Only Leonard could have beat Hagler on that night

It would be cool if we could all watch this fight (or any fight) on a "video chat" type of thing. Then score the round after each round and discuss real time.

 

Hagler didn't fall behind and he took him out right away proving he was light years better and that he could have done the same to leonard had it been the same Hagler. I know it hurts but it's true just like what Norris did to leonard is true.

It's true folks!

Also I'd like to know how is leonard better if he had to wait 5 years to call him out?

 

Hagler's weight for Hamsho I, 157lbs

3lbs more south and Hagler refused. TRUE

 

here we go

 

Hearns could of beat him and so could michael nunn IMO

 

You are right on that one I think.

 

hagler fought hearns at 160lb, heanrs was nowehre near as effectice or dominating as he was 147lb, a better more dangerous fighter. also its not like hagler escaped uninjured.....hagler got a nasty cut that if he didnt knockout hearns when he did, the fight was close to being stopped on cuts.

 

The fight wasn't close to being stopped on cuts. The amount of blood coming down Hagler's face was what alerted Steele to call a 'time out' and send Hagler over to the ring doctor. But when the doctor had a look at the cut, he said quickly " It's not bothering wth his sight, let him go" and the decision by the doctor was done without hesitation. The cut was in the middle of Hagler's forehead and it wasn't bad enough for it being stopped.

Going on all the evidence, the fight wasn't close to being stopped.

 

Leonard looked "Marvelous" on that night. (Pardon the Pun)! But Hagler was slipping. He was still a great fighter, but age was starting to tell and he was starting to look beatable. The average contenders couldn't have done it. But some of the bigger name fighters of the day. Might have had a decent shot of pulling it off.

 

Agreed. I liken Hagler's decline to the decline of Larry Holmes. Hagler was still looking like a good champion while he could continue to use his strength and experience against the likes of Hamsho, Hearns and Mugabi as Holmes did against Bonecrusher, Bey, Williams etc. Leonard was to Hagler what Spinks was to Holmes - a younger underdog who wasn't expected to topple a long term champ, but had one specific ingredient - speed that you don't usually find at the weight, which was perfect against an over the hill fighter who was still looking good enough against the right opponents. Spinks saw something that most of us didn't see, as did Leonard.

 

Good analysis, However there was no way Spinks deserved those decisions against Holmes. Larry beat him both times. Even moreso in the rematch. Terrible way to bring down a great Champion.

 

Calm down, son. As a Hagler fan, I wouldn't agree with any of that. I don't think Hagler clearly won, and I don't think Leonard ran for 2mins 40 of each round. Don't paint us all with the same brush