Hagler vs Briscoe. Impressions?

Good post...apart from the 'prime' bit. Leonard would never be that tired after 15 rounds never mind 12.

 

I'm sure you'll agree with the following. If one comes to the conclusion Hagler was shot and had nothing left against a prime Leonard yet was robbed, he must had been one hell of a fighter. Either that or Leonard in his prime was a joke.

Hagler's remarks after the fight don't wash with me. "he didn't hurt me, he ran like a girl". And Hagler reckons a challenger should stand and fight to take the title from the champion. We know why that is, because he lost. Utter nonsense.

 

Hagler never said before he fought Mugabi that it would be his last fight. However, after the fight he was contemplating retirement.

 

Yeah, fair enough. But I do think the fight shows that Leonard was the fresher man. The lay off didn't affect his performance that night (although he would have been less tired in the last few rounds of course).

 

That makes 3 of us. In reality he only had himself to blame, but he never was the smartest when under the gun. Stagefright and then some.

 

Yeah, no question Leonard had more left. It showed with speed and timing. I would say his strategty was perfect, thus papering over some cracks. The good work done early got that lead he needed going into the late rounds when he slowed down and fought flat-footed. He could never have sustained the same strategy over 12 rounds, although a percentage of credit must be given to Hagler for fighting more effectively during the late rounds.

I agree wholeheartedly Leonard's stamina was effected from the long lay off. In his prime he would not have shown the same fatigue.

 

He would if he did some more fighting. That was the busiest I ever saw leonard in a fight apart except for the occasional spurts he put on in the Duran fight. Ray Mancini he ain't.

 

Anyone seen Enquirer around lately? I think he's through here.

 

Enquirer has things to do on the weekend....
Anyway,i find some of the comments on this thread to be ridiculous,and sour grapes....I dont care if ray was looking after himself physically and mentally during his retirement,fact is he had ONE fight in five years and was coming up 13 pounds from his prime weight....His speed was not the same as it was in his prime,and that is the worst i have ever seen ray tire in a world title fight....If ray had been fighting regular he may have had the normal awesome stamina that he had in his prime,as well as his demon speed of 80...The more i think of it the more i feel ray would have outpointed hagler over fifteen in 83,hagler is more at home against brawlers,pressure fighters and counterpunching,hagler could never counterpunch ray due to rays speed....
All the hagler guys and even 'my dinner' are ignoring or understating rays layoff and its effect,in the history of gloved boxing no former champ has EVER had one fight in five years then rose two divisions from their natural weight to beat the undisputed champ....Even foreman had countless warm up bouts and two attempts to try to win the crown after his amazing comeback,and he beat moorer who is not in the same stratosphere as hagler....Really hardly any gave leonard a chance due to the layoff,it was unknown whether he could still be competitive...Leonard was past prime during the hagler fight and it showed in his stamina and relative slowing down of punch and mobility...Hagler was past prime as well and noticeably slower of punch,but at least he had been active and was confident of his fighting condition,stamina and size advantage...
I cant believe that some are now saying that leonard was less past prime than hagler,marvin was talking of breaking monzons record beforehand and he wanted a rematch with leonard if leonard first won a title...And why are you guys not mentioning the fact leonard was THIRTEEN pounds above his natural weight facing a career middle?
Tell the past prime hagler of 86-87 to fight spinks at lt heavy or virgill hill,heck tell the prime 80-83 hagler to fight spinks at lt heavy.....And also tell him to have one fight in five years,and see how he goes.....

 

Well then Ray should have taken the fight with Hagler instead of backing out. I know why he backed out and it wasn't due to his eye because if it were he wouldn't have taken his supposed tuneup fight.

He already let the cat out of the bag that he wanted to fight since Duran took Marvin 15 and showed that he could be taken. Even back in those days he was showing his mentality--"think what I could do if Duran almost beat him" just like "think what I could do if James Kinchen almost beat Tommy Hearns" or "think what I could do if Duran beat Camacho but didn't get the decision".

