I think it did, slightly. The only thing some might say is he was at the end when it happened. Others would say he allowed someone to come right out of retirement and beat him. It certainly raised Leonard up by beating Hagler because he was a big underdog going in. Regardless of whether you think the fight was close and could have gone either way, (I personally think Hagler created that sentiment and acted like a crybaby about the loss), he should have come out of that corner like a possessed madman and tore into Leonard with everything he had. Beating SRL on the other hand might have had people saying Leonard was shot and didn't deserve the fight, but it would have been better than losing.
Of course it hurt his legacy a bit. He lost to a blown up inactive welterweight in a hugely publicized bout in front of the world. Even if you feel he edeged Ray it should not have been close. It makes you doubt Marvin’s mental toughness and self confidence, his decision making on strategy and his trainers. If Marvin went balls to the wall like he did vs Hearns, odds are Ray would not have survived. Instead Hagler fought the stupidest fight imaginable and allowed Ray to build traction and confidence. There is no doubt that Hagler was an all time great middleweight , zero. However going out like he did taints him a bit and highlights his key weakness, self doubt, which he also showed vs Vito and Duran.
It certainly hurt him a bit. His career ended on a sour note. All the talk is Hagler was old but he lost to a guy that had fought once in twice in umpteen years and Hagler was the overwhelming favorite at 4-1 on. Everyone thought Hagler would win even if he had been slowing down. I've never scored it for Hagler personally, i watched him get outboxed. If he would have scored the dominant victory everyone thought he would off into the sunset he would have sailed with a huge positive exclamation mark on his career. The cherry on top. Leonard being old and inactive would have been taken into account but that dominant win in a Superfight would have been seen as a deserved sendoff for the great man. Losing to Leonard in contrast to Monzon's last fight gives leeway to someone that would have otherwise had them inseparable to ease down on the side of Monzon. In short if he won that fight well i believe that some that have Monzon ahead would not have, or perhaps placed them level.
Good post John. You know what would have sorted things out and made things clearer?.. A bloody rematch, mate. Hagler always did better in the return bout and maybe, he turns the tables? Or we'd have seen Leonard get himself another win!
Yes a rematch would have been good. But yes the flipside is if Leonard did win again Hagler would be in a slightly worse position than he was. Of course a good win would go a long way to sliding that loss out of the public's mind.
Ray wasnt Ray anymore because he ran into Norris & Camacho! Hyperbole aside, any loss at the end of their careers hurts a rep and that includes both Hagler and Ray Leonard the only fighter no one can talk s%$# about is Monzon because no one ever whipped him, even if there were belter fighters
You're reading my mind. I've written your post many times almost verbatim over the years. While I do consider Hagler the greatest Middleweight in history, it is a fact Hagler for what reason could be taken out of his game. Even in his prime he had issues with fighters like Watts and Monroe who were stylistic challenges for him. Of course he destroyed them in rematches The same with Anterfermo and probably would've beaten Duran and Leonard in rematches. But the fact are Hagler had weaknesses like all fighters. The presumption by most posters is he destroys Leonard prime vs prime is in my opinion wrong. I believe Leonard beats him more convincingly around 82" - 83". He simply matched up well against him.
Norris & Camacho were both noteworthy champs in their own right, making more defenses than Leonard If they mopped the floor with him, that means they were better than him. Ray couldnt solve the style of either of them. Neither would he solve the style of Pernell Whitaker
I agree .. Hagler's only true weakness of sorts was Monzon's greatest strength and that was unquestioned confidence in himself .. again, I still obviously feel Hagler was an exceptional fighter ... it's only the fact of when I saw him question himself like he did in the first Vito fight , the Duran fight and the Leonard fight that make me think this ... when he was on like Minter, Vito 2, Hearns , Sibson I feel he beats Monzon or close to anyone ...
Were on the same page on Marvin but I think the prime Hagler beats Ray at 160 but Ray was so great who knows ?
Good points J. It could even have turned out like Holmes V Spinks 2 with yet Another disputed decision!
If this fight would of been 15 rounds, there would be no debate. Hagler would of stopped Leonard late possibly or swept last 3 rounds, but Leonard's lawyer demanded 12 rounds and Haglers team caved in. I don't know why Haglers team gave in to so many demands, but that's on them and it was also on Hagler. For fighting a dumb fight for the first 4 rounds, pretty hard to earn a decision winning 7 out of the next 8 rounds is a mountain to climb. Was Hagler really dominant down the stretch ? That's why I often question when people score it for Hagler. After 4 rounds you'd have to have Hagler atleast winning 7 out of the next 8.
Hagler didn't give in , he was outplayed .. Leonard was the draw but he gave Marvin the bigger purse which he knew appealed tl Marvin's fragile ego and in return demanded to determine bout length, ringside and gloves .. he played him and surprised him and did just enough to steal an event that he had no business winning ..
Norris and Camacho will never match what Ray Leonard was.. But if you want to believe they were better, than that is fine. But the wins they had do not warrant that opinion, not logically.
