Did you ever see Hagler ducking anyone?

Well, if it's one thing ESB has taught me it's that if you don't fight someone, no matter who it is or even if they're in the same weight class, you are technically ducking them. So, he was literally ducking thousands of active professional boxers. Disgraceful glass reign. :bart

 

You know I liked you much better when you used to try and be a balanced poster who only stuck up for his favourite fighters.
Now you're becoming a notorious troll who will rue the day he started trolling to get a reaction.
Your credibility is evaporating fast and there's no need for it.Your so used to having everything you want that you need to have people reacting to you.
The sad thing is,you're nowhere near as stupid as you've spent the last few weeks making out.:-(

 

atsch Look at boxrec if you don't believe me! He fought less than a hundred times. There were thousands and thousands of professional boxers during his era. Do you think he fought them all in secret and boxrec DOESN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT?!!!! atschatschatsch

 

It's crystal clear what he's saying mate and it's actually a very good way of countering some of the ridiculous posts in this thread.

 

Dude. . I'm a fan of Hagler's fights. . . I'm not a fan of how he acted when getting beat FAIR AND SQUARE by the better man. . .

He acted like a spoiled little kid who talked a lot of **** before a game, and then got beat, so he quits. . .

He was a victim of his own hubris. . . He trash talked, and slagged off one of the greatest boxers who ever lived, and when he finally got his wish, well you know what they say - be careful what you wish for, or it just might come true. . . His ego, coupled with him being a poor loser, wouldn't allow him to admit he simply was beat by the better man, so he put on the "oh, I'm taking a stand against corruption" facade, and quit (hell, he probably actually DID convince himself that he won, and he was robbed by corrupt judges knowing Hagler). . .

I'm not afraid to criticize boxers who are labeled as "gods," and "warriors." They are human just like everybody else, and they have flaws, and make mistakes. . . It's people who really don't know boxing, and just always want to play it safe, and sound "in the know" who never give any constructive criticism to ATG's. . . . That's how I can discriminate between fans who really study the sport, and appreciate the sport on the same level I do.

I could go on all day praising Hagler for his accomplishments in the ring, his heart, his skill, chin, etc. . . And this is the only bad thing I have to say about him. . . He was a poor sport, and poor loser against Leonard. . . He acted like a child. . End of.

 

This. . . ALL boxers. . . ALL boxers had faults, and are open to criticism. . .

Some people just like to pretend like they're "in the know," and will act as if that boxer never did a thing wrong, and is a god-like figure, above all criticism. . . .

You posited a legitimate question. . . If you posited this question about Pacquiao, or Mayweather, then the "know it all" "old school is best" contingent would be all over the thread, listing boxers left, and right. . . But if it involves Hagler, Duran, Robinson, Ali, Frazier, etc. then ohhh noo! You're a moron who DKSAB. . . It's a fact for them: All old school greats did everything right, and a lot of the boxers (who they don't like, for whatever reason) who will be remembered as greats currently competing in this contemporary fistic eras are pussies who ducked, swerved, and are paper champs


I personally can't think of a boxer Hagler "ducked"; however, like I alluded to in the end of the last paragraph, boxing fans are bitter ****s, who subjectively apply terms like "quit," "ducked," "warrior," "runner," etc. to make it fit their agenda, and that of their "favorite boxers."

In conclusion, there were definitely some of the top MW's in his era that he never fought, for whatever reason. . . Whether or not they can be labeled as "ducks," I personally don't think so. . I think he might have made some calculated choices, and favored to fight some guys, over others who he believed posed greater risks. . .

But I wasn't alive back then, so I don't know exactly who was calling out who, and how highly rated the contenders were (AT THE TIME), not how they are remembered now. . It's just hard because we don't have all the interviews, and videos, etc. archived, and the internet as a medium for everything that went on back then. .

 

while it is safe to say he was a bad loser,he did not quit over losing the decision to Leonard.He quit when he couldn't secure a rematch.Which to me seems like a good idea because it was probably the only fight he could motivate himself for.
Leonard has admitted he only fought Hagler because it was clear that he was on the slide and when they spoke at a party,Hagler told him he felt he couldn't do it anymore.His retirement was on the cards anyway

 

To be fair, one of the judges, and several observers ringside and viewers worldwide scored the fight in favour of Hagler, so I don't see your point? He's perfectly entitled to feel he won, the fight was extremely close.

