Does Hagler losing to Leonard hurt his legacy?

yet I am not a hagler fan and i think he lost, so how is it being a tough time for me any way indicative of me ridiculing you claiming Hagler was a mental midget?

You dont win an argument by adding crud to a failed one.

 

This.

 

I'm not sure anyone can be rightfully ashamed of being beat by Sugar Ray Leonard.

 

The 'L' at the end of his record says different.

 

You have the paper truth on your side, and imo the fight was close enough to go to Ray, even if I didn't quite give it to him myself.

But I wonder if you would say Holmes lost to Spinks in the second fight, or Foreman to Briggs. I realize Hagler vs. Leonard was much closer than those fights, so perhaps I should ask your opinion instead on Norton vs Holmes.

 

John, I am not making excuses for Hagler. He lost. Period. End of. He neither fought a smart fight nor looked good. That's it. BUT he was more diminished than Lenny was at that stage and fighting sporadically at that point himself. He looked so slow and hittable against guys like Roldan and Mugabi, (and quite, frankly, I don't know if he still was the best middleweight in the world anymore in 1987). And that is the reason(officially on record) that Lenny challenged him when he did. I highly recommend you read Steve Marantz's book Sorcery at Caesar's. Highly informative although I remembered the events he describes while I was reading the book.

 

Yeah. I think it hurts Hagler's legacy quite a lot, and I actually score it as a win for Hagler. (Quite clearly on my card the last time I scored it.)
He shouldn't have had a close or debatable (or whatever) win over Leonard at that stage.
Yes, he was older than Leonard and had a lot of mileage and was planning retirement. But ... Leonard was past it too, had been horribly inactive and had never really done anything against any middleweight before.
Even a past prime Hagler should have made it an emphatic beating beyond all doubt.

 

I did not say you have a hard time with the loss; I said Hagler fans in general. If you disagree that Hagler gave Duran too much respect, or gave away too many of the early rounds to Leonard, the floor is yours.

You should not question facts you do not know. In this case, questioning that a Boston based historian who is a Hagler fan agrees with me that he lacked some mental toughness. Also, I never said mental midget either. What we have here is two cases of word twisting in one sentence from you, and a misunderstanding of the word fans. I did not say fan, or you.

I think I'm finished replying back, unless something grossly inaccurate is said from you. Too many threads here fall into the prettiness trap between posters.

 

Neither guy was at the top of their game, but Leonard did what he needed to do to win, more so than Hagler.

It looked like Mugabi was out boxing Hagler early. Then Hagler perhaps sensing he was losing opened up and Mugabi was found to be one of those punchers with a suspect jaw. Mugabi was KO'd three times inside of three rounds post Hagler.

 

I know neither was at the top of his game. I have written that on this thread already. But Hagler was more diminished than Lenny was and that is the reason Lenny challenged him when he did. He saw how old and slow Hagler looked against Mugabi and after he invited Hagler down to the opening of his restaurant in Maryland and gauging his ready to retire mental state, he knew Hagler there for the taking. I would recommend Marantz's book to you as well.

 

Nope but it was still embarrassing getting stopped by the macho man.

 

There are two sides to each coin. Leonard had vision problems and was inactive. Hagler had no such issues to overcome. He was the natural middle. Ray, a natural welterweight.

I'll settle for both were slightly past their prime. I think Hagler was concerned with Mugabi's power, and that had a lot to do with the way the fight played out the way it did. The books sounds interesting. What year was it published?

 

You seem to have missed the point of what I was saying.
Never mind.

 

Hagler was inactive as well. He was fighting about once a year at that point. And Lenny didn't have vision problems anymore. Had he still had them, he never would have challenged Marvin in the 1st place. As far as Hagler Mugabi is concerned, in the 1st few rounds of the fight, Mugabi was landing his right regularly on Hagler's dome as he couldn't get out of the way. If Marvin didn't have a granite jaw, Mugabi would have stopped him because John was landing regularly early. It's interesting that you mentioned in an earlier post that Mugabi was stopped earlier in post Hagler fights. So then the question is did Marvin ruin John or was Hagler that past his prime that lesser fighters beat John more convincingly than Marvin did? As far as when the book came out I simply don't remember. Apologies. But it's called Sorcery at Caesars written by Steve Marantz. Worth a look.

 

we certainly do have that, because in one post you say hagler is mentally weak (based, you say,on him having a bald hed?LOL) , but now you are process of rejecting that statement.

no wonder u dont want to reply anymore.