Leonard vs Hagler | WHO REALLY WON | Film study

Ideally every championship fight would be a KO.

 

Leonard was 11 years older than Norris had been inactive for 14 months and was coming down in weight from Middle and Lhvy.

 

If you see my little red rooster, please drive him home

 

Yep, and Ray was also 2 + years inactive when he faced Howard and suffered his first KD.

If Ray was so easily sat down why didn’t Hagler turn the trick against a further 3 year inactive Leonard? Speaking of “expectations” it was believed by many that Hags was going to clean Rays clock in about 4 rds - no judges required.

Hags was 4-1 fave over Leonard btw . Ray was 3-1 fave over Norris.

How does the one analyst allow for Marv to be washed up v Leonard AFTER THE FACT, because it wasn’t deemed to be so prior to facing Leonard - BUT suggest Leonard himself wasn’t washed up against Norris?

AS IF it wasn’t obvious v Norris that Leonard was so much slower than his prime self and that much slower again since he faced Hagler. Leonard was DONE by the time of that fight and the fork should’ve stayed in.

Macho washed up? I don’t think so - and at least he wasn’t losing fights and, not least important, Hector had an active schedule preceding him when he faced Ray.

 

When they were in their respective primes RJJ beat BHop. When they were old men BHop beat RJJ. I give more credence to the first fight. When Lewis fought Tyson they were both past their best. I think Lennox beats any version of Tyson but he didn't. He beat the worst version. I could go on...

 

Boxing is brutal enough. Those guys and gals already do enough to entertain us.

 

Leonard's last fight was with Duran and he did fine, demonstrating that all his capabilities were intact; he had NOT slipped and there was no erosion of skills

In order to certify his greatness, and prove he had the versatility of a Hagler, a Roy Jones, he badly needed a win over a younger fighter like Norris.

Hagler had many wins over younger fighters on the rise: Obel, Sibson, Mugabi, Roldan, Lee, Scypion, defeating more than just one generation of contenders.

Ray Leonard wasn't able to do that. Still a great fighter tho

 

No "ifs" about it. Hagler was done after the Mugabi fight and while watching the Mugabi fight, Leonard was greatly encouraged by Hagler's deterioration. that is why he called him out after years of avoiding him

This is well known, but we know certain fans out there like to play ignorant

As for Leonard, using these layoffs for excuses is just a ploy and just shows the difference between a slow, decayed opponent Hagler and a young, sharp opponent - Norris.

With Hagler, he could get away with all kinds of stuff, hitting on the break, groin blows, hitting after the bell.

But with Norris, he couldnt because Ray was too busy trying to survive the fight. As we saw in the Camacho fight, Ray Leonard was knocked out (the second time since his sparring partner knocked him out prepping for the Hagler fight)

Hagler was never knocked out, and proved his greater versatility/toughness/greatness

 

I don't want to be a hypocrite because I criticize those who say Tyson's prime conveniently ended when he lost to Douglas at the ripe old age of twenty four years old. That being said competitors in all sports who rely primarily on their athleticism have shorter peaks. The effect seems most prominent in boxing and basketball, probably because those sports emphasize speed, quick reflexes, and endurance. Leonard like Ali and RJJ relied primarily on their athleticism and like RJJ as his athleticism waned he became more ordinary.

 

must be an "in joke"

 

I had not watched the Ray Leonard - Marvin Hagler fight since I watched it on PPV in 1987. The first time around I scored it a draw. I remember I gave Leonard the first four rounds and Hagler the fifth but I did not remember how I scored the final seven rounds.

In the intervening 34 1/2 years we have all heard and read so much about who really won the fight, It seems that the majority agrees that Hagler deserved the nod. I was really curious to see how I would feel this time around. Once again, I scored it a draw. Given my close rounds I could have seen anywhere from 116-112 Hagler to 115-113 Leonard. So while I have no problem with Leonard's win I really struggle with judge Jose Juan Guerra scoring it 118-110 for Ray. That's ridiculous and just goes to show that bad scoring didn't start with Adelaide Byrd's 118-110 card in Golovkin-Alvarez 1. It's always been around.

One last note, even knowing the outcome, It was a really enjoyable fight to watch. Glad I did it.

