Yes, and of course that played a large part in his perceived chances going in, and only enhances the achievement. Don't agree. Montreal was both more fast paced as well as much,much more punishing for Leonard. It was at ww, but the difference is significant. Still Leonard came on in the late rounds in this 15 rounder whereas he looked spent in the last rounds in the 12 rounder against Hagler. Must I say this again? Leonard's comments only suggests that Hagler had faded. It says nothing about the effects that a 5 year lay-off had had on himself. Of course these effects were quite large.
Great, you found one fight in which he worked harder in... Leonard was over his best weight and never really looked the same fighter above 147. Yes, the whole fight seemed to favour Hagler. Yes, it was a great display by Leonard... So why didn't he fight him 3 years earlier? Ray came out of retirement after Duran showed the way to beat Marvin. Obviously he knew he couldn't win at that stage. We can discuss suggestions and indicators but you can also just watch the fight. Okay, had they fought in 1981 who would have won?
He didn't have that many wars, but in the ones he had he was very strong in the latter stages (as a WW). Read the Steward interview about it here on ESB. He was in Hearns corner in Leonard-Hearns and also knew Ray as an amateur This should really end it. It's really all there is to say about it. "Obviously"? Are you that well tuned into Leonard's life at the time? He had personal problems, drug problems - there were probably a lot of factors playing a part. But yes, had Leonard come straight out of retirement to face a still prime Hagler he'd probably lost. So? A rusty WW losing to an ATG MW champion in his prime is not really a sensation is it? Which I of course have done... Hagler, I'd say. But what does that have for bearing on anything? I don't see a WW in history who'd go straight up to MW and beat a peak Hagler. Why even mix that into the argument? A Leonard who had stayed active and injury free, and gradually had made his way up to MW would be a different story, though...
But we shouldn't really derail this thread anymore. It is after all about Monzon and Sugar Ray, not Hagler and Sugar Ray. Sorry about my part in leading it astray.
I think you've got me all wrong here. You've got a wasp caught in the folds on this fight but I'm not the bee-keeper. I'll reply with goodwill to all men in mind as I think you're a good poster and somehow there's a miscommunication between us. Thanks for the info... I really don't think that this is either applicable or true. For most of the Hearns fight he circled Tommy whilst getting jabbed in the face. He dug deep against Duran over 15 but Roberto was smaller and less powerful...besides Leonard's legs were never an issue because he never used them so much as he did against Hagler. Hagler was at MW and Ray had to keep moving to win. I don't know why I'm being drawn into this. We're basically in agreement on it all except who was more removed from their prime. Eh? I don't know, I come to forums to sepculate and discuss boxing with other fans. If you don't want to discuss.... Yes, I was Leonard's social worker at the time. I pulled him back from the brink when he almost overdosed on "going low" and his own ego... So was Hagler past his pirme or not? I think he was, so did Leonard, you don't. That's what this dsicussion between us is founded on. Leonard was good enough to beat anyone on his best night (in the scenario you paint). I wanted to know if you think he'd beat Hagler peak for peak. No trap, no trick, just interested where you're coming from. I can accept your belief in Leonard even if I don't agree. The point is this. You have 1 fight to go on at this weight. There is no room to debate Leonard's peak in relation to Monzon. This fight is all we have. And I maintain he did not beat Hagler at his peak. Leonard's form is immaterial because there is no other version of Ray at 160. The best of Ray Leonard at 160 was that night he beat Hagler. But that very clearly wasn't Hagler's best physical state. There are many not so great Middleweights who would have beaten Leonard that night (though they'd still have to have been excellent fighters).
Sorry, but now I'm going to say it: You're a ****ing idiot. In this thread alone I must have said some 10 times that Hagler was past his prime. I haven't disputed this on a single occassion. I've only said that Leonard also was past his prime. For you to keep on this discussion without noticing this premise (which was the one I started with) shows that you either lack concentration or wits - or both.
Monzon vs Leonard would be similar to Foreman vs Ali. Leonard would hit and not get hit. Too fast and precise. Easy UD.
