For a 190lbs guy he's clearly an elite puncher. But to call him a top 3 HW puncher of all time (like some have) or to say he hits harder than a Wilder or Wladimir to me is ridiculous. Hence overrated. Below 200lbs he's a top 5 hardest puncher ever. With Langford, Fitsimmons and Marciano
What I know is that he punched hard enough to KO bigger and stronger guys than himself who were quite durable too. I'd say that he's better puncher than Wilder even if less powerful.
He clearly hit hard. I'd agree that he's a better puncher than Wilder but I don't think the punch power is even comparable
Would he be considered such a puncher if he wasnt allowed to hover over opponents? Not so sure. The opponent would have gotten the correct amount of recovery time and Dempsey might have worn himself out trying to land a bomb to finish a guy off.
Yes but as per my point Wlad's first reign started well before Lennox Lewis retired. Nobody considered Wlad "the" champion. He was a paper titlist. In fact Wlad lost his "title" before Lewis even retired so that basically wipes out his entire first reign. The point being that without the proliferation of titles Wlad's reign wouldnt have been anywhere near as impressive on paper as it is to some today. Then there was the unique situation where the two best heavyweights were brothers who refused to fight each other, both had "championships" with mandatories and so they could ping pong the challengers so that each brother could take on the fighter that stylistically posed the greatest threat to the other thereby extending both of their reigns without ever having to face the best contender (each other). So while people may have an asterisk next to Joe's name there is plenty of reason to have one next to Wlad's reign as well. Thank you for the compliment but there are a lot of guys out there who have forgotten more about boxing than me.
Another one - Max Schmeling was a slugger. Actually, I was said that was the perception on him in his prime but I don't understand why. He was a counter puncher with nice head movement.
that's absurd. The video clearly shows Hags outpointed Leonard. In fact, 10/12 rounds, he was outpointed. you just watched it wrong here's the proof punch by punch: This content is protected and for the last 32 years, you actually thought Leonard was the one to finally beat Hagler
Hagler fights a moronic fight (not unusual for him, see his fights against Antuofermo and Duran), gives away the first four rounds trying to outbox a faster, better boxer from a stance he sucks at (why he always tried to switch hit when he was always shitty as a righty is beyond me) and you mean to tell me Leonard didnt win three more of the next 8 rounds? Come on. Like I said, some people wanted Hagler to win because they viewed him as this bald, badass tough guy and Leonard as more show than substance but the fact is Leonard outboxed and outsmarted Hagler. Had Hagler just sat down and fought his fight instead of trying to show up Leonard he probably would have won but he Hagler wasnt the sharpest knife in the drawer tactically and in this fight it showed.
sharpest knife or not, moronic fight or not, outsmarted or not, the name of the game is scoring points, and the tape shows beyond dispute that Hagler outscored Leonard 10;12 rounds my personal scorecard mirrors that of Rummy, 116 - 113 for the winner, Hagler who has whipped both Leonard AND Hearns
One of whom hadnt fought in years... wow. Unfortunately he didnt, no matter how many times you watch the fight in slow motion. His contention that who wins is strictly about points, i.e. landed punches is absolutely incorrect anyway. This isnt amateur boxing. Nevermind the fact that the video he posts as evidence discounts several of Leonards punches and scores punches Hagler didnt land. The bias drips from that video.
he whipped your number one man and disproved the claim that Leonard was the best welterweight, jr middle and mddleweight as well as boxing's number one p4p
so he hadnt fought in years hagler was shot so it evens out besides, Leonard could have settled the question in 1982 by simply fighting him but he didnt want to do that because Ray had been a great fighter and he didnt want to get knocked out
this ISNT amateur boxing; amateur boxing is three rounds Professional boxing is 10 rounds, 12 rounds, and 15 rounds The basis for winning fights is who scores the most and there are rules for that, it should be noted those that are scoring punches and which aren't The video clearly shows which scored cleanly, which missed, which were grazing shots (not scored), which were low, which scored after the bell, etc I'm surprised that you, a fan of the sport, arent aware of the rules for scoring what criteria do you use? who sticks out their chin the most? who drops their hands the most? who does the Ali shuffle the most? who scores the most illegal blows? who scores after the bell the most? So if you want to score fights the traditional way, we use those that are pointed out in the video and btw, the video also discounts those of Hagler's that failed to score clean. He simply didnt miss as many as leonard
Why don't you just answer klompton2's question? Did Leonard not win at least 3 of the next 8 rounds after the fourth? And don't say he didn't... Seems it's you who has an issue with how a fight is scored over 12 rounds? It's Haglers own fault he gave the fight away
