hagler-leonard ll what if a rematch happened

Why ? ... because most people voting hold a different opinion to you ?

I think most reasonable people agree that the Hagler-Leonard fight was CLOSE. Whether they think Hagler won, or Leonard won - the consensus is that the fight was close.

It's also accepted that Hagler fought a bit foolishly by coming out boxing cautiously in an orthodox stance for a few rounds, and rarely showing the urgency or intensity he required. It's also generally accepted that Leonard probably fought the best possible fight plan he could have - almost perfect.

It's not unreasonable to surmise that Hagler, with the motivation to avenge himself, would manage a performance that was better, even if only slightly better, in a rematch.
Seeing as he only barely lost the first match, by hotly disputed split decision, it's fair to reason that he'd edge past Leonard if given a chance in the rematch.

 

Very similar lines of thought to myself,Unforgiven.

 

Yes, but still nearly 85% voted Hagler when I wrote what you quoted. Leonard won a CLOSE fight, but only 1 out of 6 thought he could repeat it.

If you swap "accepted" for "an often used excuse", I'm with you.

Thing is, the only other time Hagler was in with a fighter as canny as Leonard (Duran), he was also made to look very much the second smartest in the ring. If you're the plain smarter fighter, you will be so every time you fight.

The main thing is, though, that Hagler had 8 rounds with a very, very tired Leonard, but failed to capitalize. Every one wants to focus on the first 4, but it is really the last 8 that was remarkable. Leonard looked absolutely done for large parts of them, but still Hagler never came close to stopping him.

It's also not unreasonable to think that age would catch up to Hagler that little more while Leonard would have more time to shake the ring rust off of himself. Mainly get his legs back in as good a shape as possible, so he wouldn't tire as quickly.

Still only 3 out of 17 went for this line of thinking, while the remaining 14 went for the ageing Hagler who lost the first fight. That's silliness to me.

 

leonard again. but closer than 4rounds this time. orthodox hagler was useless vs leonard in the first 3.

 

I'm not down on Leonard at all, I think he was a fantastic fighter & I was a big fan back in the day. But I also know there was a reason why he waited so long to fight Hagler, cause he admitted it. Now, as I pointed out, it's a possibility that Hagler would've slowed even more for a re-match in which case Leonard probably repeats, but seen as it wasn't a punishing fight particularly it's also possible for Hagler to drag one last big effort out of his body. If he's anywhere near pre Leonard, he wins IMO.

 

Leonard would have made sure he won. Fight would have been on his terms, Leonard would have knocked ALL his 3 years of rust off(He fought the first fight under a much, much larger disadvantage than Marvin) and Hagler was getting older.

I think Leonard wins a clear UD over a further depleted Hagler. Leonard had room to move upward in his performance as well, and while Hagler could also make improvements to his first showing, he was the more faded fighter.

 

Really, really good post. Hagler gets all the excuses, and its completely discounted that Leonard could have improved on his first performance just as much.

Hagler comes out southpaw?

Leonard comes out without THREE YEARS of rust and a gas tank that doesnt noticeably drop off after the fifth.

Both adjustments change things radically. I actually think Leonards changes things more so. He dealt with the southpaw Hagler just fine: His fatigue nearly did him in.

 

I think Ray being a little sharper and less rusty for the rematch beats Hagler again by disputed decision. Marvin in 1987 had been relatively inactive since he fought Hearns in 1985. Ray wins again.

 

Good point. :good

It's not silliness when the reasoning for Hagler is actually quite sound too.
My vote for Hagler doesn't become "silly" simply because lots of others voted the same.
You have to listen to the individual arguments, and not get upset by the weight of numbers.

I stick by my vote for Hagler, but accept your reasoning for Leonard. (BTW, I had Hagler winning by 1 point in their actual match anyway, tbh).
Like I said, it was close.
I'm guessing most people figure Hagler would have had a little more motivation, and a little more room for improvement.

 

By the way I wanted to add one comment. Leonard knew that beating Hagler in April of 1987(even a more diminished and worn out Hagler)would be tough, and that he would need to get all the considerations on his side like ringsize,gloves, mindset etc, even acting nice to Marvin and not getting him mad so Marvin is not in his destruct and destroy mode was something Ray did. He was very smart. He learned from the first Duran fight that prefight activities mean something in the fight. Had Hagler and Ray rematched, Ray knows Marvin would be hyped up and might want to try and fight the Hearns kind of fight he did in 1985. Fact is the rematch of Leonard/Hagler might not have happened until 1988, which was 3 years after the Hearns fight and Marvin would not have been able to fight that same kind of fight again mentally or physically which he did against Hearns-also Hearns decided to fight with Hagler in a way Leonard would not have.

I think mentally Hagler would have been more able than physically in 1988, but Ray would have expected it and fought a fight to let Marvin use up his energy early with his intensity and by the late rounds he might try and stop him Marvin on cuts or just fatigue, which is why Ray would have probably wanted the rematch delayed as long as he could get it.

The rematch would have been very tough for Ray, and Ray was not willing to take the chance to lose when he did so much to win. Ray got everything in his favor in the first fight. Ringsize,gloves size- Hagler inactive and Hagler overconfident against a Ray he thought was too small and finished. Hagler was still thinking about beating Monzon's record of title defenses. Obviously the rematch would be different, but I still think Ray would have been up to that level and Marvin would have still been shopworn. I think Ray eeks out a grueling fight and retires for good. Either way it would be a grueling fight.

 

I loathe Leonard with a passion, but even I would concede he was a bit more than a plodder!

 

I don't it's silly voting for Hagler as such, but it becomes silly on aggregate when almost everyone does it.

But it's even more about the arguments put forth. So many focusses on what Hagler perhaps could have done better, but that Leonard - with all that rust - also had more room for improvement is glossed over. There's just very little objectivity.