Leonard vs Hagler | WHO REALLY WON | Film study

Well. Ray knew he was not the fighter he was when he was younger. What does that prove, but a young Leonard would beat all those guys. Nunn what year? in 1989 Nunn was too fast and big for Ray, Mike McCallum? I pick Ray to win on the Kalambay bluepring. Jackson? Ray would win that and avoid that punch and stop Jackson, but you never know with Julian's power...

 

Ray like Ali and RJJ were your quintessential reflex fighters Their primes are shorter .

 

it was impressive insofar as the way Hagler gutted it out.

no one on earth confuses Hagler 1986 with the Hagler who bested Sibson

Do you?

if you are serious about this, we need go no further than the commentary on the fight itself, round six, last 20 seconds of the livce broadcast. Then tell me what you hear

it will interesting to see how you spin it

speaking of favorites, Leonard was no less than a 3 - 1 over Norris so why are you telling me he was done???

???

was the fight close? Hell no

so much for his vaunted versatility, his big strength according to his fans

all else is bullsh*t, basing Hagler's versatility based on comparisons with Chuvalo. I've never read anything so ridiculous

run the numbers; Hagler with nearly twice the number of fights as Ray and against seven big punchers vs Ray's ONE;

no knockdowns scored on Hagler vs seven for Leonard

a knockout loss for Leonard and two devastating losses back to back

vs one "loss" for Hagler with the help of some judges

 

beat all what guys?

He wouldnt beat Norris and he wouldnt beat Camacho

Why?

because seeing is believing and not seeing is based on what you hope would happen and then hope others go along with it

He couldnt even make one measly defense of the title. that to me is the sign of a WEAK champion

Look at your reasoning; that Leonard is going to avoid all of Jackson's shots. what is he, Willie Pep?

He couldnt even go one ROUND without getting hit in the Norris fight!

then, get this, after avoiding all of Jackson's blows, he's going to stop him!

that's why i'm saying all your other assumptions, that he's going to beat Norris, Camacho, Pryor, McCallum, Nunn,,, you're living in a fantasy world

 

Well, without narrating it specifically, I’ve illustrated by example the duality of your treatment - and you’re still persisting with it - blatantly.

YOU accented on Ray being KO’d and Marvin not so, and then went on to tout Marv’s greater toughness, versatility and overall greatness. Based on YOUR criterion, I said let’s make Chuvalo an ATG. At any rate, no one is questioning Hag’s awesome chin. Sheesh, it’s not rocket surgery, you know.

As ridiculously unwitting as it may be, I am glad your saw the ridiculous nature of your own methodology put back to you.

And you’re still running with the number of KDs suffered by Ray vs zero for Hagler - which speaks for chin, not what each fighter displayed otherwise.

I already acknowledged a measure of decline in Hags pre Leonard - far from being done though.

I also already stated that Ray was 3-1 fave over Norris AND Marv was 4-1 over Ray. LOL, I know the valid point I made in conjunction with same, no need to repeat it - do you even know what your point is or that citing the “odds” re both fights puts you in a world of contradiction since you accented ONLY a Ray being a favourite v Norris? Mind boggling.

You skip a LOT.

So, was Ray KO’d in sparring or not? Did YOU interpret Hagler as done, REAL TIME, after Mugabi and calculate the Marv wouldn’t be able to put out “easy to tip over” Ray or struggle over the 12 course OR, are you looking back in HINDSIGHT, which you accuse others of doing in Ray’s case as an “excuse” for Leonard? Do you flatly dismiss lay offs, inactivity etc. in ALL your analysis’ ( not just Leonard’s ) as having any detrimental effect?

Sibson, circa ‘83. Why couldn’t 1983, 3-1 fave Marv run over and destroy bloated, little Roberto Duran? Rather, it was a much closer fight than forecast. Was Hagler shot, done, stick a fork in him “deteriorated”?

Listen to the broadcast of Hagler v Leonard? What’s the scoop? No one said Hagler didn’t look well deteriorated DURING THE COURSE OF THAT FIGHT - are you forgetting WHO is accenting on pre fight perceptions and odds as OPPOSED to what can be clearly seen in the fights in question?

YOU said Ray was a big favourite v Norris AS IF to avert from and inappropriately dismiss the actual deterioration seen in Ray during the course of the fight - a methodology you’re now employing by pointing to the ACTUAL commentary of the Hagler v Leonard fight - Marvin’s marked decline, not FORECAST, but as seen IN THE ACTUAL FIGHT not being in dispute.

I think your bias and dual treatment has been more than well upheld.

 

Are we saying a prime Camacho and Norris beats a Prime Leonard? Few boxing historians would agree with that opinion.

 

Yet he managed to beat Benitez,Duran,Hearns and Hagler when no one else could or did, so it was not a fantasy world. McCallum was beaten by Kalambay who was on his toes and fought a style Ray fought, and Kalambay was a beautiful style. I loved his boxing. Nunn? Ray was never a great middle weight so why mention Nunn. Nunn was a middleweight, or rather a lightheavyweight in a middleweights body. Pryor? At welterweight Ray would land on him and probably stop him.. Camacho? He beat old guys and then fights Ray, but not greats when he fought guys like Chavez who outclassed him rather easily. Tito Trinidad outclassed him.. Norris? The guy who lost to Simon Brown and was knocked down with a jab? Anyone can go down the line and mention things like that, but Ray beat greater guys than Norris or Camacho. He was greater no question, and that will always be a fact. He beat better guys than Pryor or McCallum did. Or Nunn. You seem to want to argue just for the sake of argument, regardless of your points and me living in this fantasy world, which your points are not really valid as far as a timeline. I think beating Duran, Hearns, Benitez and Hagler makes it a decent assumption he would beat those guys you mentioned. Had he not beaten Duran, Hearns, Benitez or Hagler, you would probably be saying in a fantasy world he would beat those guys, but he beat them in the real world.

