Just how bad was Haglar robbed if at all against SRL?

Using that premiss: Chavez should have won every round against Taylor in the 1st fight.

 

I don't think it was a robbery. It was a really close fight. I score it 7-5 for Hagler every time though.

 

Exactly.

Thing is, folks, pro boxing is NOT about what you want it to be about. Commissions actually have rules. Seriously. The Harold Lederman thing before a fight? Not for show. When a judge is hired and trained, it is to THOSE rules.

Not: Clean Punching, Effective Aggression, Defense, and Ring Generalship, AND damage, or any other such nonsense.

If a guy hires me to appraise some wine according to the finish and the bouquet, I'm not gonna say, "eff you, bro, wine is all body!"

It's okay to have different criteria yourself, but if you have different criteria than the judges are given, you can't necessarily put down their decision in any way.

It's just time all boxing fans got their head around this concept, whether they agree and accept it or not.

 

Given Hatton's recent loss to the Ukranian peasant farmer,it really puts Leonard's victory over Hagler into perspective.The level of revisionism poured into this topic in Hagler's favour is as embarrassing as the man's little victory jig following the fight.


Leonard's probably the only boxer that can have one fight in five years,move up two weight classes above his best weight and fight a man universally regarded as being the very best in the sport and still be accused of cherry-picking.


History has a way of vindicating the greatest of men,though.I'm sure there was a fair few who thought that Jesus fella was a bit of a charlatan and a fruit-loop in his day,and yet he's been flavour of the month for a few years now - got a best-selling book and everything.

 

Jesus was always open to a good cross though, to be fair.

 

Well Camacho was past prime , feather fisted former FW. Seems pretty safe

 

Using the same criteria I still score the fight for Hagler. Leonard didn't do enough to get the W imo.

On a side note, Harold Ledderman has come out with some truly awful scorecards and tends to score a fight for whomever throws more and walks forward more, regardless of actually effectiveness.

 

Ray plays everyone for a fool, fakes retirements , waits til Hagler's past it to fight him etc.... and you compare him to Jesus :---(

So it Duran the devil then?

 

We have video evidence that validates Leonard's greatness.Can't really say the same for Jesus himself,unfortunately.Can't really rely sorely on the word of a bunch of nostalgic,crusty old geezers.

 

It's amazing how Hagler is now seen as the victim. "Poor Hagler, Ray waited for him to fade until he fought him". Seriously? Leonard wasn't faded? Leonard wasn't a natural 147 pounder? Had Ray even fought in a professional ring for 3 years? Hagler should have absolutely smashed Ray to bits, but he didn't, and that's a credit to Ray Leonard as a fighter.

 

Leonard knew he had Hagler in the palm of his hand ... he was so desperate to fight Leonard and felt slighted by the boxing community his entire career that he would do anything to get in the ring with him under almost any circumstance.

Leonard comes out right after Hagler takes monumental damage from Mugabi in a brutal fight. It was one of Hagler's greatest victories but during that fight he manifested signs of decline.

Leonard succeeded in pulling the same kind of stunts against Hearns and Duran. Everyone knows about the second Duran fight and the catch-weight against Hearns.

Leonard was definitely the smartest, most cunning fighter of the "fab 4" and also the best strategist.

Hagler lost and deserved to lose for being Leonards desperate *****. He was no "victim" nor was he "robbed" ... he was outsmarted and outboxed by a Leonard who was away from the sport for years. I'm more of a Hagler fan than a Leonard fan but the facts are obvious.

 

You're right.
But Leonard himself said he waited for Hagler to slip enough.