Closer Fight: SRL-Duran I or SRL-Hagler?

Lol

 

Guess you've been under a rock for the last 20 years eh? Newsflash, it was a close fight.

 

The outcome of the first Duran-Leonard fight is hardly ever argued and was not controversial at the time or since. It was highly competitive and close on the scorecards but a unanimous decision and most people agree with the result.

The outcome of Hagler-Leonard was debated from the moment the decision was read out to the present day. There is no consensus on who won that fight and I doubt there ever will be. It has to be considered the closer fight on that basis.

 

Nice post as usual Jel.

You've covered the topic with the empirical answer, but what about your own belief? I personally had the winner of both fights ahead by about 2 points so for me myself it's a toss up. Many of the rounds Duran won were by bigger margins than the ones Leonard won but they were still 10-9 so hence Duran was a more convincing winner in one way but on the two cards they were similar. Again, for me personally.

 

Yep, the same. Duran by two points with bigger rounds for the ones he won than the ones Leonard won, but still 10-9 regardless. Each time I've watched it I had Duran ahead so the scoring of the rounds was fairly consistent. Will have to watch it again to document my score.

I've just posted my scorecard for Leonard-Hagler in the scorecard thread. I had Leonard by two rounds. I thought he dominated the first half and Hagler came back strongly over the second half. There were more rounds that could have gone either way though and Hagler was edging more of the close rounds whereas Leonard took more rounds more clearly so I guess it was similar in that way but it wasn't as dominant a performance as Duran's over Leonard. And unlike Leonard against Duran, the loser didn't enhance his reputation. I thought Hagler fought a poor fight overall and was pretty awful over the first six rounds.

 

Great post mate.

 

I voted for Leonard/Hagler but, if I were being honest, this is only because the Leonard/Duran bout is just easier to explain.

Duran was winning his rounds convincingly, against Leonard. The rounds one could score easily for Leonard are fewer. Even the close rounds, give plenty of leeway for them being marked for Duran. I also don't think Leonard does as well in the Championship rounds, as some interpretations I've read in various sources. I have the score wider than a 2 point gap.

Hagler/Leonard is a can of worms that, when opened, assaults the very sensibilities, intrinsic to the judgement and scoring of a Boxing contest. In my opinion, the idea of calling it close has become the acceptable middle ground that those on either side of the debate (which began immediately after the fight was called) can retreat to. I'm not going to buck that unwritten agreement, here.

 

"Vegas man"

I had Marvin winning, but he fought the worst strategy in boxing history. Didn't even appear to look like Marvin's real style.

He was prime. Hands of Stone was just a better fighter.

 

Leonard landed a lot of punches against Duran and was doing a lot of good things in there, it was a much better fight all round with both fighters coming away with massive credit. Ray defo did better in the first 4 rounds v Roberto than Marvin did while giving away the first 4 in `87.

 

I had Marvin winning too. However, I think the idea that Hagler applied a poor strategy is misguided and one that stems from a blanket belief that Hagler lost the first four rounds against Leonard. This has taken root, primarily due to people immediately believing in every single word Gil Clancy had to say during the commentary of the fight - particularly, during the first four rounds...

("...you can't let [Leonard] put rounds in the bank"..."[Hagler is] much better as a southpaw and yet he's fighting orthodox."..."Well, Tim, the rounds go in the bank"..."I don't understand [Hagler] giving Leonard the first two rounds"..."I dunno why Hagler's laughing, Tim. The rounds are going in the bank.") There's loads more chit-chat, which gives the impression that Leonard is cool and Hagler is confused - some of it being said as Hagler shows promise, at moments in these rounds.

Consequently, the image that Clancy so emphatically painted, at this time, has been repeated and solidified, over decades.

Suffices to say that I do not necessarily agree with either the 'poor strategy' or the de facto 'Hagler lost the first four rounds to Leonard' lines.

 

I watched it a couple if days ago in full for the very first time and watched it with the sound off. I gave each of the first four rounds to Leonard.

I couldn't see how Hagler won any of those. The fourth was closer than the first 3 but still a round I gave to Leonard. Hagler ineffectually followed Leonard around the ring while Leonard scored without return. Hagler swung and missed frequently and his reactions seemed off. After six rounds, I had Leonard 5-1 up (Hagler taking the fifth round only) and had noted on my scorecard that Hagler had fought an awful fight up to that point.

After watching it with the commentary on, I found myself in agreement with Gil Clancy's observations. Hagler was giving Leonard rounds and he was fighting a terrible fight tactically.

I'd be interested to know how many of the first six rounds you gave to Hagler because I can't see how he could have won any of the first three or four rounds.

 

This.

 

That's fair enough that you took the time to watch the bout again with the commentary off. Admittedly, I picked on Clancy a bit there, in my post. He was always a strong voice in a commentary team, who I often appreciated but, I did feel that, on this occasion, Tim Ryan was unable to maintain the balance in the broadcast.

There are certain things I find interesting about the commentary on this fight; not only the tv commentary but also that which has since surrounded the bout; like that which is happening now.

One of the comments I hear often is that Hagler was fighting a terrible fight (or words to that effect). But, how was he exactly?

Hagler was much slowed up, for sure, and had in front of him a fighter who was willing to spend significant amounts of a round on his bike, well out of range. So what was Hagler, this slowed up Boxer to do - just stand there - or try and chase his opponent down? He had little choice but to do the latter but nobody likes to see a fighter past his peak chasing around after someone up on their toes. It can be perceived as being somehow desperate and, in that sense it looks awful. But, it doesn't mean the tactic is incorrect; part of a terrible fight plan.

We see as early as Round-2 that Hagler gauges both distance and Leonard's movement with a lead left-hook. He's still having trouble with the distance because Leonard's making damned sure he stays out of range for most of the time.

To be clear, by staying out of range I mean that even Leonard, at the distance he's keeping, can't strike Hagler. For that, he has to jump in ever so briefly and back out again. He throws a nice jab or two and tricks Hagler nicely with a Jab (which is blocked) to set up a body-shot (which misses the target).

That's all fine. I can even understand why these brief moments are earning Leonard kudos. But - again - as early as Round-2, we see Leonard engaging the clinches, at which point Hagler is quite entitled to and does land some stiff body blows to Leonard's side.

Did you score that first overhand right for Leonard, immediately ensued by Leonard holding again, as Hagler tries to push him off? It makes a nice clubbing sound, with the volume up. But, I didn't.

There's some more jabbing and holding from Leonard with Hagler trying to work on the inside then - did you score Leonard's left swing over Hagler's head, as Hagler closes the distance with a jab and a right-cross? Both fighters miss.

This really just goes on, with Leonard sticking out the jab, connecting with it rarely; throwing another big overhand right, which makes another big sound and initiating a clinch whenever Hagler get close, during which Hagler works the body.

None of Hagler's body-shots, which Leonard has allowed to be landed, seem to be taken into consideration. No, it doesn't look good but it's scoring while the other guy is fouling and that's why I'd say that even Round-2 is debatable. Coming to life in the last 20 seconds of the bout (and still engaging in clinches in that timeframe) is an obvious ploy.

I know this doesn't fully answer your question but I hope it, at least, provides some context for the perspective I come from, in scoring the fight.