The best I`ve faced: Hagler (the ring magazine)

Yep, like saying it is stupid in some parts. Took that option.

 

Leonard fans tend to think like that.

 

Not a particular fan of Leonard. Just not a fan of whining.

 

There's plenty of other (and probably more deserving) threads for you to complain about then. Enjoy.

 

I am a fan of McCallum. But that doesn't mean I have to buy nonsense about Hagler ducking him or buy his whining about being ducked by the big four.

And, yes, I think he was unlucky with some decisions, but that happens. I won't go on harping about how all the judges were against him or post BS videos of "punch counts" to show that my hero was wronged or going about what a piece of ****, say, Toney was for not "granting" him a rubber until he was old and shot, or some such nonsense.

I think he should have gotten the nod in the rematch against Toney, some don't. Life goes on.

 

No, this is actually close to peak stupidity. Not much tops it.

 

These are all good questions. However, I'm not sure any of them point towards Leonard having got into Hagler's head. Moreover, I think Hagler's use of the orthodox stance is significantly overstated. How many rounds do you think Hagler boxed from an orthodox stance against Leonard?

I find it interesting that, where you and I have agreed before now that Hagler was as much a Boxer, despite his reputation as a brawler, you would imply that Hagler's approach was unusually subdued. He was applying pressure; just not in a way we'd seen against, say, Minter or Hamsho and, especially, Hearns, as well as Mugabi.

Let's not forget also that Leonard was, from the outset, working the perimeter. His 'defense' consisted of him staying out of range - of both Hagler's punches and his ability to land his own. Hagler had no doubt slowed down - quite noticeably - and I think there were signs of this in his bout with Mugabi, which lends itself to the idea that retirement was a serious consideration for Hagler.

More importantly, however, is that Hagler did catch up with Leonard and force the fight.

Agreed, to an extent. But it isn't rare for widely dissenting scorecards to attract negative attention and the judge in question to be scrutinized, either. For a while, Guerra's card raised questions about the legitimacy of the judging.

Guerra's card also supports the idea of an "Illusion" that Hugh McIlvanney was writing about. And, we all know that, had the originally scheduled Judge (Harry Gibb) been there that night, instead of Guerra, it was quite likely that two cards would have been scored in favor of Hagler.

I don't think accommodating Hagler is the point here. He felt he won and reacted to the decision against him as such. And, he probably felt he had a justifiable reason to feel that he'd been jobbed, thanks to Guerra.

It's no secret that Hugh McIlvanney thought Hagler won the fight and he said as much to Leonard's face; a perfectly timed conclusion to an interview with the man himself.

Whether or not one agrees with McIlvanney on who should have got the decision, does not speak to any bias in his article. I'd suggest that if one thinks Hagler won the fight, such as McIlvanney did, then making one comment to acknowledge this does not constitute them or their article being one-sided.

I'm not sure how recent your source is but there was an interview of Richard Steele, in Boxing News, last year - commemorating 30 years since the fight. In it, Steele entertained the idea that a couple of rounds were close enough to have been scored either way and that, had they gone to Hagler, the fight could have been scored a draw.

Re-published in fightword.com (https://fightword.com/boxing/2017/r...gler-vs-leonard-the-super-fight-30-years-ago/)

Make no mistake, Steele still thinks Leonard won, but he is one of those that has said, in the past, that every time he watches the fight it gets closer. Given that, at one point, he suggested that a Hagler win would have been tantamount to stealing the fight from Leonard and that he now calls it close (and close enough to have not unreasonably been called a draw), I find it hard to believe that he now thinks it would have been a robbery if it had gone to Hagler.

This also supports the idea that people were initially fleeced by Leonard's 'better-than-expected' performance, even if they still see it as a Leonard win, today.

 

Steele scored it quite widely for SRL just last year. While he entertained the idea it could have been a draw if he scored the two even rounds for Hagler it is fanciful thinking. He could have just as easily scored them for SRL and had him winning by miles. He could have scored them one/one or one for Hagler, or one for Ray. The bottom line is he was never ever going to score both for Hagler.

Your article differs substantially from another done at the same time.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sport...ard-steele-recalls-epic-hagler-leonard-fight/

At the time of the fight and the decision announcement he believed it would have been a robbery if Hagler got the decision. He now believes Leonard won by a wider margin. He has gone the other way.

Richard Steele 2017 - “Now, looking at it 30 years later, I’m really shocked that I had that fight so close,’’ said Steele, the tall, always-in-charge Marine who lives in Henderson. “It wasn’t as close as I thought it was.’’

So this article supports goes totally against the idea people were initially fleeced by Leonards better than expected performance.

At any rate Steele was right there and has had SRL winning at every point in history.

 

Probably not accurate to label all Hagler or Duran fans with the same brush.
Some of those types exist, but others are just fans.

Some of us believe Hagler won a close fight with Leonard and was unfortunate to get the LOSS on his record.
I guess I'm mildly a "Hagler fan" too but I give Leonard more credit for that fight than I give Hagler, even though I score it for Hagler narrowly.

 

Richard Steele is a pretty crap job at refereeing.
He gave loads of token 'warnings' to Leonard for blatant infractions but it was obvious he had no teeth in dealing with them.
His view of the fight is a bit tainted by his poor officiating of it.

 

Of course not. It was a bit sweeping statement.

 

Yeah, Leonard was a bit lucky not to be deducted a point for holding.

 

it doesnt surprise me steele was pulling for leonard as he gave him every chance so as not to lose the fight,

that's why he refused to take points from him for hitting after the bell, most notably the 7th and the groin shot in the 4th

quite a contrast to Hagler in the hearns fight where he was quick to break the action, warn for borderline blows and call in the doctor, hoping he'd stop the fight before Marvin could stop Tommy

 

why does anyone even bring up that piece of sh*t steele to support their point?

 

I disagree. He's made statements as to what happened and why and they ring true to me. He was an excellent ref on the whole and did a fine job imo.