No, the idiocy lies within the contradiction that Hagler was past his prime, but that Leonard wasn't... Anyone who knows the sport and who's honest, will acknowledge that BOTH men were past their best and that Leonard was actually overcoming more obstacles than Hagler going into that match.. Its also idiocy to down grade the value of the win, when it was clearly viewed as one of the best single victories in boxing history to that point. Some people will go through hell and high water to move heaven and earth, just for the sake of making an argument where one shouldn't exist.
Tommy, Hagler wanted a rematch. Obviously he thought he had enough left to go beat Leonard... "again." Hagler retired because the rematch didn't come off. And he was basically disgusted. I mean the guy left America to go make movies and live in Italy. And if he couldn't fight SRL then he had nothing left to do or prove. Leonard was coming off the exuberance high of one of those magical victories. The same lore that brought Ali back in the ring time and time again. Doesn't mean Ali physically had a lot left. Foreman and Hagler mentally weren't in such different situations, as Ali and Leonard similarly were after the highs of great victories.
Yeah, because fighting Leonard would give him that fire he needed. he couldn't do it with other opponents. he didn't like Leonard. Ali won his fight in much more convincing fashion. Leonard LOST that fight in my opinion by a point. Hagler deserved a rematch, foreman didn't. Hagler retired because he couldn't get the rematch and he was done as a fighter. I still say Leonard was less faded because hagler took more beatings
I have never had any doubts that he had deteriorated "some", but I still don't see any evidence which supports that he was more diminished than Leonard.. Its true that Ray went on to have a few additional bouts, while Marvin pulled the plug, but he looked like **** in nearly all of them. He was also a career welterweight fighting for the first time at middle weight - A division that Hagler was indigenous to. Furthermore, Leonard had appeared perhaps once in three years, and maybe twice in 5 years... Along the way, he had sustained a torn retina injury and later admitted to cocaine use during his time off from the ring... If you want to pick a prime Hagler to beat Leonard, fine... If you want to say that Hagler was past his best for the bout, fine.... But let's not try to have our cake and eat it to, by stating that one man was faltering while the other was in the midst of his prime, because that's just story telling.
Hagler was past his prime, was not shot but was not prime either, his two last bouts show this as well as his inactivity for the last few years before the bout. It was a close bout and both sides have their right to claim a close win. I do not hold in as high regard as some others,although it is a great bout. I think that Durans loss over Hagler is the more impressive, than Leonard 'win'. Leonards fans cannot have it both ways though, by saying that he was green / fought the wrong fight vs Duran the first time then was prime in 'making Duran' quit. and by saying that Leonard did not wait for Hagler to get 'old' and did not need to fight him years earlier as he would have won anyway 'cause he 'won' the 87 bout.
well, alot of you can debate about who was more past their prime, but the key reason of the outcome was hagler dubious approach to the fight in the early rounds. hagler has only himself to blame for that.
I think we can all agree,,,,,,,,,NOBODY KNOWS! And in their PRIME........there would be at least '2' fights, and both 15 Rounders. One in Las Vegas,,,,,,,,,,and one in Boston,,,,,,,,,,,,,,do I hear '3". You know, Davey Moore with his quick power fists would have given Ray Leonard a real tough time.
Now that you know Hagler wanted the rematch don't try and act like he retired because he was "done as a fighter" and that he "knew he didn't have much left." He may have known he didn't have the urge but he wasn't as physically foregone as you make him out to be. Like Magoo said, there's not much evidence to say Hagler was worse off going into that fight considering all the odds Leonard faced. Maybe SRL had more left in the tank because he had less fights. But he was dealing with a retina injury, inactivity, and coming up in weight.
I don't understand why people argue about who was more faded out of the two. The fact is both fighters were well past their primes so their actual fight doesn't have much bearing on analyzing a prime for prime matchup.
This calls for a lot of speculation on your part. The fact is that Leonard retired as well until he came out of retirement to fight LaLonde. If Hagler said he'd retired because he felt his reflxes etc had slipped to such an extent, then it would be some substance to your a claim. But I've never heard him say any such thing. Rather, as other has pointed out, he says he wanted a rematch.
Well, the thing is not that they had declined very much as it is that they declined in different areas. Hagler had lost more in terms of reflexes while Leonard had lost more in terms of stamina. Hagler still looked strong and Leonard still looked fast, but a prime Hagler would be getting off quicker and a prime Leonard would not tire as quickly. In that sense, yeah, a prime for prime match-up is a different fight.
Bit late to this thread - sorry - but no Leonard couldn't beat a prime Hagler - he couldn't beat an end of the road one - I gave their fight to Hagler - albeit by only one round on the score cards (but consider that I think Hagler allowed Leonard to take the first 4 rounds by stupidly letting Leonard pull a syche job on him and making him stay orthodox - if Hagler hadn't fought stupid the first 4 rounds the decision would've been wider
I don't see how there's even any debate. Leonard has pretty much admitted it himself. He saw Hagler against Mugabi, and figured "he's slipped enough for me to get him now". Even so, it was a controversial decision. Personally, I had Hagler in front, but it was razor close.