest payday of his career. Hagler was undefeated in rematches. And he chose not to take that opportunity.

I know Hagler was very upset about not being able to break Monzon's record, but Hopkins ended up blowing that record out of the water anyway.

It's not like the loss to Leonard kept him out of the Hall of Fame or anything.

In the end, if Marvin felt he was cheated so badly, he should've just taken the rematch.

When guys refuse rematches that are being waved in their faces - like Hagler against Leonard and Tyson against Lewis - I tend to think they don't really fancy their chances of winning the rematch, either.

While I don't consider Dave Tiberi in any league at all with Hagler at middleweight, he did challenge James Toney for the title on national television (ABC) in the 90s and he appeared to squeak by with the decision. When Toney got the nod, Tiberi went crazy. Tiberi's state senator launched a federal investigation. All you heard was how bad Tiberi was cheated.

So HBO and Toney offered Tiberi a high-profile rematch on the undercard of Foreman-Alex Stewart, and Tiberi turned it down. And, like Hagler, Tiberi never fought again.

It's like they preferred going out with a controversial loss because they didn't think they could win a rematch.

If you are a fighter, and you have the chance to settle matters in the ring and choose not to, at some point you just want to say to them "quit complaining already."

 

Agreed.

I remember Tiberi refused it based on the "powers that be" not caving in to his demands that he be installed as the champion. :roll:

Sorry Dave, you're just not that big a deal........you don't rate that kind of thing.

 

That's right. He didn't want to fight Toney again, he just wanted them to give him the belt.

Brilliant strategy. That worked out well for him. :hi:

 

I'm aware of Hagler's history. He was my first boxing hero when he was champ, I'm familiar with his work. His is not an unusual path for fighters who made it to the top, frankly. I'm not going to shed any tears for him. He knew it was a tough racket and others have been FAR more harshly treated by the sport and don't incessantly whine about it. It's time for him to just enjoy his millions now and shut up about it. The poor guy.

 

Tim ryan & gil clancy, now that was a masterful commentary team. unlike those two biased cretins lampley & merchant with there biased agenda.

 

So, under that premise Michael Spinks beat Larry Holmes. But, upon revisiting the tape you now have Holmes winning it?

 

Commantary can have a powerful influence on the viewer, especially a respected commentary team like Clancy and Tim Ryan. (Among the very best in the business imo.)

Some like Lampley I take with a pinch of salt because he talks a load of rubbish most the time. But yeah, it is interesting to note the disparity that can take place listening to the commentary and watching the fight without sound. The crowd as said, also plays a big role.

As an aside, I always have Leonard either a 1 or 2 point winner. Best I can do for Marv is a draw.