I think we could say that we disagree on both Leonard and Hagler (at times ) and I think the idea that Leonard got into Hagler's head is greatly overplayed. There's enough evidence to suggest that the timing of the challenge was the bigger problem for Hagler, who was definitely on the verge of retirement. As far as his reaction to the result is concerned, I find it perfectly understandable and couldn't say I draw from this any insight into the fight itself. The result frustrated Hagler for the very simple reason that he felt he'd won. It's not that difficult to understand why, either, when two judges gave it 115-113, each way, and the third went off the reservation. It doesn't need Hagler to be psychologically assessed in order to justify the scoring. No one can justify 118-110, which represents the manifest result of what Hugh McIlvanney was writing about. And, it's worth remembering that McIlvanney was making reference to the view of Budd Schulberg; concurring with, not taking individual credit for the viewpoint. I can't agree that the article is one-sided. It did nothing but poor praise on Leonard for a well-executed game plan. There has been enough suggestion made by others, who were with Leonard, that the strategy was just as the article explained. Fight in spurts, steal the rounds. Ultimately, it proffers an explanation as to why the fight might have been viewed the way it was, at the time. And, on that, I know I've seen several comments on the fight since, from people who called it for Leonard fervidly, that now say things like 'each time they watch it the fight gets closer'. Rarely, if ever, have I seen or heard such statements made about a boxing match.
Hagler was an honest guy, Vito gave him a suprised tough fight first time, no mention of Vito but Duran was the most experienced having about 70 fights as a lightweight losing only once and the loss was avenged 2X and Duran moved up to Middle-Supermiddleweight and not always in the best condition. Hagler was the blue collar Champ but did give everyone a chance and would have rematched Leonard had he won the decision. He did give Mintor props
Agree. Mendoza's post clearly shows an ignorance of the subject of Minter's career. Apart from a questionable KD against Antoufermo, Minter was only floored twice in circa 50 fights, by a top-form, arguably career best performance from banger Tony Sibson (who smashed Alan's nose with the first KD), throughout his whole pro career. The Sibson fight was Minter's last. Aside from Sibbo, ALL Minter's stoppage losses were due to either cut eyes or a cut forehead (Gratien Tonna 1st fight). I believe that Minter was never floored in a 150 fight amateur career either.
Leonard still won, any way you slice it. The official judges, the punch stats, and the media cards. They all say Leonard won it. That is three separate sources Berlenbach. I'm not sure if the surgeries in the 1980s for detached eye retina's were as good as they are today. I tend to doubt they were. I am sure Leonard was out of the ring for there years, a point which should not be discounted. I asked before can you show me an example of a guy moving up in class, out of the ring for three years that beat another all time great in his prime or near prime? ''Leonard`s tactics were very smart,'' said Futch. ''He confused and frustrated Hagler, but he fought in flurries, two or three times a round, usually at the beginning and end to impress the judges. ''But I thought Hagler had a slight edge, probably by a few points. He was the champion.'' - Futch ^^^ I'd like to see Futch's card, " probably by a few points " he says? That's just wrong. In general I do not value what a trainer says after a fight. They have business reasons and are biased to people they worked with in the ring and in the corners.
In what amounted to 2 1/2 rounds of action, how can Hagler say Minter had the best chin he fought? You tell me.
Hagler hit him with some bigshots and he didn't go anywhere. You got it badly wrong ,after taking a cursory look at Box Rec and seeing those stoppages against his name you jumped to the conclusion Minter was chinny ,nothing could be further from the truth.Perhaps do some research next time before mugging yourself?
Why not pick Leonard here? 2 1/2 rounds of action is not enough to say so and so had the best chin. Hagler could bang, but he wasn't a huge puncher.
I thought Leonard won but many knowledgeable observers voted for Hagler including Hugh McIllvanney imo the Uk's best boxing writer who was ringside.Eddie Futch was a trainer without peer, and a tremendous boxing tactician,I would never presume to call him wrong ,and I would always value his input on any fight ,particularly since he had no horse in this race.
Look ,you were wrong ,I don't expect you to be man enough to admit it, but it's a fact! Fifty two kos in sixty two wins, for a 78% ko percentage ,says you are wrong on this too!
judging from the 1984 fight with Hward, Leonard actually seems to have IMPROVED in 1987. The Hagler fight IMO was actually his best overall fight but then, look at the sloppy leftovers he got from Roldan, Hearns, Mugabi and had actually peaked years earlier BTW, I had already caught a good look at Hagler in the weeks prior to the Leonard fight vs the Weaver triplets and found that he could do nothing but miss the Norris like speedsters (2 of them) while reduced to covering up from the numerous flurries at one point, Marvin nearly fell thru the ropes missing with a wild punch so forget about all this "Leonard got into Marvin's head" crap. He was damaged goods coming into the fight
Futch had no ties to Hagler or Leonard, so why would he be biased? You don't value his opinion, but you do value Howard Cosell's? How about Harry Gibbs, who said he scored it 115-113 for Hagler? That list of scorecards you keep referring to is hardly the final word on the matter. It doesn't include the several opinions that I mentioned which favoured Hagler. It does include several just attributed to newspapers. Did the Baltimore Sun and the Houston Chronicle have reporters at ringside? One of the official judges had Leonard winning 10 rounds to 2, a scorecard absolutely no one agreed with. It's so out of line I can't even take it seriously. The two reasonable judges' scorecards were a one round swing from a draw. I'm also sure Hagler was coming off back to back wars with Hearns and Mugabi. What takes more out of a fighter, three years of inactivity or 14 rounds warring with Hearns and Mugabi? Hagler was several years older than Leonard. He'd had twice as many fights. He was on the verge of retiring after Mugabi. Ring rust can be shaken off (as Leonard himself proved). Mileage and ringwear can't. You still haven't addressed this point. Any comment on Leonard's claim that he had a few real fights behind closed doors in preparation for this bout?
Amen. Vito and Minter Leonard's chin was reliable but not strong like Vito or Minter who would lose on cuts I would say that Leonard, not Duran was the best all around boxer but Hagler was shot at the time so it dont count Do we count Ali's loss to Leon Spinks with 7 fights and never gone 15 rds., and was a cruiser, against him? No, we still call him the greatest
