Leonard vs Hagler | WHO REALLY WON | Film study

"Ray was more versatile"

what do you think that is?

an opinion, one that youre basing on Hagler's last fight???

Compare that with Leonard's last two fights. How well did HE do?

based on those two disasters, I'd say hagler was by far the more versatile; he didn't keep getting knocked on his a$$.

 

Ray was knocked on his ass when he was old. Not significant. Camacho when he was old and inactive for years, and Norris? Ray fought Duran and hung in there with a great inside fighter, then outboxed Duran.. He outfought Hearns, and became the puncher.. He outworked Benitez, and sped the fast guy. He outboxed Hagler.. He was more versatile than Marvin, which is why he beat all the greats he fought, and the other guys did not..

 

Sugar Ray Leonard was 41 years old and inactive for six years when he was TKOed by Camacho. In retrospect, it was a kamikaze mission.

 

Ray was getting knocked on his ass throughout the 1980s starting with Kevin Howard. How are you going to cover that up???

and since when is 27 an old man in boxing?

you really shouldnt be making excuses for losing to Norris either. Norris beat him most convincingly and i didnt see the experts say anything before hand. Did they pick Norris to win?

Excuses always come AFTER the fight

and if he beat Hagler, the decision wouldnt be in dispute to this day

 

Big deal!

Camacho was washed up himself or did you forget?

not to mention, at a 3 inch height disadvantage, a 7 inch reach disadvantage, and was a blown up featherweight

Kamikaze mission my a$$! it's not as if he had to take this fight with roughly 100 million in purses! Does anyone believe these excuses?

 

Judging an athlete in any sport be it baseball, football, basketball or boxing , et cetera when he or she is washed up is the worst way to judge an athlete.

 

Marvin won

 

He didn't tho. All three judges scored the 5th for Hagler. Fillippo somehow scored both 3 and 4 for Hagler. It's wouldn't be unfair to say Leonard won five of the first 6 but it wasn't just a case of Hagler giving them all away Ray was doing his part too.

When had Hagler fought someone with the speed and class of Leonard tho? Leonard was fresh in the early rounds and Hagler struggled with his speed. Allied to that Hagler thought he could outbox him. It's not the only time Hagler wasn't as aggressive as he needed to be and short circuited a little tactically. I never thought much of his corner comparative to others especially others that had guys like Dundee. It rarely ever mattered because Hagler was such a great dominant fighter but when it did matter they sometimes came up short IMO. Where was the desperation in the corner? Where were the firm instructions, the alterations, the adaption?

Hagler was also on the fade and not the man he was even 3 fights prior. Hearns and Hagler took a fair piece out of each other and neither was the same again. Mugabi was also a tough fight. Of course Leonard too was aged and up against incredible intangibles with his layoff.

In your theory you've also assumed it would be Leonard running the fix. If it was going to be fixed they could have fixed it way back when Leonard fought Howard. Hagler was ready to retire and obviously already had enough money for that. The match was worth so much because SRL was always the draw even when fighting other stars. That's why Hagler got paid so much and it's consistent with other big money Leonard fights.

Knowing where Hagler came from i feel a bit guilty even discussing it Sange!!!! Good to see you back old mate.

 

Keven Howard was another comeback fight, yet Benitez, Duran 1 and 2 and Hearns 1 did not get a knockdown on him. That is not significant. You are nitpicking as far as I see it. There was a good excuse for the Norris loss. Norris was fast and counteracted Ray's best feature, and Ray was getting older. I don't remember who was favored to win that Norris fight. Ray is the much greater fighter in rankings.

 

since when is a mismatch when you pit one washed up fighter against another?
Hector was also shot and giving up 3 inches in height and 7 inches in reach. So Leonard should have knocked him out

the Norris fight was likewise a fair fight with Leonard the heavy favorite. Leonard was touted as the next Robinson and had a huge edge in experience over Norris

Leonard SUPPOSEDLY was more versatile than even Hagler (so his fans say)

They also tell me "where there's a Sugar Ray, there's got to be a way" and yet couldnt compete with Norris

A win over Norris would have convinced me once and for all of Leonard's greatness and partially removed the stench of fighting a washed up Hagler

 

I'm not nit picking.

You told me ray didnt hit the canvas until he was an old man but you forgot about the Norris fight and resorted to making excuses which is now "it was a comeback fight"

He was thoroughly outclassed by Norris though he was heavily favored to win

Hagler was always beating younger opponents yet I noticed Leonard couldnt do the same

How does a 36 - 3 -1 and all his trips to the canvas make Leonard more versatile than Hagler?

Hagler never hit the canvas and unlike Leonard, he wasn't knocked out either

and he wasnt demolished the way Leonard was

I really hate to think what would have happened to Leonard had he decided to defend against the likes of Nunn, McCallum, Jackson, etc. He couldnt even compete with Norris

 

Don't feel guilty. These are the replies I'm looking for, you and Saintpat.

 

Cheers mate.

 

People who argue that Hagler displayed a lot of INeffective aggression, especially in some of the earlier rounds are correct.
But often in the next breath they seem to praise Leonard for a lot of INEFFECTIVE NON-AGGRESSION and gloss over it with vague talk of 'controllng the action'.

Retreating, galloping, several feet outside of realistic range, then diving in for a clinch, is not ring generalship. It is just stalling. And those little taps Hagler gets in on one side of Ray's body while being clinched tight, are worth as much in the scoring as little taps Ray gets on top of Hagler's head on occasion. I would have thought.

 

I believe in objective scoring. That's why I don't have a problem scoring rounds even.
Some people say they like objective scoring but they say "I try to find a winner in close rounds, I hate to sit on the fence, even rounds are a cop-out" etc.
I disagree. If a round has no clear winner, if it's a mental struggle to decide who won, it's probably best to call it even.

Scoring more even rounds might protect champions from being dethroned by dubious decisions.

The other way to work it would be to have the fight declared a draw if it's close. So a winner would have to be ahead by a certain margin across the scorecards. This would protect champions and also credit good challengers.
I think they used this system in Argentina and other South American countries up until relatively recently.

Of course, boxing judges are so bad or so under pressure, that injustices would continue whatever system would be in place.
But personally I wouldn't mind seeing more draws in boxing. If boxers can't score KOs.