Leonard and Hagler's opinion of hearns

C'mon now JT, be fair. The circumstances that changed were Hagler's diminshed skills as age and wars caught up with him. His decline began in 1984 and by 1986 it was all over for the old boy.

Leonard has candidly admitted numerous times that what brought him out of retirement was Hagler slowing down: "this time its a young guy coming back against an old guy" is just one of many many similar quotes attributed to Leonard. So your comments about hunger and lure need a very large * next to them. Peace.

 

Lets be fair all round tho. Leonard had one fight in 5 years and looked pathetic. Hagler at least was active, still champ, still knocking good to great people out and unbeaten in over a decade. To say it was all over is a bit dramatic really. Leonard was actually the one it was thought to be all over for. Big odds favouring Hagler too.

It's pure speculation saying Leonard sat there waiting for Hagler to get old when he had an operation for a detached retina and then retired due to it. Do you really think he would retire at his absolute peak with many easy millions to be made? Leonard sure wasn't getting any better or younger sitting around.

Actually their ages were very close. Hagler's age in actual boxing years and bouts was more than offset by Leonards size, inactivity and the fact that for many years he did it quite easy vs an ordinary lineup while at the top of his considerable game.

We keep hearing about Leonard saying this and that about Hagler, lets have a look at what Hagler said pre bout about Ray Leonard

Paints a very very different picture.

 

Well, old fighters are often suddenly exposed as old fighters by speed and elusiveness (just ask Larry Holmes about Spinks, and ask Leonard about Norris). Hagler mainly relied on his strengh, determination and durability to defeat Hamsho, Hearns and Mugabi. He didn't need any youthful spring in his step. In fact, your fave boxing magazine (KO) asked the question was Hagler done after his match with Roldan, on the cover if I remember correctly. Remember, Hagler pretty much announced his retirement directly after the Mugabi fight. Leonard isn't stupid - he's arguably one of the the most intelligent and cunning boxers in history. He knew when to fight a guy, and the time to fight Hagler was at that point (he made his final decision ringside at the Mugabi fight - perhaps there was a ringside doc there who checked his retina and gave him the ok???). Contenders were lining up to fight the man from Donald Curry to Herol Graham because they knew he was for the taking. We all thought it was all over for Leonard and that was the beauty of his plan. The fact is, it wasn't. He fooled us all (as he said he would) He had plenty left, whereas Hagler had to be persuaded by his management staff to take the fight over a period of several weeks as he felt he couldn't do it anymore. JT, you really should take a look at Sorcery at Caesaers - it's an absolute must read for anyone interested in this subject. You'll get a real insight into how cynical and cunning Leonard was (nothing wrong with that if you're in the fight game)

I'm sure we're not going to change each other's opinions on this fight, but to me, saying that Leonard had no fear of Hagler and the thought of getting mangled by a peak Hagler was not the major deciding factor in avoiding a match with a peak MMH is little bit of Sugar tinted glasses wearing JT. Pure speculation? Come on! How come he went from being so concerned about his eye (he got medical clearing to fight on before he retired) to saying "Sir, I am not concerned about my eye at all....not in the least" in a pre Hagler fight press conference.

It's a bit of a rant I know, but to suggest Leonard came out of retirement when he did because...well, he just got lured and he missed the game and he would have fought Hagler before of course but, you know, he was worried about his retina back then and everything.....please!! let's keep it real.
Peace.

 

We all believe what we want to believe and you are right that we won't be changing each others mind. This is why when this topic comes up (often) you will mostly see i simply state my view most every time instead of quoting others and being drawn into the usual lengthy same old debate. At the end of the day SRL won the fight and nothing can take that away from him.

My full views are always out in the open as are yours and plenty of others. Those undecided have the chance to make up their own mind with plenty of trivia and opinion from both ends of the spectrum fully available. The facts are on the table as are numerous personal interpretations. Each to their own

:good

 

:dance :dance

Fair enough JT. LET'S DANCE !!

 

Um...you know this topic is mostly about Hearns and yet most of the posts on it are about the Leonard/Hagler fight. Come on, either take it some place else or stay on topic.

I think they both have tremendous respect for Tommy because he's such a gracious guy. Hagler said he has a lot of respect for Hearns because he came to fight for their war in 1985.

Leonard also admitted that Thomas Hearns was the toughest person he ever faced. Plus, Hearns was extremely cool after his "draw" with Leonard in their rematch. Anyone else would have stormed out of the ring and protested. Hearns took it in stride and said that he couldn't say anything bad about Ray. That's class

 

Man, you can really boogy

:good

 

one thing about Hagler I never liked too much. You are correct. Had the scorecards had him beating Leonard in 1987, he would have spoken well about Ray today. It is odd. The fact that Ray beat him is something he seems to hold against Leonard.

 

Actually,Hagler had considered Leonard a friend,even going to Leonard's restaurant opening in Maryland in 86 or 87.Leonard has even admitted he used the occasion to gauge Hagler's mindset for a possible fight.

 

:goodYou and I both know that Leonard wanted nothing to do with Hagler in 1983,my fellow New Yorker:good

 

:goodYup!:good