I don't think Hagler was quite prime but the fact is he was facing the best opponent he ever faced. And guess what Leonard didn't quite do it for 12rounds although he neutralised Hagler for 12rounds. but he did and what are you talking about when the openings were there Hagler landed, Leonard would fire back for the most part, meaning Hagler needed reset himself and stalk all over again against a Leonard who's movement turned him inside out The only true bias in this discussion is saying a 32yo Benvenuti coming off 2 losses in 18months is more primed than a 32yo Hagler unbeaten in over a decade
I think Hagler must have ruined Mugabi, I can't see the Mugabi who went to war with Hagler getting blasted out in a round quite so easily. Mugabi was 1 of those young bulls who is willing to put everything on the line, taking punches flush to land punches (something the likes of Lamotta would rarely be foolish enough to do) and taking the beating of their life as a result
They're disimilar in style, but very similar in the effectiveness of the jab and right hand. However slow you want to believe Monzon was, he never seemed to have problems landing his jab and right hand. The closest thing Monzon saw to leonard was Napoles. Granted, Leonard was much more apt to go into "bicycle" mode, but Napoles was a difficult man to tag nonetheless. I know some saw Napoles being in that fight and effective, but I didn't see it that way. Just seemed like a matter of time to me. Bottom line for me, Ray needed to hurt Tommy on several ocassions to turn that fight. His punches just would not have the same effect on Monzon and also he would not be the boss on the inside.
One of the most bizarre feautes on this forum is all the poster who make a big thing of Hagler being past his prime (which he was to a degree) when Leonard was the one coming directly back from long inactivity without ever having fought at the weight before. It's perhaps the most common stupidity around here.
Help me out here. What was the general opinion before Hagler-Leonard? I mean, when we are on the subject "hindsight BS" after all.
What has this to do with Hagler beeing prime or not? Oh, well, nothing. We are not discussing the Leonard-Hagler fight but how good, or not, Hagler was at the time. That´s something different, you know?
I think people have the wrong idea about Leonard. He was an offensive fighter. He bounced for a while, then took to the soles of his feet and sat down on his punches. The fights with Hearns, Duarn I, Benitez...that's how he fought. He could fight going backwards. He could do almost anything in the ring but his usual tactics were to go looking for his opponent. Even against Hagler he really does very little fighting going backwards. He plants his feet, flurries and then moves off again. Great movement but very little "milling on the retreat." Marvin and Monzon were attrition punchers. They defeinitely had one-shot pop but their game was to slowly grind down opponents through superior boxing and then take them to their last chance saloon...knowing full well that they could simply take more punishment than their opponents and would eventually get their man. Leonard at MW is a fairly unknown quantity. So little to go on agianst a prime version of one of the greatest MWs.
Hagler was rated highly p4p and the top man at mw? Where does this negate naything I said? I never said Hagler wasn´t any good. Just that I think the Benvenuti of the first Monzon fight would beat the Hagler of the Leonard fight.
Sorry to butt in here but I remember Leonard actually saying that Hagler had gone past his prime. This was his reason for coming out of retirement and the reason why Ray's supporters thought he would win. Hagler was top of the pile out of respect but he'd fought 2 fights in two and a half years and was essentially in semi-retirement. Still a great victory but Leonard knew what he was doing and said as much.
You made a big deal out of how much Hagler had slowed but mentioned nothing about Leonard's own decline, even though he was the one who was thought to be washed up at the time. That seems like "hindsight bs" to me.
Oh yes. But again: Leonard himself came directly from a long inactivity to fight his first pro fight at MW. But still all you hear about is how past it Hagler was.
Yes, any rust, post prime issues concerning Hagler were far outweighed by Leonard's rust and the thought that he was crazy to attempt to fight someone of Hagler's level without any tuneups.
Monzon would have shut down Leonard very effectively by the championship rounds and his superior strength would have been enough to force a tko in 14 or 15.
Again, I was talking solyly about Hagler´s condition, not about Leonard´s and not about their fight. Is that so hard to get? :huh But actually, thanks, you are just strengthening my point. If Hagler was beaten by a declined Leonard he either must have been faded or not as good to begin with. What is it?
