Such as? He could bang. He could fight flat footed. He could move. He had a better than average beard.
In terms of the possibility that Leonard was unjustly favoured in the scoring - those who argue for same may well feel vindicated by the inexplicable draw verdict v Hearns II. Of the Fab Four - would it be fair to put Leonard at the top and Marv at the bottom in terms of popularity? I think the scoring for Marv v Duran suggested the fight was closer than it actually was - perhaps the popularity/underdog effect? Marv himself seemed a bit of bust v the more legendary names - Duran and Leonard - of course they brought uncommon skills to the table - but Hagler seemed reserved within himself - lack of confidence, too respectful? - I dunno. Hearns took it to Hags, no time to think, just react and do what he did best. I remember commentators often saying about fights in general “Hard one to score, depends on if you like the boxer type or the aggressive guy.” I mean, WTF, scoring shouldn’t be about preferences like, do you like chocolate or vanilla ice cream? The criteria is pretty simple for approximating yourself to reasonable objectivity - , if objective criteria isn’t there in the first place or not properly deferred to, then NO wonder as to why we have so much divergence in our opinions. I would almost say forget ring generalship, defence and effective aggression - simply means to a legitimately scorable end - that being - who landed the most clean and effective punches. As to having to “take”’a title from the Champ via clear decision - how would that work in scoring? If you’re scoring each rd in objective isolation you can come up with a razor thin edge to the challenger. Not as if judges can review their totals after the fact and reflect that it was “too close” therefore the Champ keeps his title. The only way I guess would be for judges to deliberately reserve their rd by rd scoring in order to allow some wiggle room to “tip it” in favour of the champ in the latter rds of a close fight. Anyway……
To balance this out we need to acknowledge Leonard was miles behind against Hearns after 12 in their first fight to the tune of 4, 5 and 6 points. Even after Ray won round 13 10-8 he was still behind by 2, 3 and 4 points. Leonard was publicly unhappy with this and there was quite a bit of controversy at just how far behind he was.
Interesting. I didn’t read/hear Leonard’s complaints or the surrounding controversy otherwise. First. I would say as I recall it, it did seem Ray was well behind and those scores sound fair. BUT, to your obvious point, you’re saying “in balance”’ in so far as Ray clearly not being favoured in this instance (v Hearns I) at the least let alone the possible argument that he might’ve even been scored unfairly. Got that. Good point. Maybe undefeated Tommy had equal popularity pull at least as at that time so as to negate any possible bias - thereby actually resulting in fair scoring. He certainly got shafted in the rematch.
I'm pretty sure one prominent mag even ran it as a cover story. Pat Putnam had quite a bit to say on the scoring system deficiencies. AP had Ray ahead tho i'd certainly debate that. Personally i agree with you the scores were reasonably fair with the debate being around what constitutes a 2 point round when a guy is beat on but not dropped. Well stated per my point Ray certainly wasn't favored. Hearns was always popular and i think the rematch was just a little poorly scored. It wasn't an absolute highway robbery but Hearns should indeed have won. The thing about this fight is that Leonard has stated publicly on film multiple times that Tommy won and should have got that decision. This makes it very notable that he has never said he didn't think he'd won the Hagler fight. For me tho Hagler - Leonard is a witch hunt. I've scored it for Ray every time. A handful of year ago the actual expert polls favored Leonard by a bit but they've since added to them and they may even narrowly favor Hagler now. Obviously Leonard winning was no "robbery" as such. Leonards become quite unpopular as time has gone on and it's fashionable for many to pile onto him. He outboxed Hagler for mine and I've never understood the hubbub. The two judges scoring the bout for Leonard made the point Haglers aggression often led to nothing as he chased and got hit, often getting beaten to the punch. Guerra later admitted he should have scored two more rounds for Hagler on reflection. 116-112 which isn't outrageous. I've seen a great many top flight posters and observers score the fight for Leonard in here. It's a decent fight that will never die that's for sure Pugs.
Very good, balanced overview. I was always impressed that Leonard not only admitted that Hearns won but also with the qualification - “Tommy kicked my a**” or words to that effect. I had Leonard winning also at the time - and tbh, I was surprised by how many saw it otherwise - comprising both average Joes and commentators. But that did give me pause to think, this one deserves at least another viewing. Reviews of the fight since have lead me to see a much closer fight even again (I’ll just say on a superficial level, even when landing scoring shots, Marv somehow couldn’t have looked less impressive than he did - at least relative to Ray’s own flashier but all the same legit shots - LOL). With that, I still had Ray winning ever so slightly. Of course Ray was no angel but no worse than a lot of other pugs and also a lot better . than many others. There is definitely the tall poppy syndrome often at work in not just boxing but the world of celebrity at large - some being perversely cut down merely for the fact of their having risen above the rest of the field -
A lot of new members in this set. Anyways, I have a question: does anyone think this could've been a set up? SRL winning the first half and Hagler winning the 2nd to keep it close and have fans clamoring for a return bout? Way before the fight was signed, SRL telling Hagler to keep it close for a rematch but SRL snubbing Hagler in return, thus causing a permanent retirement for The Marvelous One? Did Hagler make more money in this fight than his previous 60 combined? The older I get, and the way a lot of truths are popping up in this world as of late has me considering that a fix is a real possibility.
Have you thought about it though? Why would Hagler give away the first 6 rounds? When has he ever done that? Even in the 2nd half and down the stretch he didn't connect thoroughly. Looked like he was holding back.
Marvin nearly pissed away the Marcos Geraldo fight. Had to win the last three clean to pull out a decision. He also needed to rally late to overtake Duran on the scorecards after getting outboxed. So yes, I’ve seen Marvin dig a hole for himself before. Those times he pulled it out. If this had been a 15-rounder he probably would have done so here. But as it happened, he made a horrible strategic decision to come out right-handed and thought he could outbox Ray and by the time he woke up Ray just needed to nip a few of the remaining rounds to get a decision — which he did, and deservedly so.
I watched another video in which all the scoring blows were accounted for. this is the best way, and least biased way to score it If one is NOT unbiased, they will say something to the tune of "you have to give a major score to ring generalship" which is their way of saying their man didn't do enough actual scoring. but THE WAY to score a fight in boxing is and will always be, who outscored the other boxer and here in this fight, Hagler outscored Leonard. i have it Hagler 116 - 113 with Leonard winning the last round but not sweeping the first four. I don't give rounds to the sentimental favorite just because he made a round close.
this is the title of the youtube video that settled the question and where bias is removed from the equation 'Sugar Ray Leonard vs Marveouls Marvin Hagler (Landed Punches Count | 60 FPS)' its just as us Hagler fans have been saying for the last 40+ years, Hagler won the fight I didnt have Marvin quite as far ahead as he actually was but Leonard fans have to swallow it and admit their man lost and forget about all this "ring generalship" BS that's just their way of covering for their man's loss and saying he didnt score enough points to win
