Who did you perceive as being at a greater disadvantage for Hagler vs Leonard?

Rays, speed was not the same in this bout folks, anybody who says so is/ was very blind indeed. Terry norris, was suffering with early onset parkinsons in the keith mullings too!! hence his current condition today. Did you guys know that paul vaden screwed his wife kelly? Paul actually disclosed this in a boxing monthly article in 2013.

 

You're claiming that Leonard was essentially the same fighter in 1987 that he was in 1982: you're in no ****ing position to be arguing on what is or isn't sane.



So tell us, genius, when did Leonard's physical decline actually begin? Somewhere between the Norris and Camacho fight, or just after that?

 

Leonard obviously, Redrooster must have been spawning troll accounts by the dozen since I've been away even by this board's standards

 

I'm claiming that there is no visible evidence of any alarming decline in Leonard in the film from 1987 as compared to his prime. There is with Hagler. The footage argues with anyone who says otherwise, not me.

Was he in his prime? No. Did he have more of his prime stuff than Hagler had of his? The films say yes.

 

Oh, I am fairly well-versed in SRL's career Saw the whole thing happen from start to finish. And have more than a few of his fights in my fight film library. So no Youtube necessary. "Visible Change"(your words) and "alarming decline" (my words) are two different things.

And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what big erosions in SRL's assets are apparent in the Hagler fight.

I shall ask the question again: WHO looks as if they have lost MUCH more when their prime fights are compared to the 1987 fight? The answer is Hagler. Easily. I don't see how anyone else could say otherwise. It isn't even close.

 

No, you claimed there was "little to nothing diminished with Leonard" - who are you trying to convince? Your footage shows a fight of two halves: the second half being one in which Leonard didn't show even a semblance of the form of his peak.


Those legs, that mobility that you speak of, were absolutely ****ed after six rounds. That was more alarming than a rusty Hagler struggling to cope with a mobile counterpuncher. But no, we'll just pretend Hagler never showed any sort of vulnerabilities when matched with similar stylistic matchups in the past.

 

Leonard at the bigger disadvantage. Also outboxed Hagler cleverly. Personally I don't see the controversy.

 

Still looks pretty good to me. Tired? Sure. He's reaching the end of a fight, so that's a given. But the mobility still looks far from "absolutely f***ed" to me. If what you're saying is true then by rounds 11 and 12 he should look like he's standing in cement. Clearly not the case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTCePWPn16I

 

Watched them when they happened and have watched them many, many times since. Does that "count", my presumptuous friend? :smoke

Not by much. And Hagler's speed and timing were MUCH more dramatically eroded than Leonard's. Comparing the films backs that.

His fists? Yes, but his legs looked plenty busy to me. Obviously he sacrificed one for the other for the sake of safety.

I don't see any compromised ring generalship. He made a battle plan and carried it out exactly as planned. Or do you think his battle plan would have been different had he been younger?

The films. You know, those ones that I never watch and that you're sure are doing nothing else but "collecting dust" on my shelf Just go to Youtube and watch entire fights of SRL and Hags in their primes. Then re-watch their fight. Hagler clearly has lost more.

 

Leonard had obviously lost more than Hagler.I doubt he'd even have been able to get a title shot had he actually had to work his way through the minefield of contenders the proper way.

 

You've all lost your bleedin marbles.

 

Hagler, he was worn down after all the battles.Ray got in Marvin's head, and worked him.