If Hagler got the decision against Sugar Ray?

Very mature post.

 

As mature as yours was offbase and uncalled for. Call it even.

 

Offbase and uncalled for? Do you even know what the thread is about?

Jeez I feel like these guys come out of the woodwork only for me...

 

You seem to somehow misinterpret and introduce new facets to my argument, that I never put there, each time you reply to my posts.

In the course of this thread, according to you, I have been "revisionist", for stating facts that were freely available to anyone, at the time in question.

Now, you're claiming that I've more or less stated that Leonard's lay-off was less of a handicap than Hagler's decline, which I have not. And, in addition, you're implying that I've denied there being a general consensus that Leonard's chances were slim to nil, when I've done quite the opposite.

You've also made a round-trip on the question of Hagler's "aura", which went from you describing it as "carefully built" to him taking every opportunity to "cultivate" it - then to him "protecting" it; soon followed by a context of Hagler's caring about "how the world perceives him" and then encompassing "all Boxers [being] ego driven".

All of which seems to have been a scenic route towards you getting back, closer to what you probably meant originally - when you imply his image was "manufactured".

In any event, I think you've probably confused yourself on what you actually meant, to start with, on that point.


Regardless of your strange reinvention of my initial response to you (and at least one of your own initial points), you've suggested that Leonard's lay-off gets glossed over, these days. Have you ever wondered why that might be given less kudos, today? Especially, since it was such a big deal at the time? Or is it because it was such a big deal at the time that, now, close to 30 years later, you still feel the need to tow the media-marketing line?

You mentioned in an earlier post, something along the lines of people today explaining Leonard's win as being more to do with his taking an opportunity at the right time and having negotiated terms that would favor him in the contest; that people leaned towards these aspects, rather than anything that occurred in the ring. And, I'm always curious to know what it is people actually thought they saw happen in the ring that night.

For my part, I saw a gamble being taken; bolstered by an appropriate and well-executed strategy, from a boxer we didn't expect to look quite as good as he did; against a guy we expected better from or, at least, hoped to see more from (but was actually doing better than a lot of spectators realised).

I think the quality of the fight itself gets overblown. What happened in the ring was one man trying to make a fight, as another tried to survive 12 rounds, whilst looking as flash as possible in doing so.

The gamble and the strategy just about paid off - but only just. That Leonard was able to look as good as he did (for periods), is a credit to his innate ability and delivering on a 12-round game plan.

But, there's no doubt in my mind that Hagler's decline played into the strategy and amplified the 'astonishment' spectators experienced in witnessing Leonard's performance.

Take into account that many observers also dispute the decision and, in my opinion, the extent of the praise given to Leonard is lessened further.

 

A very accurate description and appraisal of the fight.

I agree with it all, but I've also come to realize that some of what Leonard was doing that is CLEARLY and strictly survival/stalling in my eyes is genuinely seen as points-worthy boxing in the eyes of others.

I'm not talking about the bits where he was landing punches, I'm talking about the running and grabbing and spinning, which can be admired for what it is ( and has its place in every good boxer's repetoir) but should NOT be rewarded with actual points. It can only be a means to and end, not treated as the end in itself.

 

Well first off, I don't see how my description of Hagler's aura being "carefully built" and then in turn "cultivating it" need be mutually exclusive. Not sure why you belabor that point. All I suggest is that Hagler took pride in what his image was, and did his best to protect that. There's no confusion here.

Why do people look away now from the idea of Leonard's layoff as being as big a factor as it was compared to then? Who knows? Perhaps as an effort to tear down Leonard's accomplishment? All you have to do is read one of a zillion threads on this forum to see how smug and "I knew it all along" people can be regarding this fight and its result, as if it were an understood thing that Leonard would sharpshoot Hagler as things were playing out in real time. And yes, I call that revisionist. If you don't count yourself among those, well.......okay.

 

No offense, but if you feel like people are "coming out of the woodwork" for you, then it might be time to assess how you come off in your posts to them.

 

Leonard's layoff was considered a huge factor, not least because of how he'd looked in his 1984 fight with Kevin Howard.
The other huge thing going against him in the eyes of the media at the time was the operations he'd had for detached retina. Certainly the feelings on that have been "revised" a lot, possibly because it's far more common now for fighters to carry on careers after such surgeries.

 

Oh, I agree; it was a huge thing at the time. And, relatively speaking, sort of swept under the rug I think with time by the Leonard-haters who now try to put it across as just another example of his cherry-picking opportunism. That's all I am trying to say.

 

It was cherry-picking opportunism but of a different kind.
Or at least that's how Leonard himself likes to portray it. I think Leonard has no problem with telling people he chose the right time. He likes that like to be seen as part of the master strategy.

 

Oh look, there's no question Hagler had seen better days. He looked awful against Leonard, irrespective of what Leonard did. It's just that to me, that's almost beside the point in a way. It was still a risk on his part, and not the sort of thing like the old saying goes, how "a professional gambler never gambles." It was far from certain.

 

The loss still stings Halger, and he has himself to blame,giving away the first 3-4 rounds, and taking the higher purse, and letting pick 12 rounds, instead of 15 and a larger ring.

Ring Generalship in and out of the ring, was not Marvin's thing.

 

I couldn't agree more and, for me, that's what makes it an extraordinary event. That the non-scoring elements of Leonard's activity were perceived as him scoring is what ultimately brought the pay-off.

Whenever it was that Leonard realized what he was going to have to do, in order to stand a chance of winning (I've read that he changed his strategy about six weeks from the end of his camp, dismissing any idea of going toe-to-toe), he knew that he was going to be taking a massive gamble (on top of that already posed by the physical challenge itself). Leonard couldn't have possibly known how much excitement he was going to be able to generate as a survivor.

It was almost theater and I think it was J. D. Brown, who said it best, when he recalls: "Ray won the drama". And so he did.

 

The guys that come out of the woodwork are guys like you who come out of left field with these outrageous declarations and nobody has ever heard of you.

 

He's been here for 12 years and was always a solid contributor. Still is when he posts.