There's your proof right there that he could have and that his eye wasn't preventing him from doing it but he felt his guts turn to jelly the way they had in the Norris fight and he took the easy way out be quitting instead of going forward with a Hagler fight. So now we know his excuse wasn't that he didn't want to risk damaging his eye but now that "it wasn't there".

But i don't believe that one either.


And just the year before, I watched Hagler ask him face to face to fight him but the yellow streak in Leonard came to the surface and he turned his head to the side, not daring to accept and even jesting to cover up his obvious fear but never daring to give the answer I knew he wouldn't give which is "I will fight only you and then retire ".

And Enquirer, we still haven't seen the mythical performance in which Ray never tires in his fights. You're talking about the awesome normal stamina that sustained him in his fight with a 28 year old lightweight that had moved up two divisions and still lost a decision, being out worked, outhustled? I saw Ray lose most of the middle rounds and then come on late to take some of the late rounds....but even those were close. Why was Ray lying on the ropes so often and not fighting back???? He just let Duran work him over and do most of the work. Like I said, Ray typically just fights in spurts.

Question: shouldn't Ray have outhustled a 28 year old light weight? Ray was only 23 at the time. Ray should have won more rounds than Duran who was in his 14 year as a pro.

It was pretty good stamina for a welterweight but not in the same class as what I've seen Hagler do on regular occasion, the last time being the Hearns fight. Speaking of past his prime, Hagler did a lot better on the cards with a split loss than Leonard in his drubbing to Norris who I recall wasn't the favorite.

Shouldn't leonard have done a lot better since he was the favorite?

 

Well there was about half a page about Hagler-Briscoe before the thread morphed into a Leonard-Hagler debate. Never saw that coming.atsch

 

Actually you will find reference to Hagler - Leonard in the actual title post. The topic was always going to be explored thereafter. Especially in this joint

 

I'm thinking Leonard-Hagler should have it's own forum.

 

Hahahaha, it'd be hard to deny. It's mostly run it's course but does indeed crop up now and again. Unfortunately die hard Hagler fans can't handle the fact that he got a bit of a lesson

:firedevi:

 

My dear rooster,your musings on leonard supposedly being scared of prime hagler or such like cut no cloth with me,fact is any fighter would be a little reluctant about facing the ATG champion two weight divisions above him,and the fact is leonard DID challenge and beat marvin,i dont care if it was years later....can we call marvin yellow because he didnt face spinks after hearns and never moved to lt heavy? I mean he could have cemented his legacy further by being a two weight undisputed champ,and showing the world he could beat a bigger great man....To be honest im sure guys like quawi,spinks and other top lt heavies would have loved to have fought hagler,i vaguely recall some challenges being handed out,maybe some other posters can clarify this?
Leonard showed great stamina in the hearns and duran fights,and i never saw him tire in any of his title fights except against hagler...
With reference to you downgrading leonard due to his loss to duran,yes,normally losing to a lightweight is a significant downer,however we are talking about the GREATEST lightweight in history and a fistic genius,and still the fight is close....By the same token hagler was LESS than marvelous in letting the older,fatter less intense duran take him the full fifteen three years after montreal...If duran was a natural welter (never mind middle.) i believe he would have outpointed marvin soundly over 15....fact is marvins best wins a champs all came against smaller fighters,mugabi (154.) duran (135.) hearns (147.) and finally the LOSS to leonard,the smaller man. (147.) So you can see that criticising leonard for losing to the smaller duran is pretty rich,especially since leonard won the rematch against a fighter better than ALL of haglers title challengers p4p and most of haglers challengers outright....In fact,though marvin is unboubtably an ATG,and one of the greatest middles of all times,the fact is his reign was full of weak middles,he did not defeat ONE great natural middle,and his legacy fights were all against atg great fighters beyond their natural weights,only hearns was in his prime but still 6 pounds over his better weight.....Now compare and contrast with monzon who defeated great natural middles,p4p smaller greats and ALL convincingly......
Hagler ko4 monzon my ass.......That shows the extent of your knowledge when you picked hagler by ko over monzon......atsch