Writing "Sorcery": an author's tale

Some members have asked why and how I came to write "Sorcery at Caesars: Sugar Ray's Marvelous Fight".

The why is easier to explain. The fight never ends. Yes, there was the final bell and decision, but the fight continues on in forums and wherever boxing fans get together. In New England, where I live, people still are ticked off, 21 years later. Hagler feeds the fire - remaining angry - refusing to let bygones be bygones. I'm a career newspaper reporter and I covered the bout for the Boston Globe. This story, as we say, "has legs".

Another reason why: Not until after the bout did we know of the substance abuse of both fighters. In Leonard's case, not until 1991. History is a dish best served cold. Only after the passage of time can we connect the dots and form a more complete picture. At the time of the bout we did not know the actual back stories of each guy. Once they emerged, in retrospect, they made the bout even more fascinating.

The 'how' takes a bit more explaining. First, the structure. Every story has a beginning, middle and end. But what was the beginning? Biographies are easy - you start at birth and move forward. "Sorcery" is semi-biographical, but it's really the story of a rivalry and its climax. I decided that the rivalry actually was born at Leonard's 'retirement', Nov. 9, 1982. That's when Hagler came to the Baltimore Civic Center, expected to have a $10 million mega-fight laid in his lap, and instead SRL used him as a prop. Historians may differ - the rivalry may have started as far back as 1973 when they were both in the national Golden Glove and AAUs in Massachusetts.

But I picked 1982. That's when Leonard threw out the 'bait'. Then the narrative flashbacks to when they first crossed paths in 1973 and unwinds the bulk of the biographical material, childhood to stardom, with separate chapters dealing with 1980 (Duran, Hagler in London), and 1981 (Hearns).

Once the story reaches 1983 it deepens the rivalry and the psychological profiles of Leonard and Hagler, and moves forward to the climax, with chapters on Leonard's cocaine abuse, Hagler's triumph over Hearns and subsequent substance abuse, Leonard's decision to rehabilitate himself by fighting Hagler, and finally, the incredible Machiavellian trap Leonard laid for Hagler. It's got chapters on the training camps, Las Vegas during fight week, the day of the fight, the fight itself, and the aftermath. An epilogue tries to find meaning in the fable of Leonard and Hagler.

Reporting and the assembling of material is a craft. I spoke to many people close to both fighters - they are listed in the acknowledgments. Beyond that I was given access to ESPN's interview archives, a kindness extended because I work as a researcher for the Worldwide Leader. The archives included extensive interviews with Leonard and Hagler, conducted over the last 10 years. Newspaper and magazine clips were essential. The story of Leonard's cocaine abuse was revealed by the LA Times in 1991 when it published a deposition given by Juanita Leonard in their divorce. Years later Leonard talked about his cocaine use to another interviewer, and indicated that the bout with Hagler was his route to recovery. None of this was known at the time of the bout.

Leonard and Hagler hardly participated. I found Hagler at a charity event in Boston. He was cordial enough, until I explained the story line, at which point he bristled and walked away. The mention of Leonard's name changed his demeanor. If anybody wonders, I considered that brief interaction an interview, because it revealed quite a bit.
I found Leonard in Boston before the taping of the 'Contenders' final. He was more cordial and more interested in my project, and answered a couple of questions, but he declined to sit down to a longer interview. He indicated that he was aware of Hagler's lingering bitterness, and seemed perplexed by it.

Would I have liked sit-down interviews with both fighters? Sure, more details embroider a story. But they weren't necessary. I had the ESPN interviews and their public comments made in other media. I was confident that nothing they could say would alter the essential theme of the story.

And as I wrote the theme crystallized: Leonard won because he was a con man, a salesman, Sweet Scientist and Sorcerer. He set up Hagler with a Sting worthy of Paul Newman and Robert Redford. And he got over with two judges because "of the seductive vision he represented". The outcome said as much about our culture and desires as about the fight.

This is probably more (and maybe less) than anybody wanted to know, but I hope it answers some of the questions.

Steve Marantz

 

As I recall I gave Leonard 8 rounds.

But I've watched it at least 25 times, and as referee Richard Steele, said, "The more I watch it, the closer it gets."

 

point taken. perhaps 'got over' was a poor choice of words.
how about 'persuaded'.

lou filippo, the judge who scored it for hagler, had this description:
"Leonard was the cause of emotion."

by the way, filippo said that he was surprised by hagler's speed, not leonard's. he thought hagler matched leonard in speed.