 

Ahh, well if that's the case, then I stand partially corrected. . . See, I never claim to know everything; even crucial facts like this I was not aware of. . . I just always thought he quit the sport (not really "retired") - he stuck to his word because he was so bitter by simply getting beat by the better man (all time, and that night). . . Hagler definitely had an ego, and he had to kind of eat his words (but he put on the facade so he wouldn't have to).

Still, he did not act like a gentleman, and a true warrior would in defeat. . . Even if he believed he won, he could have shown some mutual respect to Leonard for giving a great fight. The slagging off, and disrespect before the fight is fine. . . It builds the fight up - I hate it when opponents hug each other, and act buddy-buddy before (and even DURING) fights now.

But after the guy beats you, fair and square (even if it was close enough for you to feel you won), and pushes you to the limit- bringing the very best out of you, and taking your best shots, and giving you his, you should give respect, and props AFTER THE FIGHT. . .

Is all this documented evidence, about Hagler, and Leonard talking at a party, and Leonard admitting he knew Hagler was on the slide? Cause the awy I saw it - LEONARD was the one who was "on the slide," and coming off a huge layoff, etc. . While Hagler was at his natural weight class, and primed as all get out.

I believe you, but do you know an article, or link, etc. where I can hear about Hagler/Leonard saying this, the rematch falling through, etc.?

 

Yes, the fight was close, I don't think anybody will dispute that. . . But most people now have came to the conclusion that Leonard clearly won.

Ok, but even if there is a case that he won the fight, it CERTAINLY was not a robbery, and definitely no evidence of "corruption" in the judging (hell, like you said, one judge scored it for him). . . And he just acted like a brat post-fight - still acting like he was such a better man than Leonard, and just slagging him off still. . . Rather than admitting "you know, what a good, close fight that was. . Leonard gave me all I could handle, and brought the best out of me. . But I know that I won. . . " Just give the man some respect. . If he was all this, and that, that you claimed, he wouldn't have given you such a close fight (even if u felt you won), right?

Did he call Ray out for a rematch after the fight, though? I just remember him saying he "quit." And that basically turned into a retirement because he stuck by his word. . .

He just didn't act like a true warrior, and gentleman would after being in such a good, close fight. . . Just reminds me of something Zab Judah would do. . . Just quit because you didn't get your way. Def. not something that you would expect from such a warrior, and how he conducted himself inside the ring, and outside of it for the most part. . Although it was clear Hagler had a huge ego - having an ego isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is when you become a victim to your own hubris, and can't come to terms, and deal, when you find out there IS somebody out there better than you.

 

lol yeah we kinda got off topic there!

 

seem to remember claims at the time that he was ducking herol bomber graham, don't know if theres any substance in that, an undefeated graham was an awkward fight for anybody back then.

 

That was Hagler's character, love him or hate him. He didn't show any respect to his opponents unless he thought they posed no threat to him. I agree with you that Marvin's actions after the fight were disrespectful and below a champion of his stature, but that's how he felt. He had to work hard to get where he was, and he felt he was robbed, and I don't blame him for feeling that way. One judge scored it in his favour, and so did several fans. It hasn't become accepted that Leonard really won, it's just that the judges saw it that way, and now it's been passed on that way to the younger generations who didn't witness it live. I could watch that fight again now, and if I wanted to, score it to Hagler (Even though I scored it to Leonard when I last saw it).

 

One of the judges scores was utterly off. It was 118 - 110 to Leonard. Even if you scored it for Leonard there's no way that Hagler only got 2 rounds.

As to the rematch, Hagler did ask for one, but Leonard, who was well known for game playing, said he'd only grant Hagler one if he publicly admitted that the judges were correct and he'd been ouscored. He did similar after the first Hearns fight where he demanded Hearns state publicly that the referee was right to stop the match. Even if it was the case you're not going to get many boxers making such admissions.

Hagler did do an interview in 1988 where he spoke about wanting a Leonard rematch but that Leonard wouldn't give one without crazy stipulations, even more stipulations than Hagler had granted in the first fight, as well as the public admission of losing.