Leonard v Hagler at 160 in the early-mid 80s - please vote and comment

You really believe Hopkins to be in Hagler's class?
he couldnt even beat a one handed Roy Jones. My favorites always seem to beat your favorites in real life

 

The answer is Hagler, of course. He was as close to unbeatable in those years as any fighter I have ever seen. I rewatched the Hagler-Duran fight the other night and as outstanding an effort as Duran put forth, Hagler wins nearly every round. Nobody ever outboxed a sharp Duran that cleanly. It was pure science. Hagler would pick Leonard apart.

But I am commenting in this thread today to correct a myth that many cite uncritically. In fact, Hagler does not fight the first four rounds in the orthodox stance. He fights most of the first four rounds as a southpaw. Get out a stopwatch and calculate it yourself. Have a friend note the switches and you note the time.

Hagler was actually more successful in the orthodox stance during the first four rounds than he was as a southpaw. For example, he is more effective in the orthodox stance in round two than he is as a southpaw in round four. But this only party explains why Leonard wins two of the first four rounds.

This myth is interesting because of it has become for many people the core explanation for why Leonard won the fight (accepting the decisions of two of the judges). The chant is that "Hagler gave away the first four rounds." He certainly could have done more in those rounds, but a fresh Leonard on his bicycle is difficult to deal with. After the fourth, though, it mostly all Hagler, so this cannot be the explanation for why the judges voted the way they did.

 

Hopkins wasn't the finished article. Anyone with half a brain knows that he was years away from being what he'd eventually become. Hopkins primed late.

 

YOU cant be taken serious when discussing Ray Leonard tho, too much history of ludicrous comments aimed against him as if he`s no higher calibre than Arturo Gatti.

 

Name my favourites. I bet you can't name them.

 

Defence, ring generalship, clean punching, more shots landed..... all in Leonard`s favour.

Your in the minority, most agree Leonard won, even Hagler knows this but he`s still raging with himself so will likely go to his grave denying what he knows in his heart - Leonard beat him.

Your right tho... 2 judges were blind or drunk, the judge that gave SRL the fight 118-110 & the judge that gave MMH the fight 115-113.

The judge that scored 115-113 for SRL was pin point accurate. :good

 

Please tell me your not saying that Leonard did not win the 1st 4 rds vs Hagler. Its plain as day & Hagler never overtook SRL in rds for the rest of the fight.
I`ll admit, it ended up a close fight after a one sided beginning but SRL did enough to keep his lead in rds 5-12, no doubt about it.

:good

 

Leonard did not win the first four rounds. Hagler wins round 2. He catches Leonard coming in several times. He rips uppercuts in close. Pounds the body with his free hand. Leonard clutches and makes noise with an amateurish overhand right. Leonard's only moments come at the very end of that round. The first half and then some of the 3rd round is completely Hagler's. Leonard lands only one meaningful shot, another amateurish overhand right. Leonard does well over the second third of that round, holding and hitting while shutting down Hagler's offense somewhat, but it's not enough to win the round. He mostly accomplishes this by a clutching style (a lot like Angott). The 1st round can be score for Leonard if you refuse to score even rounds. Not much happens in that round. The 4th round is close, but Leonard might have edged it with his ability to control much of the action and a big combination at the end. Two low blows, though, and lots of holding. Steele could have done more to stop Leonard's fouling. Being generous, Leonard wins two of the first four rounds.

But this is boring really. What I am interested in here is debunking the incessant repetition of a clearly false argument, namely that Hagler boxed the first four rounds as a righty and that that's what costs him those rounds. Just observe the fight and count the minutes in each stance and Hagler's success in each stance. The claim is simply not true.

 

Hagler could hardly put 2-3 shots together. To make matters worse, he couldn't even land more than one shot a time during the full fight. That what his problem was - couldn't land combinations. Always one punch at a time. He worked gears in the fight, but was mainly one dimensional and lacked fire.

 

No disrespect but I only read this far :verysad

 

what ludicrous comments? When Ray faced an opponent who had little in the way of speed he could get by. But when the opponent was mobile and fast on his feet, quick reflexes he got slammed and took a beating. it's that simple

he wasnt even in Norris' class as a fighter. his reign at 154 was non existent but I assume since you being a leonard fan thinks less is more, you'll put him ahead of Norris anyways. leave it to the imagination of Leonard fans and they'll find a way.

I've even seen comments that leonard had an impeccable chin. Do two trips to the canvas make an impeccable chin?

 

Rooster. Awnser my question.

 

atsch

 

there you go doing it too. youre telling me ray leonard as good or better than terry when he crushed him completely in the ring?


Terry Norris hurt Ray. Ray never hurt Terry. and Terry won every round

and then to further prove my case Terry has made the record for defenses. Ray leonard has none. even at 147 I only see four.

Terry Norris has beaten just as many name fighters as Ray, only he beat his opposition in convincing fashion. Terry never had to come from behind or rely on judges help


You see? You dont even HAVE a case! that's why didnt bother to elaborate and let your icons speak for you to let you off the hook becuz you dont know ****