 

Great video. The viewer's decision is greatly influenced by the commentator. And I would the fight is draw, but who I am; I am subjective.
The fight should be viewed in slow motion x4 (or x5, or x3).
Then each direct, uppercut, and crochet could be counted. Jobs, power punches, body shots could be counted.
That's how we would get the result.
The judge who rated the fight 118-110 for Leonard is probably blind

 

Hagler posted a great performance v Mugabi. A discerning eye (including Ray’s) could pick up some decline but by NO means was Hagler considered or said to be done.

No one else said Hagler was done prior to facing Ray - did you?

That’s not to say Marvin wasn’t a lot more deteriorated by the time he faced Ray - but that fact only became apparent during the course of the fight - including to Marv himself - an observation in hindsight or after the fact - which you conversely don’t afford to Leonard - an analysis you’re inappropriately or falsely shifting back to the Mugabi fight, so as to not appear as if you’re contradicting yourself . Marvin being truly done or on a fast track to same was ONLY apparent when he fought Ray.

Btw, Marv started orthodox v Mugabi also - to his detriment but reverted back to lefty more quickly than he did v Ray - that’s not decline - it was simply poor strategy.

Repeat, Marvin was 4-1 fave - odds which admittedly also factored Leonard’s disadvantaged position of being inactive and rising in weight - Marvin wasn’t just expected to beat Ray, a demolition was forecast.

Let’s note also, for inspiration, Ray also tapped into stylistic issues sourced back as far as Hag’s 1983 fight v Duran.

Lay offs are excuses? I’ve never heard that one before. Lack of an active fighting schedule is understood to disadvantage ALL fighters, it’s not just a convenient caveat for Ray Leonard.

Despite Duran’s great spike performance v Barkley, again, as we saw in Leonard v Duran III, both guys had clearly lost more than a step or two. Relative to their other clashes, imo, it was slow motion stuff.

As to Leonard being KD’d in sparring - now you pushing outside actual professional bouts to get at Ray - okay, cool, but again, if you could apparently knock Ray over with a feather - WHY couldn’t Marv do same?

And, correct me if I’m wrong - but Ray’s own description was that he was well buzzed, out on his feet but covered up his condition and saw the sparring round out.

So are you literally and inexplicably stating that you saw no deterioration in Ray v Norris? Ray was very slow relative to prime, a fighter can still execute the fundamentals but speed or lack thereof is often the crux - no one knew that better than Leonard - and due to Ray’s own deteriorations, Norris had the defining edge and benefited from same.

Against Camacho Ray was more than shot - his speed simply not there but just as important, his resilience absolutely gone - not that a flat footed Camacho at that stage
had no punch - but those same punches on prime Ray yield no effect. Narrating his OWN decline Ray said the punches never used to “feel” like that, noting that “now” each and every punch hurt.

Marv had a great chin, period. That is not the only consideration when gaging versatility, toughness and overall greatness - not that Hags didn’t have other strings to his bow but employing the same isolation, we might rate Chuvalo an ATG if only for his chin. The ruling of a KD v Roldan sucked - too bad it can’t be retroactively removed from Hags record - I would hate to think, over even a longer period of time, of anyone reading it as a legit stat sans due vision of what was actually a clear slip.

 

I just have to repeat that Leonard was forty one years old and coming off six years of inactivity when he lost to Camacho.

 

In relative terms Ray was old in 1991. That was 11 years since his first Duran fight and 10 since the first Hearns fight, and he was showing wear and inactivity (whichever one) with the Lalonde and Hearns fights in 1988 and 1989. Who is making excuses? I am stating a fact. Ray was not prime in 1991 or near it, and was just trying to stay popular and yet not take risks. He fought Lalonde as a handpick for 2 titles, and Hearns was thought to be washed up and Duran was 38. To say Ray was young in 1991 is not accurate, and he was not the same fighter that year or date Feb. 9, 1991. or in 1997 against Hector.. So to build up Norris because of a win over Ray at 34 is not too solid. Norris was a very good fighter, but his chin was not great and he was not the ATG Ray was. Not even close. Hagler was and all time great, and when he beat young fighters? Well he was active and Ray was not in 1991, and Ray moved down to 154.. Hearns moved up and beat Hill that same year... I explained how Ray was more versatile, how else can I explain it? Ray was the greater fighter, regardless of whatever is said. He beat all the greats he fought and Hagler did not. That is the fact which seals it for Ray... And nothing can really make Hagler greater in my mind.