Better win: Leonard-Hagler or Duran-Barkley?

Leonard had beaten them all before the Hagler fight so it was not a style matchup. Duran had lost to Sims a few years before Iran, so I know the Barkley fight was a great matchup fight for Duran. Had Duran been matched with even Frank Tate in 1989 he would have lost big time. Leonard would have still beaten most middleweights when he beat Marvin. Leonard is a much better win. Barkley at that point was a mediocre guy who got a big punch in against Hearns. But he was still mediocre. Olajide was one punch away from stopping him.

 

really? I dont see you winning any popularity contests around here lately.

listen, i know I'm wasting time discussing this with you. It's clear to me you have no heart for this discussion. But I'm going to go ahead because I cant allow you to have the last word.

And I'm telling you right now that if you're smart you wont even attempt to answer back. You dont stand a chance against the colossus of Eastside.

But if you're feeling lucky then consider this:

Marvin was clearly through even before he fought him. I saw him in sparring before the fight happened and we both know you dont want to dispute it. In fact, no one ever has.

Moreover, Hagler was WBC titlist as opposed to undisputed champion in previous 6 years. He would never hold a split title unless he intended to retire after his last fight anyways.

Only a weak champion would ever hold a split title or abandon a division without attempting a defense. That's not Marvin, that's Sugar ray's style.

If hagler wasn't done by the time he lost then why didnt he just go on and reclaim one of the titles and continue fighting? He could have made some good money fighting Nunn and unifying the title himself

As for Leonard, I am not trying to discredit the man. I am just pointing out things about him that you refuse to. I'm not embarrassed to point them out. You are.

I'm just pointing out how he waited an entire five years to get hold of a sub par fighter, something you havent had the nerve to dispute either with me or Mr. Marvel. You dont discuss the details for a reason; you'll end up losing the discussion and wind up a laughing stock, something you've accused me of. If I'm such a joke, then you should have no trouble proving it to everyone here.

You noted his disadvantages of the layoff but where were the disadvantages in the Norris fight?

Let's see, he was a 3-1 favorite to send Terry home early. He had won five championships and hadnt lost a fight in 11 years. he won in a shut out in his previous fight moving beautifully for 12 rounds. In the words of KO magazine "Can Sugar Ray actually lose?"

There was no talk about a layoff. No talk about eye damage. In fact, after the Hagler fight, the eye was never brought up again, probably because the media knew it wasnt an issue to begin with. If it was, would he be risking his eye against lalonde and Camacho at the age of 40? Doubtful.

Performance wise, Ray had been congradulated by Tim Ryan and Steve Farhood. Why should I believe he was on the way out just because Terry whipped him?

 

bump.

 

:good

 

Marvelous Marvin Hagler was a higher mountain to climb than Iran Barkley between '87 and '89, even for a natural welter and lightweight, respectively. Close, but clear enough.

The clincher to me is Hagler's prohibitively -and most deservedly- awesome stature as an all-time-great undisputed middleweight champion. It seemed pure folly for the chronically inactive Leonard to climb up to middleweight and attempt something bona fide greats such as Napoles and Robinson failed at -against a ferocious beast that would certainly fight life-and-death before relinquishing his crown in the ring.

Duran showed skill, guts and plain greatness in outclassing the powerful Barkley, but Leonard displayed exactly the same qualities in besting Hagler, at a higher level of competition.

The odds, though, seem to reflect how even these two accomplishments are, 3-1, against, in both cases. Very good poll question.

 

i understand. You havent the slightest clue where to start knowing full well who you're facing and that I'm in complete command and also realizing you're woefully outgunned.

Tell you what, I'll go easy on you. Just tell me what you make of the comments of the last 20 seconds of round 6 of that fight. Why would Tim Ryan say something like that?

Remember, it's not me saying it, it's Ryan quoting Ray Leonard. So far I've never gotten an answer. If I didnt know better I would think the mention of this upsets people like you.

If that's too hard for you then you could explain why KO magazine made the comments of Hagler (I believe Jeff Ryan) who wrote that Hagler's reflexes were non existent and that his legs appeared to be dead. They also discussed his future saying he had no future in boxing which proves my point all along. Did I not say as much from watching the sparring sessions?

Remember, that's not me saying it-it's the writers of KO magazine just giving their honest opinion.

 

Get your head out of your ass.

 

I didnt think you'd be up to it either

 

You're humour is fantastic. You lead us all to believe Hagler was almost a mummy against Leonard. When you actually describe his low capabilities during the fight, the whole demeanour of your posts make out as though he lost. But you actually think he won the fight. You even made a comparison with Ali's performance against Holmes.

 

:nut

 

That's your interpretation of it. If not for the commentary during round six one would think I was nuts.

However, Hagler's lethargy was so noticable that even the duo of Clancy and Ryan had to say something about it. I believe the conversation went something like this:

Clancy "MMH looks very slow"

Ryan "Sugar said he was counting on the slowness of Hagler. He said he lost a lot of speed"

So why shouldnt I think the same? I got eyes you know.

As for the scoring I've always said it was very close and as the rest of the posters here, think it was up in the air. I have to give leonard his props. He was much sharper and much more mobile than the plodding turtle he was suddenly eager to face after 5, 6 years.

But you keep forgetting Robbi, I'd seen this before in sparring only more lopsided.

Remember I told you about it? And no one here is going to dispute it. You know that.

Now the big question: Did Leonard actually deserve to WIN?

Not in my eyes he didn't. I'm not convinced that Hagler won either. But in order to win the championship, especially one of this magnitude, one must put on a convincing performance.

To this day, I really think those two judges made a mistake giving it to Leonard. Hagler was the title holder after all. For crying out loud, at least four of the rounds were too close to call. kick the guys ass - knock him to the deck. Do what Terry Norris did to Sugar so there wont be any dispute over it.

I dont just give rounds to Leonard the way Selfkill does because of the aroma coming from from Ray's jockstrap.

i'll let that boob think he's making a point with his icons

 

I'm a huge Duran fan, have been for many years, but this one is too close to call.

I was 12 or 13 years old when Hagler beat Hearns, so grew up watching Hearns, Leonard, Hagler, Duran, and at that time Leonard was definitely my favourite fighter by a distance. However, time and a little more knowledge changes your perception and view on a fighter, and I quickly came to appreciate the 'warriors'. The fighters who took on all comers, those with a come forward agressive, positive style. Leonard built himself an extremely impressive record, but for me his celebrity status influenced the judges in a couple of close fights and saved him from defeat, and he clearly had a lot of influence within the WBC, ensuring that fights were on his terms.

That said, I felt he edged Hagler that night, and whilst it was a tepid performance against a champion in decline, he still beat one of the top 3 MWs of all time. Therefore I have to give him the nod in terms of this post, but I will never hold him in the same esteem as Duran. Leonard is a great of the modern era, Duran is an all time great, and along with Ali deserves to sit with the likes of Robinson, Armstrong et al at the head of the sport.

 

Whats that got to do with anything? So judges score a fight by a narrow margin but decide to add extra that makes it a draw or possibly a win for the champion? WTF!

 

It's up to both fighters to put up a convincing performance, not just the challenger. In order to win a championship you just need to do better than your opponent. Sometimes fights are won by large margins, sometimes not. Leonard was better than Hagler on the night. Because Hagler was the aggressor, that alone doesn't score points, as you need to be landing while being aggressive. IMO, Hagler was pretty one paced, lacked authoritive combinations, and was outscored.