Leonard-Hagler 2

Leonard looked as though the 12 rounds with Hagler left its mark in his fights with Lalonde, Hearns, Duran, and Norris. Hagler would come out faster, and win his share of the opening rounds this time. It would depend who was fresher after 6 rounds. Both well past their best. Pick em. Maybe the judges like Hagler this time. Definitely don't see a KO unless SRL fights cocky, which would be a possibility.

 

Hagler was hardly outclassed or thrashed by Leonard,was he....? As I said Marvin had obvioulsy slipped a tad,but he was no way shot !

 

I think saying Hagler was "shot" is not overstating it. The fact he scored KO wins in the previous 4 fights mask it, but in the second half of the Leonard fight, and I saw it as it happened on a closed circuit viewing, I remember thinking he was throwing punches like he was under water, and in the last 3 or 4 rounds, his legs were gone.

I give Nunn, Tate a good shot at scraping a decision against that version of Hagler. Maybe even Kalambay too.

 

You don't tend to score consecutive KO wins over good challengers when you are shot.You get beaten from pillar to post by them.

hagler was still one of the better fighters around at the time, and it would have taken a very good fighter to beat him.I thnk he still had anothet two years or so in him, before hitting the severely declined mark.

 

A fighter can still be KO ing guys and still be shot. Compared to what he was, Holmes was shot by the time he fought Spinks, Hearns was shot post-Hagler but continued to KO opponents. I agree only talented guys would have beaten Hagler at that stage, eg Tate, Nunn, Kalambay

 

You obviously aren't hip to the new age terminology.

 

Something so rare in these kinds of threads as a good, sensible post...

 

I think that it would be an absolute miracle if for once we can start a Hagler vs Leonard thread without someone claiming that Hagler was past it, while calling Leonard prime... Why doesn't it ever register with some people that Leonard was off for 3 freakin' years and fighting at middle weight for the very first time in his life? As for age, what are we looking at? Maybe two years of difference, with Hagler being slightly older?

 

Just to clarify, assuming this was aimed at me, to assume Hagler wasn't considerably past his best is ridiculous, in my opinion (uhh, this is why Leonard came back after all). Secondly, if anyone thinks the Leonard that fought Hagler was a peak Leonard, he is also being equally obtuse. Just to clarify !! :thumbsup

 

The comment wasn't specifically directed at you.. There seem to be a lot of people here who use the guise of Hagler's " being past it " as a tool to devalue the win. While I don't deny that Marvin's best days were behind him, its absurd for anyone to think that Leonard should have been favored, or that he should have been viewed as being in a perfect position to take advantage of a diminished figther... Nobody, not even Leonard knew for sure what he had left... He had fought all but 1 time in 5 years, and not at all within 3... He was also stepping up to middle weight for the very first time to face its best participant...Most people were picking Hagler to crusify him, and frankly had I been a gambling man in those days, I probably would have assumed the same....

Your points are well taken though...