 

I wouldn't bracket Leonard with those two personally. He was a lot more orthodox.

 

nobody said Hagler was done when Duran went the 15. Marvin simply fought a cautious fight. Had he stepped it up a bit as he did in the Minter fight, Duran would probably not be upright for long

ask Thomas Hearns

I have every reason to point to all of Leonards knockdowns. In such a short career, he has quite a few including those from club fighters

The reason Hagler's career went much longer than Leonard's was that his defenses were superior. Leonard's was good but Hagler's defense was GREAt

and he also had the better chin meaning that if Hagler had been getting whacked around the way Leonard was in the Norris fight, he wouldnt have been nearly as affected physically that he could overcome such a demoralized beating.

in other words, if hagler HAD to take some shots, it wouldnt have affected him in the same way it did to Leonard

 

what's the scoop? why dont you go find out yourself? It's on the original broadcast with team Clancy/ Ryan. I even narrowed it down for you to make sure you'd find it

that way you cant brag to me how impressive hagler looked in the previous match vs Mugabi

yes, Leonard was knocked out in sparring, in preparation for Hagler. that's the word from 24 hour boxing

i'll cut him a break since he was preparing for a fight after a long layoff.

Still, Leonard's anxiousness to get to the man he repeatedly refused to fight years earlier, common sense tells me, that with Leonard's chin, a PRIME Marvin PROBABLY would have taken him out in short order w/o much problem

and so we se why Leonard would so quickly abandon the division w/o so much as one defense, instead rising in weight to face some mediocrity holding two titles (one legit, the other, bogus/non existent)

 

If Ray was so chinny why was he never knocked out?

 

He didnt beat Hagler; the judges gave it to him

He did put up a fight though, so why shouldnt he fight Nunn?

and why shouldnt he fight Pryor? He fought Camacho who beat him. that means Pryor would have just as likely a chance of winning

What if I told YOU "Pryor would land on ray Leonard because Ray's chin wasn't the best"???

You cant just excuse a fighter for not fighting opponents because you state things like "he would probably lose anyways"

Look at your reasoning "Norris? The guy who lost to Simon Brown and was knocked down with a jab? "

Yes, Norris, the guy who gave Leonard his lumps and had him reeling throughout a one sided 12 rounder, along with scoring two knockdowns (vs none for Leonard)

It's sad that Leonard had such an abbreviated career. He could have done more

All he needed to certify his greatness were wins over Pryor, Curry, Nunn, McCallum, & Norris

let's not be afraid to set the bar a little higher

 

what a dumb thing to say " If Ray was so chinny why was he never knocked out?"

it's a matter of public record!

did this person NOT see the fight or is he just fantasizing again, hoping we'll somehow fall for it?

 

Mark, dude I’ve provided clear cut analogies to highlight the dual nature of your analysis’ and treatments - and you’re still skipping a LOT of counter points.

You’ve tried to use Ray’s fight v Duran to suggest Leonard wasn’t shot for Norris, completely ignoring the preceding period of inactivity and the ACTUAL fact of Ray’s performance in the Norris fight - which proved he was shot. Ray was far slower than prime in speed and reflex.

I illustrated, employing your OWN treatment, that Marvin himself could be said to have looked great against Mugabi - his fight prior to Leonard. First you wanted to compare 86 Marv to Sibson Marv as if to illustrate some major decline evident v Mugabi. Some decline yes, but repeat, no where near shot. It was a great performance - that’s not bragging, it’s a fact.

Anyway, I went one better - same year, Marv v Duran - like Ray, a clever and elite, talented fighter rising in weight - of course you can’t call Marv shot for that fight (‘‘twas the point) but he was similarly none too impressive v Roberto, so Ray’s win wasn’t all about a deteriorated Hags, understand?

Then you pointed to what you deem as evidence of Marv being shot, evidence sourced from the actual Hags v Leonard fight itself - OF COURSE I know what Clancy said - Marv was really or awfully slow…that’s why I asked, what’s the scoop? - because there wasn’t one. It was observed already that Marv was that much slower - but recognise that even in 87, Ray was still faster than the fastest Hags.

So, it’s duly pointed out to you that Ray himself was so much slower v Norris - your analysis breaks down because you willingly ignore that fact (and Ray’s preceding inactivity each and every time out) since you are preoccupied ONLY with pumping Hags deteriorations and making excuses otherwise (Hags, so much better and tougher than Ray but cautious, against little Roberto?…wow).

We had Hags H2H with Ray but he didn’t dump Leonard - talking about KDs suffered by Ray otherwise doesn’t change that fact.

Ray was NOT KO’d in sparring. Period.

You also pretend to oversight or ignore the fact that Ray was a natural WW, testing himself with upper division challenges and often succeeding. When did Marv elevate himself from beyond his own natural MW division?

Not at all a slight on Hags, rather the comparison is made to afford Ray his DUE relative credit, for performances above and beyond his natural weight.

Also, you didn’t answer any of the questions I posed previously. Your choice but just say’n’…..

 

I've laid out the facts to you.

all of them are facts. Leonard WAS knocked out in sparring and in fact, I got it from 24 hour boxing

so it's your word against the posters at 24 hour boxing

Next point. Norris v. Leonard

or should I say DOMINATION? just accept it. I did.

If Leonard looked slow, it's because he was in the ring against someone who made him looks slow

previous to that, his legs were superb in the Duran fight and he didnt lose a round.

Not only that, but was scarcely touched! PROOF is better than just making wishful statements hoping to be believed

Or as I say, seeing is believing