Watch the 30 30 special when Leonard goes to Panama so DURAN could get closure for the fight in New Orleans. You'll have a good laugh. Having written that, thanks for straightening out the Leonard Hearns 2 weight issue:good
I erred concerning the weights in Leonard Hearns 2. My bad, I apologize. Having written that, all of your points are valid as usual:good. But Hagler didn't look particularly quick against Hamsho(slower than slow himself) either, nor did he against Hearns whom he blugeoned after taking Tommys best shots (and never tried to box). How do you feel Hagler looked against Roldan and Mugabi?
He was slower and more ponderous, there's no doubt about that. I never claimed otherwise, but that's not the point I was trying to make. The point was how he was still perceived by the media and fans alike, which was as a dominant champion who was supposed to easily roll over Leonard. To read some of the stuff on these boards over the years, you'd think Hagler was the lamb being led to the lions and that only a chump would think he had a prayer against the sly, conniving Sugar Ray. That's simply not the case. To claim anything even remotely similar is revisionist history and does a disservice to Leonard. I can't stand the guy frankly, but right is right. He pulled off a great upset. It's not as easily explained away as is attempted nowadays.
Not quite true. Tommy Hearns, for one, thought Leonard would win. People like Michael Katz and Howard Cosell were also picking Leonard. The idea that everyone thought it would be a blowout for Hagler is wide of the mark too.
THIS is the kind of thing that was going around before the fight. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...boxing-council-middleweight-sugar-ray-leonard
A few like this as well: http://www.si.com/vault/1987/03/30/...-selection-for-the-hagler-vs-leonard-showdown
No, I said that YOU would have been better off saying that Ray was much fresher. I'm done here. In 1987, neither guy was near their prime.
Sorry man, but you're trying to play it off as an even money thing, and it just wasn't. The odds weren't 3-1 for nothing.
I never said it was even money. I just question this idea that everyone thought Hagler was going to roll Leonard over, when that patently wasn't the case. Note Shelly Finkel's comment in the above article that Hagler had "slipped tremendously".
Nearly everyone, then. The point being, of course, that Hagler was a huge favorite. I've already addressed the slippage part of it before, so won't rehash that.
I've just purchased an old World Boxing Magazine with the cover saying....Hagler v Leonard, Superfight or Superslaughter. Think that sums up the general mood at the time nicely.