How would you rate Leonard if he cleaned out 160 after Hagler?

Heres a poor (or embarassing) claim to fame for you.

In April 1987 I was in Las Vegas with my family. I, however, did not get to Hagler v Leonard like my father did. I spent the whole evening sat a hotel room with my mother and younger sister.

Great.

By the way, if you'd asked my father, and I agreed with him - whilst the records show Leonard won, he didn't. Hagler was robbed blind. I've watched it since, many a time, and still consider it one of the worst decisions of all time.

 

I think you need to reevaluate the meaning of "robbery".

Chavez vs Whitaker was a robbery, Hagler vs Leonard was a close fight that could have gone either way. The mere fact a small man like Leonard, who had been inactive, recovering from an eye injury was so competitive with a beast like Hagler is impressive in itself. The claims that Hagler was a shot item is just another way purists have come up with a way to discredit Ray and his achievement.

 

Ok, so robbery was perhaps somewhat exaggerating what was a dubious decision.

I don't think Hagler was shot at all and I'd never use that in his defence. I just happen to think he won.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, let's just not twist the facts and say it was a robbery. I think even claiming it to be one of the worst decisions of all time is a far cry from what actually transpired.

 

Ah well, my comment in that respect is because of the tainted legacy (in his opinion at the time anyway) it left Hagler with. It was certainly one of the worst decisions of all time in respect of how it left him and his fans feeling.

I also think the fight would have been scored different today too.

 

Well, I scored it a few months ago and I have enough experience with the fight game to know how rounds should be scored. I felt Leonard won the fight by a point, but I would have had no complaints had the decision gone to Hagler. There shouldn't be ANY complaints, period.

 

But there always will be. Its the nature of the game as you know.

Besides, if you go in there as a fan or affliate of the sport you nearly always have a fighter you want to win. If they don't, and it's close - you complain. Human nature.

Apart from which my father was in a crap mood for the rest of the week.:rofl

 

I can't see how Hagler won the fight based on coming forward without any combinations. Single punches all night long, with most missing. He lacked variety.

 

I've been guilty of complaining about close fights in the past, usually for the first week, but eventually you have to let it go.

Hagler/Hearns took place many many years ago. It's time to just accept the fact that Leonard put on a wonderful performance, it's a shame there had to be a loser, but Ray was given the verdict.

 

There were periods in the fight where Ray was doing nothing and this allowed Hagler to take the rounds on activity alone.

I think a case can be made for Hagler quite easily.

 

True. If I was American, right about now I might be ready to let go of Park Si-Hun winning Gold.....but then again, maybe not!

 

I mentioned in an earlier similer thread that i can see how the judges sub conciously could be swayed as 2 the fact that so much more was expected from Hagler & not 2 much was expected from Leonard considering all the ink written up pre-fight, a case ov OH, clever boy, your'e still there on yer feet ect + all the shreaking from the Leonard Circus hands/Celeb-boxing fans helped.

Like you i've scored it 1 round either way & morally it's a draw but there ai'nt no morels in Vegas hence 118-110 just 2 be on the safe side:smoke

 

So you believe that people like me are trying to take the shine off the win do you?

What about KO magazine and the way they sized up Hagler after the fight as having no reflexes and that his legs looked looked dead?

Vito Anuofuermo sized him up as well BEFORE the fight as did Leonard.

Vito said in an espn interview that any of Hagler's previous challengers could take him. Remember, this was days before the fight.

and Leonard himself told to Tim Ryan who recounted SRL's assessment of hagler "Sugar ray said that Hagler had lost a lot of speed and that he was counting on the slowness of Hagler". During round 6 of the fight which you can clearly hear.

and you're saying that people like me are just holding it against him out of bitterness?

What do you have to say now? Once you put it in proper perspective you realize that all he was doing was preparing to overcome the inactivity albeeit against an opponent moving in at a very slow pace, one that he could safely handle.

No big thing. That's why I say he could have erased any doubts by following it up against much younger opposition that was peaking. he didnt do that so suspicions remain

 

Here we go again, with the "shot" Hagler vs "past his prime" Hagler neverending debate

I respect the opinion of those who say that Hagler was shot, although I don't agree with that 100%. Certainly, Marvin was past his prime, and sure Leonard knew that well and felt he had a chance. Otherwise, that fight had never taken place.

But again, I still believe that, shot or not shot, Hagler could have won that fight, nevertheless. But he did silly things like giving Leonard a gift of the first 4 rounds :twisted:

At the end of the day, Hagler fought dumb, Leonard fought smart. And that's it, in my honest opinion.

 

its not just my opinion, also it's leonard's opinion, Gil Glancy, the writers of KO, and Vito Anuofuermo. The fight was won on which man had the better reflexes

So why am I wrong for bringing it up?

Fact is, leonard couldnt handle quick sharp blows to the head. If he could he wouldnt hesitate to defend the title. That's why i have no faith in him