Better win: Leonard-Hagler or Duran-Barkley?

so then why does leonard get all the close rounds and Hagler have to be the one to close strongly? That always seems to be the case with him, especially in Vegas.

Let's be honest, leonard didnt win rounds either 1 or 3. The rounds were so close you couldnt give them to one or the other. You could split them between the two fighters but why should Ray get both and get a free ride like he's gotten everything else in life; two titles in one night, draws he didnt deserve, media kissing his ass, etc

Then you end up with everyone saying he swept the first four rounds. Truthfully, he only won rounds 2 and 4 and even round 4 was questionable because of the wind up groin shot which was really a low blow. Ray knew ahead of time he had no penalty to fear. A better referee, one with some balls, would have deducted at least a point for that infraction.

Richard Steele is a **** up we all know that. He even tried slowing down Hagler's assault on Hearns back when he could still fight, only he failed because hagler's attack was too intense and he didnt like the feel of getting in the way.

But we know who Steele was in favor of, even praising Leonard after the fight. Steele did everything he could to help Ray out. He didnt take points off in the rounds Ray hit him after the bell. You know the ones I'm talking about.

Those were close rounds and all the Leonard fans I'm sure gave him the rounds only because to them, what he threw after the bell was the deciding factor. That's how Ray's fans are. They'll stopp to anything just so they could say their man won.

I gave the rounds to Hagler because of the numerous fouls. Fair's fair, right?

So the way I scored it even tho several rounds were very close, was this way

Even rounds: 1,3,9

To Leonard I gave 2,4,6,12

Hagler: 5,7,8,10,11

That means Hagler won by just a hair even tho he was a mere shadow of a shadow by this time.

 

Fact: Ray beating Hearns, by stoppage, was great wasn't it?
Rooster: ..Weight drained, mate.

Fact: Ray beat Benitez, youngest ever world champ, undefeated. Great boxer.
Rooster: Everybody beat Benitez

Fact: Ray moved up and beat the man at 160lb?
Rooster: Hagler was shot.

Fact: Ray avenged his first defeat and beat top 10 ATG Duran and by stoppage
Rooster: Didn't train, mate.

Rooster: Norris beat a peak Ray Leonard
atsch

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

As a joke, it holds weight, but Rooster actually believes all of those things, then he gets annoyed when people don't want to discuss Leonard with him.

Clown. If you ask Rooster, Benitez was robbed.

 

I have a couple questions for Rooster. I used to box at Haglers old gym so I have heard quite alot of gym talk.


1. Do you ever take into consideration Ray Leonard had just 1 previous fight in the past 5 years going into the hagler fight, which means tons of ring rust adding to the fact this was the first time ray leonard EVER competed at 160lb?

2. Facts are Facts, Hagler had not been defeated in 11 years, was naturally the bigger man and was coming off of wins over top contenders tommy hearns and john mugabi in the past 2 years....he was facing an ex welterweight coming off a 3 year layoff in which he looked awful being knocked down by a journeyman plus he had a detached retina...perhaps ray was the one further past his best?


3. Hagler retired because he was very bitter about the loss. I really believe from hearing the gym talk, if Hagler beat Leonard he would have kept fighting. Prolly would have fought Nunn or Heral Graham next. how much do you think hagler had left to beat them?

4. Ray Leonard was about 10 years past his prime and addicted to drugs when he fought Terry Norris as well as coming off a 2 year layoff at age 34, How much do you really think Leonard had left?

 

Many have tried...many have failed.

 

This is close, and part of the reason why is the fact that you can just as easily state that Barley edged Duran as to state that Hagler defeated Leonard. I had Hagler up by a point last time I scored the fight, and had Duran-Barley a draw the last time I watched that contest. But, since both fights could be scored for the other fighter, it comes down to the fighters they faced.

Hagler was certainly past his best, but had still been able to grind out an excellent stoppage of Mugabi in his previous fight, ruining him in the process, and wasn't that far removed from the form that he displayed in that fight. The fact that he was able to walk Loenard down in many of the later rounds, and force him to engage is proof of that.

Barkley rose to the occasion against Duran, but was still flawed defensively...and the flaws in his game meant that Roberto was still probably going to have a shot of beating him as long as he got himself into top condition.

