Best fighter of the 1980's

If someone was to ask me this question in 1989 i would probably have a very different answer than today not only because i would have been just born.
Tyson in the 80s was undefeated and by the end of the 80s was 36-0, undisputed undefeated lineal hw champion of the world and had beaten all real contenders at that time including a dismantling of Lineal champ M.Spinks. He at that time thought to be unbeatable, was the most exciting fighter to watch and thought to surpass Marciano's 49-0 and Ali as the greatest HW of all time.
Due to hind sight we saw that this didn't happen and he suffered a poor loss in 1990, which makes me think SRL was the greatest fighter of the 80s, but if all i had to judge this was the 80s itself then isn't Tyson the greatest? Then again what is the question asking? who in the 80s was the greatest overall with there future included? or who during the 80s was the greatest , these would merit two different answers of SRL and Tyson respectably.

Sorry for rambling!

 

You get him told champ. :good

 

I disagree with the notion that Hagler was near shot, he was just in the ring with an elusive and determined target that night.

It's the way Rooster decides to word things. He didn't say, "At Middleweight, Sibbo, Hearns, and Roldan were better opponents than Ray". He just says they are all better than Ray, and he doesn't specify whether he means in general or just at that time. Perhaps your oblivious to the Rooster's history, but he doesn't even rate Ray Leonard as high as Terry Norris. :good

 

He must be off his head.

 

First of all, I'd like to say I'm glad that isnt you in the picture.

I forgot to mention that at middleweight, Ray might have been the most skilled opponent for Hagler next to Hearns but could not keep up the same pace as a Hamsho or Sibson or even Minter. The pace of their fight was much slower than what you saw in the Hearns-Hagler superfight otherwise, how can Ray keep up?

The Hagler of 87 was simply leftovers. Leonard even confessed it to Tim Ryan as told by Tim during the fight. It was a cheapend version who he suddenly gained an interest in facing.

last, I can't in good conscience rate him up there with Terry. That would be dishonest.

If Ray was beating everyone and without excuse (no issues with layoffs, weight, losses, odds) took a whipping from my man Terry who in my opinion is a far greater fighter. It showed.

 

I strongly feel that the opponents of old: Vito, Hamsho, Obel, Sibbo, Roldan, Hearns would have had a field day with Hagler of 87.

Seriously, what did he have going for him at the time? He looked like ****. He had no speed and no punch. No legs.

I watched him in sparring the month before the fight and the exhibition was an embarrassment. The Weavers not only outboxed Hagler as it reads in Sorcery.It was on the same level as Norris-Leonard minus the knockdowns. Reams of flurries with marvin constantly covering and equally as bad on offense, falling halfway thru the ropes after missing a haymaker out of frustration.

I saw it all so it can't be denied.

Even an opponent like Scypion probably would have suceeded. What did Hagler have to keep a strong determined opponent like Scypion off of him. Opponents like Scypion and Hamsho would have drooled over the thought of facing an aging champion with so feeble an arsenal.

Tony Ayala would have knocked him stiff if he could have got to him. lack of experience doesnt hurt you against toothless fighters.

I know the srl fans hate to hear it but there's really no other reason that Ray would put this fight on hold for 5 years and I know many people realize it too. It's the only answer. You just dont suddenly put your eye at risk beginning at age 30.

 

Thats with the benefit of hindsight. Hagler took an easy fight on paper with an ex welterweight who had one fight in five years. And during that one fight Leonard was knocked on his butt by a journeyman. Hagler was the overwhelming favourite against Leonard.

I assume the above will be largely ignored, Rooster.

 

Speaking of hindsight: "Sugar Ray said that Hagler had lost a lot of speed and that he was counting on the slowness of Hagler"-Tim Ryan

:smoke

 

So what.

 

Ray Leonard.

 

Bang on the money. :good

 

It wouldn't surprise me if Ray challenged Hagler since he'd seen him slow down and thought he could take him. At 34 anyone is bound to have slowed down a bit. But that doesn't mean it was an easy challenge for Leonard, just that it wasn't totally unrealistic anymore.

If Leonard - a natural WW at 30 and coming off a long inactivity - had beaten a prime version of one of the best MWs ever it would possibly have been the greatest victory ever recorded. As it is, (controversially) beating a faded Hagler is impressive as it is. That's why just about no one thought he would do it beforehand.

Add wins over Hearns, Benitez (a dominating one to boot), LaLonde and Duran to that, and you have the best fighter of the decade.

Of course, Tyson is pretty close. Quite close, in fact. Before Douglas, his achievements were quite outstanding.

 

Based soley on the 80s i would most probably rate him at 1. See me post above for me details.

 

Leonard beat Duran, Hearns, Hagler and Lalonde.

Tyson's best wins can't hold a candle to that.

 

That's not how I remember it. So many people were saying Leonard would beat Marvin. Even Bob Arum said a few days before the fight was talking about the very real possibility of Marvin losing for the first time.

If I were you, I wouldnt mention the name Lalonde. You lose credibility when you include him. It would have been much more notable had he conquered a real fighter-a legitimate athlete like Norris.

I have a few names over him

Hagler, Spinks, Hearns, Holmes, Arguello, Chandler, Sanchez, Camacho, Pryor

I can't count a split decision over Hagler a shell, but the loss to Norris is what really did him in. Incredibly damaging.