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

You are not wrong for bringing it up.

It is just that this debate on how fit Hagler was, sometimes looks to me like a "black or white" issue: either Hagler was prime and top of his game, or he was so shot that he was just a tomato can.

As I say, I respect those opinions, but I don't share them 100%, among other reasons because I believe (naively, perhaps) that if Hagler accepted the fight was because he felt fit enough to fight and win. Add to that, that he eagerly accepted Leonard's conditions. A shot fighter does that?

And let's not forget that the fight was close; close enough to make the decision controversial. My impression is that with a shot Hagler, the fight would have been clearly for Leonard.

Anyway, I don't pretend to get into the discussion on how shot was Hagler. My point is that even a shot Hagler still had a good shot (no pun intended ) to win, but he blew it royally making things like snoozing through the first 4 rounds atsch

BTW, I recomend you to check "Sorcery At Caesars: Sugar Ray’s Marvelous Fight" by Steve Marantz http://www.secondsout.com/columns?cs=28457&ccs=788

I think you will find it a very interesting reading

 

I had it a draw.

 

Good read!.

I find it hard to give Leonard credit for this "win", as how he played Hagler. You can say that if he was shot (I think more past prime than shot) and should not have taken the fight, but Leonard had the media in his pocket and they would have cruxafied Hagler for not taking the fight, protraying Leonard as the hero for wanting the fight and Hagler as the coward for not wating the fight.

I can see how it could be scored either way thou'.

 

I have the book. and the session between Hagler and the Weavers that was mentioned is what i had watched. I'm telling you he couldnt do anything with them either. In fact he looked worse