Could Leonard beat a prime Hagler?

Do you not understand?

Do you disagree with what I have said?

 

I just think it's kind of... dumb.

I think you're probably a teenager since you don't seem to understand that anyone can have a different opinion without being a Leonard fan. For me he's just one great fighter among several. I don't give him more of a benefit of a doubt than I give any other.

And "this battered wife club" just seems to me like kind of a sad attempt to be macho. I can just hope you haven't passed 20, and I don't think you have.

 

Is this a repersention of you in real life?, that you are that kid to steal from?, or are you the swindler?

 

Now this conversation has been one spectacular waste of words.

 

Nah. Hagler was a career middleweight, Leonard peaked at welterweight. The 1987, faded middleweight Leonard would never beat a peak Hagler.

 

Yeh thats 110% spot on:yep

Leonards going to have to be the proverbial "Jack of all trades" & master of none if he's to stand any sort of a chance of lasting the full 15 while being subjected to what in effect i'd class as a Hagler version of chinese water torture. Without doubt the Kalule fight IMO proberbly convinced Leonard that fighting Hagler was indeed that step to far.

Yeh it'd be a lively affair for sure as i'd see Leonard going right at Hagler & the first 3/4 rounds would be classics but then you'd start to see the cracks appearing & the inevitable subtle shift of momentum swinging Haglers way as he lands with that all too regular frequency & i really can't see what Leonard could possibly conjure up by way of off-setting the deficiet of speed/stamina & punch output to somehow halt or avoid the tsunami building up right in front of his face as the rounds go by. He'd go out with a bang thats for sure, Leonard proberbly would go for broke around 7/8 but after that i see him being slowly battered exhausted & broken on the ropes as Hagler just rolls over him in that same indomitable way he did too Obel/Hamsho/Sibbo & co. If ever there was a case of "A Good bigg'n always beats a good little'n" then this fight would be it.

 

When did he show "effective back-foot fencing" against either, though? He moved a lot, but the large majority of the time he was punching was during the moments he found himself cornered or trapped, at which point he'd flurry himself out of said trap (or else wait to do so at the end when it made the bigger impression such as in the Hagler fight) and continue his exagerrated movements. He was never one to put on a consistent punching/jabbing performance while exclusively on the move, though, even when it would've suited him. Much more effective as a puncher when planted.

 

Leonard was in his prime back when there were still 15 rounds.

If they were both in their primes, Hagler KO's Leonard sometime in the 14th round. Sorry. I felt Hagler beat Leonard in their fight.

 

Oh yeah, if that's what Lora meant by "effective back-foot fencing", I agree. Against both Hagler and Duran he moved and then set himself to punch. True that.

The one fight where I've seen him punch off of his movement is against Green. A different calibre of opponent, though...

 

Could Ray Leonard beat Marvin Hagler at his absolute best.?


Probably not. As Ray Leonard would not have the power to keep Marvin off him.
But when was Marvin Hagler at his peak.
There have always been rumors that Marvin was 2-years older then he claimed.

I thought Marvin was at his peak, a year before fighting Vito for the Title.

 

I pick Hagler to edge Leonard in 82-83 in a difficult fight. But to be clear, these analogies to Kalule and Larry Bomds are absurd. Leonard walked Kalule down because he could. He would in no way shape or form fight Hagler like he fought Kalule. He may give it a go, but at the first sign of trouble he would shift tatics because he could. In his prime, he never fought a man as big and strong as Hagler. He would adapt. Ultimately I think it would fall a little short.

 

This seems very reasonable to me.

 

I thought my comparisons to Kalule fight were apt and attempted to shed light on how the adapting may be done.

It IS one of the very few fights we have of a prime Leonard against a good middleweight after all, throw in Geraldo to if you want i suppose.

 

Lora, another poster made reference to Kalule and Larry Bonds. That was who I was responding to. But since we're on the subject, I'll expand on it a bit. Back in the day, I preferred Leonard over Hagler. Now, I much prefer watching Hagler's fights. Reason being was that he could be more disciplined than Leonard. Leonard could be sloppy against inferior opposition such as against Bonds, Finch, and yes even Kalule (a very good fighter). I thought Ray was sloppy against Kalule just walking him down and throwing the lead right often. I just think he would have much more respect for Hagler and that would be reflected in his gameplan. He was capable of tightening up when he had to. By the time he would've fought Hagler, he would've had tons of big fight experience and I really think he's moving like Duran II and in the actual '87 Hagler fight with the caveat that he may have been a little more equipped to bust Hagler up a bit if not hurt him. Again, I think Hagler edges him, but I really don't think Leonard would be available to be stopped until very late in the fight if at all.

 

Come on you, do you seriously really think Leonard is going to try and walk hagler down? Thats the only reason Kalule was landing because Leonard was taking a punch to land a punch, when Leonard exercised any caution Kalule wasn't landing

'As for backfoot fencing', that wasn't his forte, although I think you're underestimating him on this front. He simply needs to stick and move the way he did when the 2 actually fought.

As for all this revisionist, 'what would Prime Hagler do', well wtf 'Would a prime Leonard do?' How about not gass after 4-5rounds, keep up the same pace and perhaps win a much wider decision