If Hagler got the decision against Sugar Ray?

Well he must have started posting again recently because I haven't seen his name anywhere in this section.

 

Hagler gets zero credit for winning against a WW who retired 5 years previous.

 

Almost all of his 10 000 odd are in here. Pretty sure he's got way more than that too but may have lost some in changovers. Absolute regular years ago and extremely respected. You've barely been here a year, the forum was around well before that. There were hordes of top posters and some of the best insights you would ever find.

 

That's exactly what I said. No need to be rude.

 

Just pointing out a fact.

THIS is what you said

Which is absolute balls.

 

Eh, no worries John; in his defense I haven't been around a lot lately. Hope all's well Down Under.

 

Let's take a step back lol. I don't want to deviate this far from the thread over a simple matter of how long a guy has been around.

 

I agree.
In terms of giving credit, handicapped by the circumstances, the credit due has to go to Sugar Ray Leonard and deserves to be magnified (and I say that as someone who scores it a close win for Hagler!).
It's a massive bonus on Leonard's legacy, and a blemish on Hagler's.

The paradox for me is that prime-for-prime I can't imagine Leonard doing as well as he did. Even with less of a handicap (no layoff) - and more energy and sharpness resulting - the strategy he employed would evaporate sooner or later against a prime Hagler.
I think Leonard calculated that back in 1982 too.

There's probably some line graph and mathematical formula to explain how Leonard may have been as equally OR MORE 'off-form' as/than Hagler, yet still somehow gains the relative advantage. Because even among Leonard's biggest supporters there's some level of reluctance to have 1983 Leonard doing as well against 1983 Hagler.
It's styles mainly. But it's the wisdom or 'magic' of Leonard as well, I guess.