On the night of Hagler vs. Hearns...

That's what I've been wondering. Too bad he didnt prove himself when he had the chance. but to some extent he did. At 154 with 4 fights under his belt he didnt do very well with Norris and the bad part is he looked great in his last fight proving age hadnt slow him.

If ray was par excellence as you say he was shouldnt he at least won that fight since his edge in experience evened out Terry's edge in youth?

The way I see it, the Hagler-leonard fight was close and the Norris fight was a blow out so all the lavishes you heaped onto Ray Leonard really belong to Norris.

If you really believe what you say then you have no trouble coming up with an answer. Being age 34 is not that old when you only have 38 fights and little wear on your body.

 

There's no excuse for Hagler losing to Leonard, but I didnt think he lost. I dont believe it was an outright robbery, but I scored the fight for Hagler.

Anyway, even seeing it as a close win for Hagler the real victory that night was Leonard's. If the judges had seen it as i do, it still would have been Leonard's night.
Hagler was an overwhelming favourite, had been more active, and was the career middleweight. I see the Leonard fight as a blemish on Hagler's record, even if the verdict was far too harsh on him.
It was a perfect time to retire though. Hagler did the right thing, went out at the right time.

 

Hagler was ferocious that night but Monzon was cagey and tough enough to give Hagler very tough fight. Have to pick Monzon.