Hagler vs Leonard

it looked like he wanted to prove he could box with leonard. it was a ridiculous move. he basically tried to fight leonard's fight. when he was agressive, thats when he won rds. but in the judges eyes, it was too little, too late.

 

The man lost the fight, fair and square.

 

yeah, leonard egded it. but hagler shouldnt have even put himself in that position. and give credit to leonard for fighting "the right fight" and rising to the occasion.

 

Silver. Post your top 5 fav fighters in the thread I started.

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Nobody thought Hagler was shot. Most were afraid Leonard was going to get hurt.

 

Rooster, Hagler looked so shot in training that you bet the house on Leonard and made your fortune right?

 

Well said.

 

Michael Katz knew he was shot.Leonard knew he was shot.Hell,even I knew he was shot.Marvin even knew he was shot after the fight.Why the hell do you think he retired when he did?Answer 2 questions truthfully please.1.Were Marvin's reflexes and legs absolutely shot against Roldan and Mugabi?2.Why did Leonard wait until that point in time to fight Marvin when Leonard had been publicly considering it for years.

 

Fists,we are all just responding to the thread.It's an open forum and we obviously all have our opinions.However,you answered this debate yourself when you wrote that Nunn or Kalambay would have beaten him at that point.Right,because he was old and slow and had no reflexes left.How many people out there believe that either Michael Nunn or Sumbu Kalambay were better fighters than Marvin Hagler?Do you?I'm sure that even Marvin's haters aren't going to believe that.Why then have the forum in the first place if those of us who feel Leonard performed the ultimate conjob should "make peace with what happened" and let it go?Then the forum isn't a debate and becomes an advert for the Sugar Ray Leonard fan club.I don't believe that that is the purpose of the Classic Boxing Forum on ESB.

 

Hagler probably didn't either :yep

I respect the testimony of Redroster and others on Hagler being shot. But again, that reflects badly on him, not on Leonard.

He should call it quits. He accepted the fight. He accepted Leonard's tricky stipulations. He gladly went with the hype and the assumption that He was going to destroy Leonard. And on top of that, He let Leonard control the fight.

At the end of the day, the major blame still rests on Hagler's shoulders :twisted:

 

You make all valid and provocative points,Bacon,but you didn't make the biggest one of all:Leonard was the cash cow and called ALL of the shots.I'm 47 and remember the "Leonard" era pretty clearly.Leonard knew that the adoring public couldn't get enough of him and took full advantage of it.HE was THE STAR.Not Hagler,not Duran,not Hearns,not Benitez etc,etc.Not just Hagler and the Fab 4(plus Benitez),but with EVERYONE,and I do mean EVERYONE.His charisma,articulate demeanor,looks,flashiness,style and as much as I hate to admit it because I hated him the moment I saw him and heard his phoniness and overinflated ego and Howard Cosell's platitudes,his undeniable greatness in the ring.For example,Leonard knew that 30 year old drunk and coked out Duran would still be partying,so took advantage of Duran's wild ways and demanded and got the rematch only 5 months later.Whereas it's true that that result and turn of events would honestly reflect poorly on Duran,why didn't Leonard grant Tommy Hearns a rematch after 5 months after their war whereas Duran had given him one immediately?Why did Tommy have to wait years to get a rematch?Why did Hagler have to wait years after Leonard literrally spent years talking about the possibility of the fight?Leonard could manipulate the system because everyone,Hagler included,was on line waiting for him to gauge and prove their greatness while earning a massive purse.Could Hagler have retired before the Leonard fight with his rep intact?Of course.But he had always been so desperate for a bout with Leonard that even while making Leonard wait a couple of weeks for a response,couldn't really hide his excitement over Leonard finally stepping up to the plate.It took that performance-ergo proof that he was shot-to finally convince him that it was time to retire.

 

But that's not what people are referring to when they say "shot." And when people claim a fighter is shot they are usually referring to the fighter physically. Tyson was still very capable. Mentally he was shot 6 years prior that according to your logic. I understand that they're different circumstances but Tyson was by no means shot. A shot fighter isn't capable of much, Tyson was.

 

On that score I agree entirely. Hence, Hagler wasn't shot.

 

Ali was shot against Holmes. Chavez against Tszyu. Duran against Joppy, etc.

Hagler clearly wasn't shot against Leonard, for christ sake.

 

...So you knew without a doubt Hagler was going to lose? Since he was so pathetic at this point it could be the only outcome, correct?

I don't understand your point of view, I really don't. Leonard beat an old, shopworn Hagler so at least rest comfortably in the knowledge that it wasn't Hagler it his best.
If the fight had happened last year then yes, I could understand the bitterness, but 22 years on?