SRL Vs Marvin Hagler My verdict is in

You had Hagler winning by a round, but you think it should have been a draw. Not too sure how thats worked out. Maybe I should have payed more attention at school.

 

Just saying that it was a close fight and if it was Leonard by a round or Hagler by a round it wouldnt have worried me or even if a draw was read out.

But 118-110 WTF was that judge watching.

 

He might mean he's biased towards Hagler or against SRL and is balancing it out.

 

Yeah, I knew what you meant. Draw/Hagler either as some rounds were close.

111-117 for Hagler someone said earlier in the thread. He's even more out than the judge who scored it 118-110 in favour of Leonard.

Leonard was a clear but close winner.

Hagler's weaknesses: Slow handspeed, no 2-3-4 punch combinations, fighting orthodox during the early rounds, and being cautious, lacked variation, too flat-footed and static to narrow the distance.

 

Well i thought it was a clear case of Hagler hit with the better power shots, and Leonard was more active. it was so close i was going ****. 117-110 Hagler is a bit rich. so many close rounds its not funny.

 

Leonard hit home with more clean power shots than many people give him credit for, honest. Because he boxed on the move behind the jab, and was defensively minded with Hagler coming forward, it fools everyone on how effective some of Leonard's power punches actually were.

 

I put up a round for round scorecard and invite you to do the same and dispute rounds, but so far you havn't.
I think Hagler won the fight and have explained round by round, while you have simply tried to discredit it by saying it is the worst scorecard you have ever seen or something similar.
Hagler did look **** most of the fight, but he still beat Leonard by a large margin!

 

I have not done a round by round, and see no reason why I need to. I have gave my reasons, although briefly, in a constructive manner why Leonard won. You need to check my other posts and read.

Hagler won by a wide margin. Whats your criteria for scoring fights, some walking forward forcing the fight?.

Your scoring is plain laughable.

 

I love Hagler. He's my favourite Middleweight of all time!
But I had him losing by 2 rounds to Leonard and I'm allways surprised how often sentiment and bias for the 'Blue collared' fighter colours peoples judgement here.
Having said that I have no problem with any who gave it to Hagler by a round or two, but 117-111 is a scorecard that deserves a slap with a wet kipper!

 

I may have been closer than 8-4 (a case can be made for 6, 11, and 12), but Hagler won the fight.

People who think Leonard won are open or closet Leonard fans, open or closet Hagler haters (there are definitely some of those here), people who only focused on what Leonard was doing (they were so amazed that he actually lasted the distance that they thought he won lots of rounds along the way), or people who were tricked by Leonard and Dundee.

I am not trying to start a fight by saying this. I'm just being honest. If you sit down with people who think Leonard won and review the fight with them you find that they can't tell you why they thought Leonard won so many rounds.

Hagler had definitely slowed a step, but he wasn't so slow that Leonard could come back after three years and outpoint him. It just didn't happen.

 

Christ, the Hagler fanboys will never let this go.Cue ridiculous mention of only fighting 30 seconds a round, shoeshining etc.

It's cringeworthy.

The fight was very close on almost all reasonable scorecards.

A legit win even with the shady scoring for Leonard on one card.

 

Your stating an opinion as fact. That can be a bit irritating.

 

Sweet Pea. How did you score the fight, and what are your thoughts on the fight overall?

 

The problem with changing the names is that Leonard didn't win, so there is no equality principle that allows for balancing the equation. It was cute, but not particularly effective (unless people are predisposed to think it is).

The problem with the guy who said that "opinion as fact is irritating" is that all sound judgment is based on fact. People who believe Leonard won don't have the facts on their side, to wit:

#1 Hagler made the fight. He was the aggressor, and, for most of the fight, he was the effective aggressor. Leonard fought almost the entire fight going backwards. He was rarely the aggressor in the fight. And he was effective even less.

#2 The number of punches landed by either fighter was roughly the same (Hagler threw a lot more punches), but Hagler landed the harder punches. He even had Leonard in trouble a few times. Had Leonard landed a significantly greater number of punches, then that would have counted for something, even though he was going backwards, but he didn't. Nor did he land any particularly solid punches. In fact, Leonard punched with open gloves and (sporadically) threw flurries. There was some shoeshinning but little in the way of substance. The few sneaky lead rights Leonard landed did not win the fight.

#3 Leonard broke off the exchanges. I don't remember Hagler initiating a single clinch. Moving backwards without returning fire and clinching are not the signs of superior boxing technique (honestly, I think a lot of people are confused about this). In fact, they go against the fighter in the scoring. Leonard did a lot of holding.

From time to time, champion Joe Louis was made to look silly by cute boxers. But, except for one fight, in which Louis was floored twice, judges rightly gave the track meets to Louis. Louis was coming forward and landing the more effective punches. That's the name of the game. That's what Hagler did. And, yes, he was slow, but not so slow that all he caught was air. Remember, according to punch statistics, they both landed about the same number of punches. You throw a lot and you miss a lot, particular when your opponent is trying to survive.

In Ali-Frazier I, Ali landed a hell of a lot more punches than Frazier, and his punches were damaging, too. He even had Frazier hurt a time or two. But Frazier made the fight, while Ali clinched too frequently. I don't think anybody seriously questions the verdict in Ali-Frazier I (except Ali!), yet, even though Hagler beat Leonard more decisively than Frazier did Ali, especially when you consider the relative number of punches landed and the damage done, people still maintain that Leonard won. If you believe Leonard beat Hagler it seems to me that you would also believe that Ali beat Frazier in their first fight.

The bottomline is that the fighter who makes the fight and lands the harder punches beats the fighter who breaks off exchanges and doesn't land a significantly greater number of punches.

It's wishful thinking to believe Leonard won. You have to make exceptions to the way fights are scored to give it to Leonard.

 

Most of that was opinion and not fact.