Does Hagler losing to Leonard hurt his legacy?

I did not know that one. Hagler was 32 year old for Leonard. Hardly old.

Hagler was bitter, and unfortunately, his fans or at least some of them still have sour grapes.

Leonard met Hagler, Duran and Hearns...and beat them all. Hagler and Duran had issues about the loss for years.

Check out the below story 13 years after the fight:

[url]https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1990-12-09-1990343140-story.html[/url]

 

. I think their fight finished both Hagler and Mugabi. Actually, Hagler was night and day different from the Hearns fight to the Mugabi one! Nowhere near as sharp.

 

Lol. And yet Lenny was the one that made a documentary about himself and flew to Panama because he felt Duran needed to get closure about his quitting, ****ing joke Lenny is. Great fighter but an insecure ******* no matter how great he was. You have your wires crossed dude. And you still haven't answered the questions I posed to you.

 

He definitely did fight Hagler at the right time, no doubt about that.

He fought Tommy Hearns and beat him when he was arguable at his best so don't agree on the validity of the second point.

 

Which questions? Re-post them, I will reply.

I think you view things from Hagler's corner. Another posted said the book you liked was slanted news.

My questions.

1 ) Don't you think Leonard style and quickness made Hagler look bad? Yes or no? I don't think hi being 32 was the sole reason for Hagler not looking as good.

2 ) Do you agree Hagler pissed away for first four rounds and should have fight more aggressively? Yes or no?

3 ) How much of a factor was Leonard being of the ring for three years? I say quite a bit. Most guys out of the ring for 3 years never come back as good as they were. So Hagler got Leonard at a good time for him as well.

4 ) Your scorecard. Mine is 7-5 for Leonard.

Punch stats: The final CompuBox stats showed Leonard landing 306 of 629 total punches (49%-52 per round) to 291 of 792 (37%-66 per round) for Hagler . Leonard landed 258 of 490 power punches (53%) to 213 of 581 (37%) for Hagler.

 

Unfairly but to a small degree of course.

 

I don’t think it hurts his legacy at all, what it did hurt was his public image. Everybody was so swept off their feet by Ray Leonard’s performance that Hagler was reduced to just another bad guy in Leonard’s heroic fairy tale career. Today, he’s brushed off as nothing but a brute with an iron chin, soft of what Foreman was to Ali. Personal inadequacy has been Hagler’s life story. He was a loner as a child, he’s always wanted to be liked and admired, and the public never really took to him. Then in 87, when he finally was enjoying a little mainstream acceptance, in swoops Leonard to snatch away his crown. That’s the kind of loss you don’t recover from image wise. Today, Hagler is largely forgotten while Ray can’t walk down a corner without every crackhead and homosexual wanting to suck him off.

 

It does hurt his legacy as it should for someone seen as one of the best MWs ever. If you're in that company you shouldn't lose to a rusty WW.

 

It pains me to say this but no way did Hagler deserve a W. A draw would have been fortunate. He fought a subpar fight. He didnt fight like he was capable.
I hate Leonard but he peppered Hagler. Had Marvin got the decision there would have been a cloud hanging over it and it's standing may have actually gone lower.

 

I agree that Marvin fought a subpar fight. But I've had him ahead one point every one of the dozens of times I've seen that fight. Leonard was supernaturally great, but I just didn't see that many grounded-shots landing on Hagler, in fact it seemed to me the majority of Ray's punches were arm...though they served great to distract Marvin.

Again, I honestly don't think Hagler was really in trouble even once in that fight, while Ray had a couple of snafus.

Hagler was the champ, he landed the stronger punches, Ray didn't pursue the belt enough to win it.

So...yes, it's only one point, but one I've given Marvin every time over the years (and though I love both of those fighters I like SRL better).

 

Not particularly imo, he is still in the top 4 og all time at the weight for me.

 

1. Yes I do believe Leonard's style was bad for Hagler. He was a far smarter fighter than Hagler was. Nobody disputes that. That is actually one of Lenny's best qualities: his boxing IQ. But first isn't Hagler a bad matchup for Lenny as well as he didnt look good against lefties that were inferior to Hagler? And second take the fact that Hagler was further gone and Lenny knew it, and that's the only reason Lenny took the fight when he did, otherwise he would have challenged him much earlier. And that doesn't mean Hagler wouldn't have beaten Lenny close to their respective primes. Obviously, Lenny wasn't confident enough earlier.
2. Yes he pissed away the 1st 4 rounds and should have fought lefty as well. I have previously dealt with the fact that Hagler wasn't the smartest apple in the bunch. But think about that. A shot, slow Hagler gave away the 1st 4 rounds and still managed a close fight after looking like **** against guys like Mugabi and Roldan.
3. Of course 3 years make a difference. Yet again: I have written Lenny was not prime. But he was obviously fresher than Hagler and he knew it. And that's the only reason he challenged him when he did. But you need to acknowledge the difference between the Hagler of Sibson and the Hagler of Mugabi: like 2 different fighters. Not saying you have said it, but anyone that says Hagler was only slightly past it against Mugabi simply didn't follow Hagler's career. Plus Lenny was so far gone lol he managed a draw-although I felt Tommy edged it- in the Hearns rematch and knocked out a much bigger man in LaLonde- both fights after he fought Hagler. Had Lenny come back after the Hagler fight and looked as bad as Hagler did against Mugabi, I would agree with many of your points.
As far as my scorecard is concerned I have changed it on more than one occasion. I haven't seen the fight in a long time but will have to watch it again.

And yes, the great poster John Thomas wrote that he felt the book was one sided. But I'm going to repeat what I wrote in response to John: Marantz was basically rehashing history as I remembered those events as I read the book. If you or anyone else can disprove those events, I will admit I'm wrong.

I will get to the questions later.

By the way did you see the Lenny going to Panama documentary? If you did what's your take?

 

Ya I just checked those questions I asked. You wrote how easily post Hagler Mugabi was stopped- although he suffered a bad eye injury against Thomas. Are you inferring those fighters were better than Hagler? Are you inferring Mugabi was a better boxer than Hagler because, quite frankly, Hagler turned it into a slugfest after he couldn't get off quicker?

 

So me it was a 114-114 draw. 67% of fans though Hagler won it or it was a draw. [url]https://www.eyeonthering.com/boxing/super-fight-marvin-hagler-vs-sugar-ray-leonard[/url]
Leonard cherry picked it to when he thought Hagler had peaked. Hagler is still one of the greatest middleweights. Up there with Robinson and Monzon. Imagine Hagler Monzon:

This content is protected

If Hagler's legacy was tarnished a tad, then Leonard was hurt more. He didn't beat Hagler. He was beaten by Hearns in 1989. And Norris and Camacho humiliated him.
Leonard should have retired alongside Hagler. And what can you say about Duran and Hearns. They both fought on way too long. Duran should have retired after Leonard 1989 fight. And Hearns after 1992 Barkley fight.

 

Agreed, after Ray Leonard saw what Duran did and the punishment Hagler took in the Mugabi fight his team knew the time was right. You couldn't have gotten Leonard in the ring with Hagler in 82 at gunpoint