Leonard's was better, and I dont think he even deserved the decision. I scored it close for Hagler. The judges and many fans say something else though, and i can accept that. Could have gone either way. Hagler was a great champion, undisputed middleweight champion of the world, one of the greatest middleweights of all-time. At the time he was considered the best fighter in the world no question. De La Hoya was no champion, just a established star and veteran fighter in higher weight classes. Massive box office attraction, but not even close to how Hagler was rated. Even at his best DLH doesn't sit anywhere near Hagler, and certainly not as an old fighter. Hagler was 62-2-2 (52 KOs) hadn't lost a fight in 11 years. Undisputed champion for 7 years and 12 straight defences (11 inside the distance). De La Hoya was good, and proven at higher weights than Pac had ever fought at. But he was no Marvin Hagler.
Leonard IMO. The Hagler he beat was past-prime, but if he was shot he couldn't have battered a guy as good as Mugabi to defeat in his previous fight. Not only was Mugabi a better fighter than Steve Forbes, but Hagler was a superior fighter to De La Hoya. You can argue which feat is better - Pac jumping the weights or Leonard coming back after such a long lay-off - but I think the standard of opposition means Leonard's win is better.
By the same token, if DLH was shot, he couldnt have gotten an SD with PBF a year before and certainly not look more impressive against Forbes than Berto. SRL long lay off against a fighter he's eyed for years or Pac's utter domination over an opponent who was suppose to utterly dominate him because of the 3 weight divisions that separated them?
I am a monster Pac fan and I think Saturday was a SENSATIONAL win, but I genuinely believe Leonard's win over Hagler was a better win, and a better performance taking into account the standard of opposition.