Marvelous Marvin Hagler speaks out about the Sugar Ray Leonard fight ~ Listen In

Marv had to concede the negotiations just to get Ray in the ring to begin with.

I wonder if Hagler really lost it at the pre fight press conference where he held up his fists and said, "These are my judges. This is 'K,' and this is, 'O.'" As soon as he proclaimed that, he painted himself into a corner where he had virtually guaranteed that he could only win via stoppage.

 

Can't add much to this.

 

How does that work tho? I've seen Hearns predict a KO in fights he won via decision.

If he would have fought like he meant this statement he may have won the fight. Certainly would have been a better strategy.

 

I don't count this match much -- I feel Leonard waited until Hagler was considerably past his best and then fought a great fight. Marvin was slowing down -- slightly quicker feet and hands and I feel Leonard loses via knockout over 12 even.

It's kind of like the second Leonard-Hearns fight -- it's great to have this film for entertainment purposes but not for assessing their ability in their prime.

 

It's true Hagler lost the fight on the negotiating table. He's still on it years from the fight precisely because he got left in dust when it was time for Ray to return the favor. This after he acceded to practically all of Leonard's demands just to get him in the ring.

I thought he lost-- and he'd dispute that-- but really he's most upset about not getting the rematch after the judges snubbed him, as was said in the interview.

 

Maybe someone should put up a poll on ESB to see who thought who won...it's probably been done though, but this topic never fails to deliver heated debate.

 

I agree with much of what MrMarvel wrote.

All of you saying "Hagler is still bitter" and "He should just get over it" are actually the ones who are stuck in the past (c.1987), in my opinion.

Hagler always comes across as a man who's living a perfectly happy life after boxing (and has done so for the last 20 years), and someone who puts his boxing career into perspective and is perfectly happy with his accomplishments and his historical standing. He's not going around beating his chest with a scowl on his face about how no one rates him high enough (as he, and others, might have done DURING his boxing career) and he's not obssessed with talking about Sugar Ray Leonard at every opportunity.

All he's saying - when asked ! - is he thinks he won it then, and he thinks he won it now. And he gives reasons.

And the stuff about "if it's really close, the champion should retain his title" shouldn't be interpreted too literally or within the confines of the UNJUST conventions of how the scoring system is usually implemented.

Personally, I think the scoring system is haphazard, the 10-point must system under-used when there's a clear round, and further blighted by the nonsensical notion that judges should AVOID scoring rounds as "even" (10-10), even when we know that many rounds ARE even, or can "go either way". And this phobia of a "draw" as a result. People would rather see championships change hands on these "could have gone either way" decisions ???
I think it's stupid. It's absurd. People want this element of a "lottery" to decide who a CHAMPION is, I dont know why.

I'll say this :
If a fight "could go either way" then it SHOULD go NEITHER WAY - the fairest decision being a "DRAW", and the champion SHOULD retain the title and grant the challenger a rematch.

That's fair and logical. That's commonsense.
But boxing fans seem to be so familiar with the tradition of the Illogical and the unfair that they think that's the way it has to be, and even seem to love and defend it.

 

I think Marvin just won, it could of gone either way thou.

To the people that say Hagler is still bitter, well what can you say what if it was you. If you have a few close fights and they are allways going to the other fighter, I would be cut. How would Ali's resume look if all his close fights were scored against him?. What if you were Smoking Joe and everytime your name is mentioned people remeber the two fights he lost to Ali, but not the win?, or remember the uncle tom comment.

Halger should not of lost in that way. He put himself in that position by allways giving in to Leonard ,but if he did not fight the media would of had a field day with him and fergotten all about the years he did not want to fight hagler and the eye injurie bull****.

 

I totally agree,I thought Leonard won it by a point ,but wouldn't argue either way it was really how you interpreted it.
The Petronelli's were far too laid back, could they not see it was close?
Hagler was in decline,which Leonard spotted, his little flurries may not have hurt Marvin ,but they DID score points.
All this talk about having to beat a Champion clearly, is rubbish imo.

 

According to Leonard he offered Hagler the re-match but he declined. Anyway, like most have said, Leonard basically bought the title at the negotiating table, & Hagler accepted a few more million figuring he was gonna win no matter what. Close fight, I think Hagler edged it.

 

The opening part of this post is terrible. Hagler-Vito was a draw because in the eyes of three judges it was just that. Leonard did enough to beat Hagler in the eyes of two judges, so he won a split decision.

Hagler was the aggressor, but wasn't really effective. Not too sure if he threw many more punches. One thing I do know, he couldn't put 2 or 3 punches together during the whole fight. He lacked variety throughout.

 

That's true. It is a matter of fact that the scores of the three judges resulted in a split decision win for Leonard, and it is a matter of fact that those three men are ultimately and absolutely responsible for who is designated the "winner".

But it does raise the question : who believes both the judges who scored for Leonard came up with a score that was reasonable or defensible or reasonably defensible ?
Did both those judges come up with scores that illustrate a reasonable interpretation of the fight ?

Who is willing to stand up and say each of the 3 judges did a decent job of judging the fight, within reasonable margin of human error ?

 

In the interview Hagler basically says that Leonard won. He states that he should have won the close fight because he was the champion and he incorrectly thinks that the challenger should dominate the champion to win. If Marvin and anyone else believes that BS then they believe that fights should not be judged fairly without bias. If Tiger Woods comes second in a golf major by 1 stoke than do we declare him the winner purely because he was the defending champion and world number 1. Of course not. I noticed that Marvin failed to mention how Leonard was a career welter and had only had one fight in the previous 5 yrs, but Marvin ridiculously believes that Leonard needed to dominate and just about KO him to get the nod. You are the one who should have been dominating Leonard considering all of the circumstances in this fight.

 

My supposition here is that Marv's bold declaration may have somehow biased the judges against him.

And Tommy nearly won his first match with Ray by decision, a situation where he adamantly refused to predict a knockout while SRL committed himself to winning by a stoppage (which became possible only because that was scheduled for more than 12 rounds).

For him, it had to begin with that lethal right jab, a taxing shot which led to stoppages as a byproduct of piling up points. He needed to act on what had been working best for him, not react to what SRL was doing. Hagler needed to behave like Hagler. When he began lamely mimicking Ray's showboating, he completely surrendered any pretext of ring generalship, an integral component of scorecard judging. (Scoring is not exclusively a matter of punching.)

His right jab might have taken the partisan crowd out in fairly prompt order.

Maybe he needed Ray to cut him early like Hearns did, and get put at risk of getting stopped to regain the sense of urgency which so completely deserted him here.