Yeh, thats right, it seemed that marvin just went of the radar & of course we know that the media were always hungry for any word on Leonard, clever ****er was'nt he, if Leonard & me robbed a bank & he was the getaway driver i'd bet he would have stolen my car too use for the escape.
Hagler fought twice in two years - Hearns and Leonard, and if you read (and believe) Sorcery at Caesers, he was extremely reluctant to reverse his retirement ideas and stay in the game to fight Leonard. Only huge money would have tempted him to fight on (not Monzon's record). I think Marvin would have avoided Hearns like the plague - I don't think he wanted any more of Tommy after all the battles he'd faced at such a late stage of his career. The most money for the least potential hurt. I reckon only a rematch with Leonard would have fit that bill. I think a rematch would see the opposite of the first fight - Hagler would start fast this time and Leonard would come on late ( a bit like Holmes Spinks II). Controversial decision !!
Hagler-Hearns II was going to happen if Leonard hadn't of comeback, they'd started negotiations. TBH (and no disrepect meant) I don't regard 'Sorcery at Caesars' as being the best source on this, the book was clearly writtren with an agenda in mind.
Hagler would have fougth Hearns. Like gazOC says the negotiations were under way. Hagler mentioned Monzon's record himself. It would have been too tempting.
Thank you for the props. One need only watch Hagler from Minter through Scypion to know that he was a precision counter puncher that switched gears ever so smoothly as the middle rounds approached. He didn't usually blitz a foe, rather he took them apart with each punch they threw. Punch precision, accuracy was his forte...and fluidity was his signature. I consider Marv to be past his very best by the time or just after his dance with Duran. Certainly he looked to be skidding with Roldan but he looked spot-on with his delivery in the Hamsho rematch. With Hearns, I believe he didn't want to box, rather....and I'm speculating here....he wanted to force weakness from Tommy and looked to deliver as opposed to chancing a long, mobile chess match with a bigger and speedier technician. As for Mugabi, he was brought in because of his compelling record and accommodating (if bruising) style...and the slip by that point was undeniable.
I think even in the Hamsho rematch you can see a bit of stiffness. Whether that signified 'past prime' or not, it was stiffness that wasn't existent in 1982 - if anything, I think it was Hamsho who'd declined, not Hagler looking any better. I reckon his best fight was the Obelmejias rematch.
You may well be right. The Obelmejias rematch and particularly the Sibson fight demonstrated a 100% Hagler.