Hagler always called out welterweights, but when a bigger fighter called him out

That's really not the case. Leonard is legendary for making stipulations and clauses in contracts that gave him an advantage, or for waiting until an opponent became beatable before taking him on.

Why did he want Don Lalonde to come in at 168 pounds? Lalonde was a natural 175'er and his title was at stake. (actually, two titles were at stake that night, which in itself is bogus.)

Why did he want the Hagler fight fought over 12 rounds and not 15?

Why did he wait until he thought Hearns was shot before giving him a rematch? Even at that, there were grounds for a rubber match (most, including myself, thought Tommy won) but that never materialsed. Perhaps Hearns wasn't so shot after all?

Basically what a lot of people don't like is that Leonard didn't conduct himself like a champion; like a guy who was willing to risk all against all comers. He claimed he needed a challenge to motivate him - fair enough, but those challenges were also being played out with loaded dice in Leonard's favour - at least later in his career.

That said, I harbour no ill feeling towards him. At welterweight, he was a magnificent fighter who did beat the best. Even in defeat against Duran, he gave a monumental effort and was magnanimous in defeat. He was a champion then.
His later career was more salad dressing, and not really an honest one. I do give him credit for the Hagler win, although I'm in the minority here.

 

My eyes are becoming opened by all of this I feel, but Leonard at his best, as you say, was one of the very best fights to have ever lived. It's because he did prove himself that I find it hard to concentrate on his bogus comeback career. I give him full credit for his top 4 wins. He had no business beating Hagler over 12 rounds or even 5 rounds, and Hearns and Benitez were primed undefeated fighters. Duran, if he can't be arsed to get in shape, that's his problem.

 

Jaw dropping with a huge grin 1st i tore into him about NEVER NEVER EVER tell a woman yer secrets & expect her not to employ them to her maximum advantage.

2nd) Well:huh i don't think he wanted to end up as tormented as me gotta stand out of yer old man's shadow at some point & be yer own man & opposite too yer dad, his coach at his local ABA was a Leonard fan & used to show the youngsters Leonards fights, i.e Benitez/Hearns/Hagler & Duran 2 but not "Montreal" which must rank as child abuse in my book.

Anyway as it transpired his coach was someone who new me as i'd had a couple of rows with way back in the day over no-mas & he came 2nd, I'll quote an arab expression:

"Revenge is a dish best served cold"​

What a ****in laugh that coach must have had, the *******

 

Your points are fare & understandable from your generational point of view, but the majority here feel that Sugar Ray Leonard has done boxing a lot of damage from the precidents he was allowed to get away with back in the 80's, in effect he hi-jacked boxing & as if it was'nt corrupt enough without SRL manipulation of the sport to his own ends resulting in the disgracefull fiasco of the Lalonde farce where Leonards only real goal was to beat Tommy Hearns in being the 1st to win title's in 5 weight classes (Thank **** Hearns beat Kinchin 2 days earlier) hence earning the scorn of many a boxing scribe as one quoted SRL as being the "egomaniacs-egomainac"

His skills are not being called into question here, he was an absolute ring marvel at WW & i'am not a Leonard hater for his ability as anyone that can best Benitez & come back from sure defeat at the hands of Hearns gets my total & absolute respect, who else could have unloaded that barrage in the 13th on Hearns & no wonder my son loves him BUT you only have to go to that other thread that asks you to "describe SRL in one word" & you'll get a bigger picture of the truth about the man & thats in MORAL terms only & not fisticly.

But these guys are proffesional prizefighters & they fight for pay & not legacy but a lot of people feel that Leonard wanted his bread buttered both sides & GOT IT by unfair means.

There's a hell of alot of very knowlegable posters on here already who have near compleated the overall picture of SRL which should be of help to you & if you read between the lines he was'nt much short of a scoundral & this has unfortunatly taken the gloss of the man but it's by his own underhand deeds that you'll see the reponce to his persona being a huge negative:smoke

 

Duranimal I am sorry to hear your son is a Leonard fan, my prayers go out to you.



Leonard from the Hearns\Benitez bouts was great thou.

 

Good post.

 

:good:good:good

 

This is where the result of his match with Hagler was particularly devastating to the sport. It resulted in the splintering of the long unified middleweight title, an event which did not take place over the championship distance. I trace the demise of boxing as a mainstream sport to this event.

A similarly controversial upset decision over 15 rounds would have been far less disastrous to the popularity of the sport. (I would have been equally disturbed if Michael Spinks had taken Holmes over 12 rounds. For me, it matters tremendously that their two bouts went a full 15.)

While it could be argued that SRL was a great fighter, he wasn't a great champion, like Duran at 135, or Marv and Monzon at 160. (In his entire career, Ray only won a total of five title defenses.)

 

Avoiding or ducking are strong words. Would Spinks/Muhammed fights have brought as big as pay days as Leonard? Hearns? Duran? I seriously doubt it. I wouldn't completely right Hagler off against these 2 either just because hes naturally smaller. We haven't seen Hagler at 175 so the assumption is he can't compete but that isn't necessarily true

 

There wasn't a huge demand for Hagler to fight Spinks or Saad Muhammed. Hagler didn't duck anybody.

 

Good post Shake. I feel you're being a little harsh on Leonard calling him greedy and clever (in a bad way!!) for offering the immediate rematch because he thought Duran would be out of shape.

Theres just as much chance that he knew that Duran had got into his head in the first fight, that he'd fought a poor tactical fight and wanted to get a rematch as soon as possible to "set the record straight" (from Leonards point of view) and get his title back.

As for the first fight being more relevant to a best vs best matchup between the 2 fighters, its just as easy to make a counter argument and "explain away" the first fight by saying that a naive Leonard let Duran get to him mentally and fought stupid fight as it is to excuse Duran the second fight for not being physically prepared.

 

Thats very true. I don't remember either of those 2 fights being seriously mentioned at the time, there also wasn't the obsession back then with continually hoping between weights that there is now. If a champ could make the weight and had decent challengers then he had no need to move up in weight unless he wanted to do it himself.

 

Hate to spoil it for you, but Hadrian launched a large campaign into Scotland. Turned out badly, though. Hagler had pehaps read about him, and knew better than to try on his own Scotland (Spinks). But instead Wales popped up and bit him in the ass, though. The irony of it all. :good

 

How was his chin?