Barkley was what he was when he fought Duran...a really tough guy who went about as far as his punch and heart could take him.

Hagler wasn't what he was when he fought Leonard...but was still probably good enough in '88 to beat the version of Barkley that stepped into the ring against Duran had they fought.

Both achievements are impressive...but I think SRL just edges it, if I have to choose.

 

One thing Rooster is right about, Leonard done lots of holding against Hagler. Certainly enough for point deductions.

 

1. So then why did he come out publically to say "I can beat Hagler" after the Mugabi fight? Why the sudden change of heart after 5 years? What caused him to change his mind after so many years of refusal to meet Hagler?

and why would he actually go on with his career after the fight with hagler? he could have continued just one year after retiring in 82. After all, he did come out for a fight in 84.

I remember Ray and Marvin in Baltimore. Why didnt he just challenge him at that time if he's going to continue his career anyway?

Ray must have seen something he liked in Hagler he hadnt seen before in the years he'd been champion. I didnt hear ray say "I can beat Hagler" after the Hamsho fight. After the Lee fight. After the Sibson fight. he had the opportunity to say something. Why didnt he? Maybe Hagler looked a little too dominant for him?

I think it's pretty obvious so let's stop all the pretending. This should answer your question #2

2. Sure you could say Hagler had not lost in 11 years. That is a fact.

leonard had not lost a fight in 11 years prior to the Norris fight either. See what I'm getting at?

3. You're young and been listening way to much to other people. The way I saw it while Hagler was champion he would never have settled for holding one title (WBC) in his heyday. Hagler had always prided himself on bieng boxing's undisputed champion. It was a way of setting himself apart from others. Marvin held onto his multiple titles at all costs. Name me one other time Marvin made a defense holding just one title.

He always held both or all three beginning in 1983 since the Scypion fight. So what I'm saying is that Hagler wouldnt care about holding one title unless he's already planning to retire right after his last fight.

If you dont believe it it's because you refuse to believe. Hagler was always complaining that he wanted the big paydays. it was his most common complaint and you're telling me that he wasnt interested in continuing other than he was bitter?

i didnt see him copping out after the antuofuermo fight. He was very upset then and could have quit right there. In the leonard fight it was different. he was champ 6 years and at the end of the line so he quit and in that case, the fact that he was partial title holder was irrelevent.

Yet you're telling me that he's got miles of tread left on him after fights with Roldan, Hamsho, Hearns, Mugabi on top of everyone else he had to go thru just to get his title shot

I dont understand why you dont want to take my word for it Suzie. You know my explanation makes the most sense yet you keep on playing the same game hoping that somehow I'll see things your way.

You know I'm too smart to play that game

I have more of an inside view than most of the posters here. I'm the one who attended his sparring session in Palm Springs and put up the photo. The fact that no one acknowledges it tells me they want me to be wrong. The other thing is that no one dares to debate me on it. They're scared to.

4. For a drug addict, he sure performed well in the 1989 Duran fight. I remember the last fights Aaron Pryor had on CBS. He resembled a man whose body had eroded from drug use. Ray Leonard did not.

I think his fans are trying desperately to downplay the loss with anything they can come up with-his divorce, drugs, layoffs, age, whatever.

This would have already been taken into account by the oddsmakers. The truth is, he was made a 3-1 favorite to beat Terry inside the distance. He had the convincing performance over Duran. he had the five championships. He had the edge in experience, which is what everyone judges him on.

What did Terry have going for him?

he was the better fighter, that's what he had going for him. he had the confidence knowing he was the better man. If you dont believe me then watch the prefight video. Terry knew he could get to ray and once he got him he'd hurt him. and once he hurt him, he'd have him in his hip pocket. and that's exactly the way it went.

If ray had nothing left, he'd would have shown it in the Duran fight. He would have struggled and been pulled into a flat footed slow motion slug out with RD. The non stop movement is not indicative of a man over the hill. he had a lot left. he rallied on the sickly and lethargic Hearns to pull out that draw. Shot fighters dont rally in the way he did if they've got little in the tank left.

Go tell all your friends I say they're full of ****

 

I'm right about everything. people just dont want to admit it.

 

Especially you. You couldnt even get started