Or the change in odds just reflected that Leonard prepared really, really well. Because he did. No, but tbf I was only 12 at the time, living in Sweden. But I have never seen a report to that effect since either. So if you have any...
The one I recall was that Quincy Taylor, a southpaw like Hagler, dropped Leonard badly with a couple of weeks to go. It shook Ray physically and mentally but he was able to put it behind him by fight time. Even so, I bet he thought all his birthdays and Christmasses had come at once when Hagler came out in the orthodox stance. I've said this before but despite how far MMH had slid, Ray Leonard was moving up 13lbs in weight and skipping jnr middle, had had one (unimpressive) fight in five years, eye surgery in the days when that was a much bigger deal, and a decent sized drug and alcohol habit while he had been inactive. Given that preparation, you have to admire the man's chutzpah for even taking the fight. Almost as much as the WBC's for sanctioning it!! Jeez. What the hell were their criteria?
Many greats thought they had what it took to come back and got smashed. The list is endless. Ali would have fully believed he had what it took to beat Holmes. He no longer did. Three years prior Leonard struggled like crazy against Kevin Howard of all people and got dropped to boot, at 150. Here he was coming off a longer layoff to fight the P4P #1 rated boxer on earth at Middleweight. No matter how one wants to spin it Hagler had not been beat in over a decade. Just one single boxer in his previous 13 fights had even heard the final bell. So Hagler's the one up against it? Come on. This is simply incorrect. We know exactly what he had against him. Is it assumption that he had just one fight in over 5 years? Is it assumption to say he struggled in said fight against a guy that wouldn't be fit to carry Hagler's spit bucket? In fact he looked little like the superstar from 2 to 3 years prior? Is it assumption that Hagler was the P4P #1 rated fighter in the world? That he was unbeaten in a decade plus? That there was one helluva long trail of victims behind him? There can be no assuming when it comes to Ray going over 5 years with just one fight. I don't care one iota about secret squirrel glorified extended sparring sessions. The man had history against him, an incredible amount of history to be precise. What examples would you thrust forth when it comes to guys having 1 fight in 5 years coming straight back to beat the world P4P #1 in a division higher than they'd ever even fought in? Given your stance you should be able to find plenty of similar examples and conquests. After all, it wasn't really much of an achievement, was it?
But, many great heavyweights did, didn’t they… - George Foreman - Vitali Klitschko - And, the aforementioned Larry Holmes, himself. Just off the top of my head... Another astonishing, non-heavyweight comeback was that of Edre Jofre. You refer to the Leonard/Howard as if this one fight can be used as a de facto guide to Leonard’s form. He had a bad night; still won at least 7 of 8 rounds, and finished the fight by stoppage. No, it wasn’t a stellar performance, but the only damage inflicted was that done to Leonard’s ego… …no doubt fuelling his next and most dramatic of comebacks. Yes - but unfortunately a written history of stats doesn't overcome where one is and what one can do in the present and Hagler had slowed and taken more punishment than usual against Mugabi. You cannot "spin" the facts that Hagler was close to retiring and that he took months deciding whether he even wanted the Leonard bout. When he mentioned he was considering retirement, I remember thinking it was the right time. BOOM - Out comes Leonard to make his challenge... Never have I even implied that, let alone outright stated it. You’ve suggested it is hard to overstate what Leonard had against him and I have said it was easy to do so, if you ignored the reality of Hagler’s situation at that point. As I have remained consistent on, over the years, very few were really considering how labored Hagler’s performance had been against Mugabi; how much punishment he had taken in that bout - or that Hagler himself had been relatively inactive over the previous few years, suffering from injuries, during that time. There was nothing of this considered in the mainstream narrative and ignoring these aspects of the match is going to lead to an automatic election of Hagler to win and people did ignore these factors; most doing so unwittingly, leaning towards the 'mission impossible' narrative. Note that most, if not all, people tipping Leonard to win, had taken the things going against Hagler into consideration. That’s not a bizarre coincidence. It’s a common sense approach to drawing a balanced conclusion. How do you think Mugabi would have fared against the version of Hagler, who faced Sibson? Not all that well, is my view on that question. Let me stop you there, for a moment, JT By Jeff Powell for the Daily Mail Published: 23:18, 9 