Just rewatched and rescored Leonard-Hagler - Our Scorecards

Most felt Hagler would KO an past prime Leonard. Unfortunately Ray was so quick in there Hagler looked at times in slow motion. Understand I NEVER liked Leonard always looking upon him as an Ali wannabe so my take going into this bout was not only Hagler should win but I wanted Hagler to win.

As the fight unfolded however Leonard was just too quick and he boxed superbly taking the bulk of the first half of the bout putting the champion into a hole early. When the final bell rang I had no doubt with his flashy combos and ringmanship that Leonard had won....to my disappointment.

 

Makes you wonder what Hagler was thinking those first four rounds?

 

117-112 I had it last time to Leonard

 

Hagler deserved the nod.

 

Almost Identical to my card. This fight, for me, like several fights Hagler had that for all of his supposed warrior mentality hinted at a mental weakness. He just seemed to underperform in some fights where he should have had an edge and as result he either lost or had a tighter scored fight than he should have. Think Antuofermo, Duran, and this fight. He just gave rounds away in those fights. I totally disagree that he was an effective aggressor in this fight. Look, you give away the first four rounds by trying to cute and not boxing out of your best stance, then have several of the next 8 rounds be close then dont go crying that you got robbed when all Leonard needed was three more rounds. You mean to tell me Hagler WON 7 of the next 8 rounds? Or at best 5 of the next 8 and held Leonard even in 2 more in a town that instructs referees not to give even scores?

 

Leonard did a hell of a lot of holding, backpedalling, diving in and holding and then punching on the break, and then backpedalling, holding ..... repeat and repeat ...... and people seem to consider that as great point-scoring boxing. He seems to get a pass for blatant spoiling and unclean tactics from the very beginning.

I still believe he put on a great performance under the circumstances, it was a great performance after so long out the ring, against such a serious opponent. In the end, it was a close fight. People genuinely think he did enough and that Hagler didn't.
But there seems to be a lot of favouring some very dubious tactics.
I can't credit any fighter for diving in holding then "scoring" with some cheap punches on the break and getting on his bicycle.
Much of the mythical "first 4 rounds" that's about all he's doing or even attempting to do. And after that he's even less effective with it.
Spoiling tactics are great strategically but they shouldn't win credit in points/rounds.

 

I love how there is all this talk about flashy combos, when most of them didn't land or were blocked. We can all see that SRL just tried to spoil and fight the last 10 seconds of each round. That doesn't cut it when you're trying to take the belt from the champ. If we could see that, why didn't they judges? Point it this way, if you could be either one, you'd want to be Hagler after or during that fight. He hurt SRL on 3 occasions, and one pretty badly. At no point was Hagler hurt, or even the least bit fazed. Hagler landed most of the meaningful blows, yet I'm supposed to count flashy, barely hitting combos at the end of rounds and more important? I don't.

 

Plus, this notion that SRL sweep all the first 4 rounds in a simply a fallacy. What basis is there for scoring round 3 to SRL? He ran and held most of the round. Hagler was pushing the action, landing a few solid body shots and a few good shots to the head. SRL landed one, ONE combo that round. Yet, there is all this talk about how SRL swept the first 4 rounds. I guess if people say it enough, it must be true.

 

I doubt there's more than a round in the fight where the referee Richard Steele doesn't say "no holding, Ray, no holding" or "don't hold him". In most rounds he says it multiple times.
The most amazing thing about Ray's performance was how much effort he put in while tired and being slowly mauled by Hagler.
The crowd seemed to cheer everything Ray did, whether he connected or missed, and that must have influenced the judges.
Ray definitely looked more flashy and slick, he brought his A-game in showmanship. But that doesn't score points in real boxing.

 

I think a lot of people do score for showmanship, whether they admit it or not. Fighters like SRL understand this psychological aspect, understand if you can make a fight remotely close and then throw in some good-looking showboating, people will easily perceive that as "toying with" or "outboxing" an opponent and completely overlook the actual balance sheet of meaningful action and overlook all your negative stuff too. It's clever and it does take SKILL, but it's not the type of skill that ought to translate into points on the actual score cards.

 

The holding was blatant for all to see, and yet that isn't factored in the judges mind? Odd, being that most times Judges see excessive holding and running, yet here the didn t even look at it, or the running; and instead focused on last minute flurries that most were blocked and didn't land.. You even end up with cards like 118 - 112. Right......

 

Hagler and his trainers and brain trust only have themselves to blame for that loss. Everyone but Hagler and his team seemed to know the only way that Leonard could get a victory. Why Hagler didn't come out the gate the way he did for the Hearns fight is the million dollar question. Leonard won the fight. It was close but he won it. Unlike Hagler Leonard and his team developed and carried out their fight plan. Don't stand flat footed too long. Land his shots and move. Frustrate Hagler. By the time Hagler started to do what he should have done from the 1st rd. Leonard could see the finish line, and had gained the confidence needed to continue and win. Hagler, his team and his fans need to place the blame where it should be. And that's on Hagler and his team. And Hagler in his heart knew he didn't do enough to win. That little dance at the end of the said everything . That was Something he never did in any fight. Even the Hearns victory.

 

I dont usually do this but wow... "negoationg"... You really misspelled that word

 

When People talk about robbery they are dilusional. Giving rounds to Hagler he clearly didn't win, the best result he gets is a draw. The first time I saw it I thought Leonard clearly won and have watched it trying to score for Hagler and once ever did I give him a draw. My guess is I watched the fight 50 times with sound on, sound off, breaking down rounds into minutes, etc. I think taking everything in consideration it's 7-5 Leonard. Neither man was clearly hurt but yes Hagler is a better puncher. By the argument a lot of the "robbery" people spout, Shaevers beat Ali because he landed the harder shots. It's just not the way boxing is scored. There was no 10-8 round that I have ever heard argued and Hagler only clearly won 5 and 12. Leonard clearly won 4 on everones scorcard and I suggest the first 4, 6 and 11 were clearly Leonard (He starts with 6). Giving every other round to Hagler makes it a draw. We all know some of the close rounds would be tipped in Leonard's favour. Even if there were 2 even rounds it's still Leonard's fight. People who say Hagler clearly won should never even talk about boxing in my honest opinion and you can't name 7 rounds Hagler won, so stop it already. The fight was scored on a 10 point must system and you can't effectively argue Hagler won 7 or at best wins by a 6-5-1 scenario.

 

To me, this fight was a draw. That would have been the fairest result. All the controversy would have been avoided and Hagler would have retained his title. I am not sure Ray really deserved the title the way he fought. And Hagler may not have deserved the win cause he did gave away some of the early rounds.