Waging War - Marvin Hagler

Yes he did, although what I think the thread starter is trying to say is that an agressive come forward fighter, looking to start a war, will not beat Marvin Hagler. This is pretty correct, he was only really troubled by the slicksters and counterpunchers. Hearns' waged war but barring the cut and half of the 1st round, he wasn't going to win.

 

I think what is being asked is "could anyone go toe-to-toe or try to outslug Hagler?" MOnroe didn't do that, he boxed. Beat the **** out of him, buthe didn't stand inside and slug away.

 

Hagler is without question one of my 10 favourite fighters of all-time. IMO he's got the perfect style and the toughness to be embraced by everyone to a certain degree.

Fans like to see power, and Hagler could pack a decent whack with either hand. His style could sometimes be cagey and cautious, other times he was outright aggressive. Switching from southpaw to orthodox was done effortlessly. Hagler's jab was a thing of beauty when he got into rhythm. Inside or outside, it never mattered much at all.

 

Terry Norris? Leonard was an old man far from his prime, and he dared get in the ring with this young lion. Norris ended Meldrick Taylor's career, and showed Donald Curry that dropping in weight would not help Curry's comeback effort.

 

Actually, he mostly went toe-to-toe and beat him to the punch all night.

 

I don't recall leonard limping into the ring. He dominated his last fight and his best fight ever was the Hagler fight.

You shouldn't be saying that Leonard dared to get in the ring with this young lion but instead say that Norris dared to get in the ring with a legend whose experience dwarfed his own and had every sports columnist over him.

As usual, Leonard got to pick the opponent, the time, and the place and you're still covering for him. You want to fight someone and you get your butt kicked, no excuses.

I don't recall anyone saying before the fight that it wasn't fair and lets not forget Leonard was favored by everyone to win. All I heard was "who you picking to win the fight? Leonard. Yeah I like Leonard too" just like you picked him yourself.

THis was big news that was downplayed by all the idiots who cover sports. These same people were so embarrassed over it that they just kept quiet over it keeping their words to a minimum. They were probably pissed off that Norris hadn't turned out to be another lemon like Don lalonde and that Norris actually COULD fight.

Flurrying didnt work as you saw in the fight. Running? Well, he couldn't run because he fell behind so quickly he had to take the fight to him which he did for once. He couldn't very well start taunting him. Ray only does that when he's confident in a fight and by the third round, he had no confidence whatsoever. :yep

You just don't stick your head out for someone else to hit when he's already playing ping pong with it.

Like I was saying, the 95% of the sportswriters were so pissed they weren't able to write another article on glorifying Ray they just focused on Rays problems at the time and didnt bother mentioning anything on Norris which we all know is sour grapes. You hold something against a man for beating your favorites so you keep your mouth shut about him. That's how the press works.

 

This isn't a Leonard thread, so there is a little too much talk about this.

Leonard was all but 35 when he fought a not even 24 year old Norris. Norris had just destroyed the overrated Mugabi a couple of fights before heading into this one.

Dominated his fight before Norris? He dominated a 38 year old that was 3 divisions from his prime fighting weight. It may have been lable a supermiddle weight title fight, but Duran and Leonard both weighed in as middleweights. Duran had just defeated Barkley, so he had some fight left in him. That doesn't change the fact that he was 38 fighting someone naturally bigger and 5 years younger.

Bragging about Norris' win over Leonard is like bragging about Marciano's win over Louis, de la Hoya's 2nd win over Chavez, Trinidad's win over Whitaker, Trinidad's win over Camacho, or any 20 something year old beating someone 11 years his senior.

 

I see Rooster's Leonard trap has caught another victim.

 

I think it was Hagler more who waged the war more so than Tommy. Hagler knew it was going to be very hard to box the tall, rangy Hearns who was great from the outside, so he launched a brutal attack and forced a brawl. Hearns tried to box midway through the 1st, and had some moments from the outside, but once Hagler cornered him and fought at close quarters until the end of the round, Tommy's legs weren't the same.

Of course, Manny will tell you that Tommy's legs weren't the same since the dressing room rubdown.

 

So what? Hopkins was 36 when he whipped Trinidad. As long as you have your legs, age doesn't matter as much. Leonard never could have aced Duran if he didn't have his legs. With Norris the skills were still intact which is why he was favored in the fight and why you can't compare Norris-Leonard to Marciano - Louis.

Question for you Rekcutnevets: Was Louis a 3-1 favorite over Marciano?

Was Chavez favored 3-1 over Oscar?

What the experts over looked is that Leonard has been overrated his entire career. He isn't as tough as they make him out to be. He has to be careful who he fights and when otherwise he gets into too much trouble.

 

If you can't see a difference in a prime Leonard and the Leonard that fought Norris, I don't know what to tell you.

I do love that list of all stars that Norris lost his last 3 fights to. Rosenblatt is the best of that lot. Norris was what, 31 in his last fight?

 

age isnt the problem i told you that by pointing out the case of Bernard hopkins. want other examples? you got Walcott, Dick Tiger and Archie Moore going on unitl their late 30's and beyond. So if you want to use age as a argument then why is leonard washed up at 34? he hardly have any fights anyway and is well rested.

I dont classify Leonard as a great I call him a ring marvel but dont get excited over it because it just means he knew how to prepare for a fighter but the biggest part of that includes catching a fighter on the downside of his career for success like waiting for something to hit rock bottom before snatching it up. 'Its on sale and cant go lower lets go buy it now'.

thats what leonard does because at regular price he knows he cant afford it. The truth is their really is no difference between the version of leonard who fight Norris and Leonard who fight Hearns or Kalule.

He still dont know how to fight a boxer. He fall behind with Tommy and still fall behind with Terry except Terry smarter than Tommy, keeps his guard up and dont tire thats why he is all over leonard left uppercut, left hook, right uppercut left jab, right cross, leonard dont know where the next punch coming from he dont know what to do except follow him around and take more punches.

He didnt have the 15 rounds like he did in the hearns fight but that probably worked in his favor too because the way he was going he wasnt going to do no better.

 

Let's not act like it was a prime Hagler though.

 

Hagler wasn't experienced enough when he fought Monroe. Youthful he was, but was 3-4 years before reaching his early peak days.

 

Leonard didn't lose to Rosenblatt. Any 31 year old that loses to Rosenblatt should be ashamed, unless he is Terry Norris. Norris the man that beat 34 and 3/4 year old, prime, Ray Leonard.