April 2012 | Updated: 08:51, 10 April 2012 “ This content is protected was that Leonard had prepared not only with orthodox sparring but in full-on fights behind closed doors, complete with referee, time-keeper, 10-ounce gloves and no head-guards. This content is protected So much so that Leonard easily won the first two rounds.” I do care about the secret, “behind closed doors” bouts, because they have a significant implication on the claims being made about the great risk Leonard was taking and the task he had ahead of him. It also puts paid, in my opinion, to any suggestion that Leonard’s form was not, at the time, based on anything but assumption. To simply dismiss this evidence is to be selective in the extreme and cannot lead to a balanced position on the matter. As for my stance, it has remained inline with the OP’s question, I’ve maintained that Leonard barely scraped through with a Win in ’87 and have implied that a bout in ’82, against a prime Hagler, would have found both Leonard and his strategy wanting. I've also stated the following: I’ve not at any time in this thread commented on how I perceive Hagler/Leonard ’87 in terms of an achievement for the latter. On paper, of course, it looks great… …One fight in five years (with the reality being that he had prepared beforehand with full fight conditions, save a crowd) looks great on paper. Hagler being rated number-1, pound for pound, at the time (when the reality, at the time, was that he had not long labored to a victory over Mugabi; he was on the verge of retirement; had confessed he had no desire for the sport anymore [to Leonard of all people] and had taken a considerable amount of convincing to take the fight) looks great on paper. Am I going to find other boxers in history with that set of circumstances on paper? No. Does this change my position? No - because I’m looking at what was actually happening, not just at the numbers. But, they are nice to have for the record books.
I do not know why it is so confusing for some .. If SRL thought he could beat Hagler prior to Hearns and Mugabi, then he would have taken the fight .. He states this himself. The timing was calculated.
The alternative was the near certainty of him getting paneled by a closer-to-his-prime Hagler. A calculated risk to watch and wait, I'd say.
Ya I don't think it's complicated here. He used the exact same strategy with Hearns. Wait for the wear and tear, shopworn
I still have a hard time conceding that one to Ray...I had Hagler ahead by a point upon seeing it the day it happened. Ray did look great through most of the first half. The thing is, we have in a way something like the Holmes-Spinks I fight. Holmes was never visibly hurt, yet Michael was overall busier and did enough to win (I had Michael winning by one point, and I'm a huge fan of Larry). Hagler was the aggressor, and landed the heavier punches. He was also the champ. To me the benefit of a doubt for the champion was bizarrely missing from the judges in that fight.
Leonard surprised everyone with how he looked in there, which took over from the benefit of the doubt for Hagler. That is to say, the judges were amidst a Sugar Ray Leonard showcase and he wasn't disappointing as a spectacle, so I think the scoring lent his way, on the 'he's doing much better than I had expected' ticket.
Absolutely the ****ing truth. Despite teasing Hagler and the boxing public for years about a proposed bout, Leonard wanted NOTHING to do with Hagler until Hagler was done.
Again. While the clock was ticking for him too. It's a very risky strategy. Put aside the wear and tear (which, with respect, can't have been too much. It's not like Marvin or Tommy were fighting 10 times a year or not dominating most of their fights). Think how it must have sounded. Someone says to Leonard in 82 'Ray. Fight Hagler or Hearns.' He says 'Not yet. I'll wait five years and let them keep busy until they have really deteriorated.' 'What will you be doing in that time? Don't forget you'll be five years older too,' 'Oh, I'll be fine. I'll preserve myself in prime condition by having an eye operation, then I'll be be almost completely inactive and doing loads of coke.' 'Oh well, you're home and hosed, mate. Barely worth having the fights if you're going to stack the odds that heavily in your favour.' Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? But that's actually what happened in essence.
I think this is an insightful assertion...it wouldn't surprise me if that was a big factor in the final scoring. I personally thought Marvin would stop him in 5, and was surprised myself. I just have a big problem with fighters winning fights when they never really hurt the other fighter...yet got hurt themselves. Just me.
It sure as hell did in the Hearns 2 fight, what a joke that was .. Feel really bad for Tommy .. And a 118-110 card in this one? That just stunk up the fight.. But I have no problem with the final decision, Ray earned it., or if it went the other way. It was that close for me
