Prime Hagler - Would He Have Battered SRL?

While, back in the day, it soaked up almost all of the oxygen in any room where Hagler-Leonard was being discussed, I find the continued emphasis (many, many, many years after the fact) on a 'debilitated' Leonard quite curious.

Even at the time, anyone watching and keeping a keen eye on boxing had not long back witnessed Hagler truly labor his way to victory against Mugabi and hear the talk of retirement in the post-fight interview, which continued for months afterwards. Hagler was at the end of the road by '86 (IMHO).

 

Cool.

 

That's all fair and well but at least he was fighting and staying "sharp" with what he was perceived to have left. Leonard wasn't even fighting and indeed hadn't been forever....and the last time he did he sucked, vs his former form.

No less an authority than Eddie Futch considered the fight as a done deal, for Hagler.

''Maybe four or five years ago, it would have been a great fight,'' said the trainer. ''Now, it`s an event.''

“Leonard knows how to fight Hagler,” admits Eddie Futch, the renowned trainer, “but knowing what to do and how to do it is not enough. He has to be able to do it.”

Duran gave Hagler trouble, Futch says, because Hagler overlooked his tremendous boxing skill. That is how Leonard must fight Hagler.

“But those five years of inactivity,” Futch insists, “that will be the major factor. Things are always a little different when you finally get into the ring. He’ll wonder why the things that worked in the ring aren’t quite on the money in the ring now. Suddenly, you can’t quite get out of the way of all those little punches.”

Futch agrees with almost everybody else that, “Five years ago, this had a chance to be a great fight. Leonard had a chance to outbox him, outspeed him. I don’t think that kind of speed exists today.”

Had this sort of achievement ever remotely been pulled off before? I highly doubt it. Focusing on Hagler's perceived difficulties is wildly missing the big picture. Incredible achievement by SRL.

 

We've been here before JT - more than once - and I doubt we'd resolve the differences discussed then by re-litigating the case here.

But I will suggest this: I don't think taking both sides of the equation into consideration is ever "missing the big picture", whereas, concentrating on a single narrative does open one up to doing just that.


In any event, regardless of what one thinks the relative stages of Hagler's and Leonard's careers means to their actual '87 encounter, Leonard clearly was able and Hagler clearly had slowed up and I would say this matters when talking about what might have happened if the fight had taken place, say, 5 years earlier.

 

I am assuming you mean 82-83 Hagler vs 1987 Leonard? If that is the case then yes I think Marvin wins, but then again if Duran gave Hagler trouble in 1983 why wouldn't Ray have a chance? If we are talking a 1981 Leonard jumping up from Welter post Hearns to fight Marv then that is a fight I would want to watch and I think Ray could pull it off. At least he is too good to rule him out point blank!

 

Thanks Clint.

 

Agreed MM.

Imo, we saw notable decline in Hags in the Mugabi fight - and then there was the yet to be quantified wear and tear accrued from
that fight itself to account for in Marvin’s next outing.

As much decline as we could gage in Marv before he faced Ray, I think he also fell victim to the further, classic “ageing overnight” in his last fight.

It might even been a revelation to Hagler himself as to how little he had left in that fight.

He was possibly very confident of ending it as soon he decided to step on the gas but when he did elect to do so he found the tank had dried up much more quickly than even he would’ve projected for.

 

Yeah another 10 pages isn't likely to sort us hahaha

Absolutely hence why i promote Leonards when i feel it's being underdone and you vice versa.

They'd both be better 5 years earlier, absolutely.

 

Or he ran into a guy who was better than him that night.

 

Not really an OR - the sentiment that Ray was better on the night can obviously co-exist alongside due analysis of where Hagler himself was at.

Wherever Marv was at, for one thing, the election to open orthodox certainly wasn’t a symptom of deterioration - it simply wasn’t a smart move.

As an underdog, I was actually rooting for Ray though I kind of felt he might well be steam rolled in 4-5 rounds..

In real time viewing I thought Ray nicked the points but there were a number of people around me who said to me immediately afterward (I watched the fight at a club on the big screen) that they thought Hagler won.

The biggest shock was Ray’s amazing recapture of himself and the still defining edge he held in hand speed. But in absolute terms, Hagler himself was awfully slow.

 

Just after it took place, Larry Merchant said he saw signs of slippage in the Roldan fight.

 

But yet John, an older version decided to challenge Hagler right away. Why didnt he test the water then instead of immediately challenging Hagler?

 

Prime for prime it’s still a very close fight. Part of me still thinks SRL would pull it out the bag in a somewhat controversial decision. SRL in his prime was one of the most phenomenal talents.

Still I think Hagler would have had a great chance.

 

The big picture is that in no way, shape, or form was Hagler overrated.

 

I think you're right.

I'd say that somewhere in his own introspections, Hagler had a good idea of where he'd reached in terms of his ring-wear by '86. However, over the course of several months after Leonard announced his challenge, he probably convinced himself, along the lines of your post above, that he could overcome these limitations - reality setting in, on the night.

With all of that said, I think Hagler, to a great extent, did meet the challenge, regardless of which side of the hotly disputed decision one favors. It's a core reason for why I would favor Hagler to have beaten Leonard in 82/83.