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

Duran clearly beat Leonard. Shouldn't really be up for debate. While it was close, I thought Leonard deserved the decision over Hagler.

 

Ok, I hear ya. I'd have to go back and watch again with the sound on and off to see how I interpreted those specific moments. But I think Leonard deserves credit for making Hagler look bad. Hagler always picked his punches really well and in that fight he swung and hit air a lot. And yes, Leonard wasn't scoring with all his punches but he was controlling the action and landing (imo) the more significant punches in those first few rounds.

Hagler had slowed but his decision to stick to an orthodox stance in the early stages was odd and uncharacteristic. He didn't look like he'd come into the fight with a clear gameplan. When he fought Hearns, he set his stall out from the opening seconds. Against Leonard, he seemed to be allowing Leonard to dictate the way the fight was going. He didn't seem 'there' is the only way I can describe it.

Like I said, I'd have to go back and watch those rounds again to see if you can convince me otherwise, but I was in no doubt over the scoring when I watched the other night. That wasn't the case with the rest of the rounds in the fight, many of which could have gone either way.

 

Hi peeps, I had Duran winning Montreal 8-6-1 and Leonard winning against Hagler by 9-6.

As far as which fight was closer, Leonard deffo took more punishment from Duran than Hagler did from Leonard so I will go with equally close.

 

Leonard 9-6 Hagler? 12 rounds?

I agree with the Duran-Leonard score, though.

 

Cool - I'm always happy to review and discuss.

Naturally, my point here is that it wasn’t a simple, clear-cut set of rounds for Leonard, like the commentary team were trying to tell us, at the time, and which has oft been repeated like an absolute truth, for decades. As I am sure you and I could agree on, if Boxing scoring was made up of absolutes, then there'd only be a need for one judge, using a perfectly scaled measure of performance. So, I see no explicit rights or wrongs here.

Hagler’s speed and timing were off, no doubt, and there were some clear misses against Leonard, for sure. But, to be true, I think there are a lot of fighters who would look bad, chasing an opponent down, who was simply staying out of range; coming in on occasion to take a potshot. Leonard, of course, was still able to deliver with speed.

However, when Leonard did stop and look to score, his work wasn’t particularly clean, either. Alternatively, he would initiate a clinch (Steele pulled him up on this countless times, throughout the fight) and this started very early on in the bout. In the moments Leonard came in to flick a jab or swing a right, he would sometimes look like he was doing so on a prayer. What’s more, is that he was doing it rarely.


Leonard deserves huge amounts of credit for looking as good as he did, after the seemingly endless build-up about him having come back from a crypt he’d been laid-[off] in for the previous five years. That said, if nothing else, Leonard had always been a great athlete and really knew how to look good - for almost every occasion. He probably looked better than most had expected, while making the older, war-weary Hagler in front of him look worse than expected - but neither of these general observations constitutes an actual basis for scoring rounds. That is to say, Hagler looking bad doesn’t necessarily win rounds for Leonard.

The point about Hagler's use of the orthodox stance we can perhaps pick up another time... ... ...

 

Hahaha sorry mate, I am never at my best in the morning, I should have posted that I had Duran winning 8 rounds to 6 with 1 even and that I had the Hagler v Leonard fight 7-5 to Leonard.

 

Haha, no worries. I had the exact same score for the Hagler-Leonard fight too!

 

which fight? in fights 2 and 3 Duran was outclassed. in the first fight, I think it was closer than Hagler vs. Ray. Hagler thinks he won but he gave away the first two rounds. so.