Waging War - Marvin Hagler

But that's not what the thread is about. If we're talking 'prime' then we'd have to look at whether many of these 'waged war with' opponents were in their 'prime'. Mugabi was about as green as Hagler was in 76, Hearns better at lower weights, Minter became champ a couple of years past his peak, etc.

 

Terry Norris ashamed for what? Sugar Ray should be ashamed for his performance, he was supposed to win. Norris got no experience and already got 3 losses. You know full well you picked Ray Leonard to win that fight and are just pretending theres something wrong with him.

We went over the issue of age and you still playing dumb because you keep trying to get me to focus on Rosenblatt. You wont win any arguments that way. The issue is not Norris losing to Rosenblatt. The issue is that Ray leonard was picked by everyone to beat Norris and he didnt.

You cant go back and say how Ray Leonard would have done had he been ten years younger. that's a cop out. It's a cop out because he still had all his skills, much of his same speed, and even more experience. The experience factor alone should have been enough for Ray to get him a decision over Norris who was really undistinguished fighter except for his prime time showing on ABC network Saturday afternoon vs. Julian Jackson.

Let's not pretend. Ray had everything he needed to beat Norris. The problem is Leonard didnt have enough experience with really good fighters.

Benitez? Immediately write him off as a bad joke. Duran fighting two divisions over his best fighting weight and having just sweated off 40 + pounds does not in my mind make for a formidable foe. Therefore his defeat does not make for a great accomplishment either. Hearns was just becoming familiar with the public as was Lalonde by the time the two met. 3 title defenses against sub par opposition does not make a legend. They say he shot down everyone at 147. Outside of Cuevas who he shot down the public know of??

Leonard ask for Hagler after he beat Mugabi yelling out I can beat him. Why he dont say I can beat him after Marvin beat Tommy Hearns? Or Mustafa Hamsho? Or Tony Sibson? Why didnt Ray make that delaration back then?

I would have been more impressed with Leonard had he beat Hagler then beat him decisively in a rematch which he didnt attampt. After another win over Hagler he would then defend his title against top contenders like Tate, Kalambay, and Nunn. That's what most champions do. They defend their titles against the top fighters but Leonard has always had the luxury of of picking who and when. That's why he doesnt get any respect.

 

rekcutnevets, why is it too much to ask for Leonard to defend his title? Champions are supposed to defend them so why can't Ray Leonard. No one ever asks this question but I dont see why not.

You can't say he only come out for Marvin Hagler. We know he didn't. He took several more fights after beginning with Lalonde and then Hearns who'd just been kayoed.

My question is why couldn't he face more formidable opposition? Younger oposition? Faster opposition? Why does it always have to be club fighters and faded champions on their last legs?

 

Conteh, please talk some sense. Methinks you are hating Hagler for some reason. Mugabi was arguably as good as he could ever be the night he fought Marvin. Hearns possibly also (just because he was bested in a war by one of the great middleweights doesn't mean he wasn't). If Hearns appeared a spent force at MW after that who the hell wouldn't be after such a brutal pummelling. And Minter? Please! After two wins over Vito he was at the peak of his powers. You are nitpicking. Stop hatin' !

 

Ok, fair post but that bit highlighted is just bull****. Hearns' best work came at 147 and 154 and he was totally ****ed after just three minutes. No matter how wild they were, no one at that level should have been gassed that soon.

 

...and a 'spent force' at middleweight? He didn't look it on the Hagler-Mugabi undercard.

 

what makes you say that? None of the commentators said anything resembling what you just said. I just hear Tompkins say it was an entire fight encompassing three minutes. Tommy never been pushed or challenged that hard for three minutes but he still wasn't completely gased. And dont tell me you never seen world class fighters get destroyed early. You need to tell the truth like I do.

 

Yes, I've seen world class fighters destroyed early but Hearns wasn't finished after the first, but he had nothing left. Either because a) his fitness wasn't up to the level it should have been or b) he just couldn't trade with a bigger man. Yeah, 'b' is more likely, but we know Tommy was no 160 'great'.

 

Getting off the point a little here I admit, but what weight could you really say Hearns was a 'great'? I would say he proves his greatness in being a tremendous fighter at multiple weights. It's possible that the best version of Hearns was against Hagler. It's a distinct possibility, that's all I am saying (you seem to completely dismiss the idea).Certainly when else was he as prepared, focused or intimidating? He was over trained and inexperienced against Leonard.

 

He clearly couldn't take a punch as well at 160. His beard was never concrete anyway but he could take it more at the lower weights. His record at 160 speaks for itself- it wasn't that great. I agree, Tommy's greatness comes from his overall success but he was at his most complete at 154. I think that appears obvious to most.

 

No. A cop out is blaming a welterweight title loss on one fighter being just a pound under the weight they'd been for 3 out of 4 previous title fights.

Which he did- according to one of the many times you've scored it too. An admission you've probably forgotten you had declared.* :good






* Although you'll now palm it off as an example of your great objectivity.

 

When was Hagler at his peak? Mentally he was a monster after Minter but physically was it about 79?

 

He used the same cop out that I've seen from the others that age alone did him him. But they won't bring up Leonard's big edge in experience. That's hypocrisy Dinner.

It's hypocrisy because the big factor in evaluating a fighter's worth or determining the winner is quality of experience. You know that. Hell, that's the reason why Leonard was being chosen to beat Hagler and the same reason why Leonard was picked by every reputable columnist to beat norris.

People always look at the names on your resume. They don't know what else to do other than find names they recognize. They figure the more names they see with a W in front of it the better. And when you're on a win streak the way Leonard was and you look as flawless as he showed in his last fight, then these same people are going to use all that recent history to pick him the winner every time. They wound't dare go against him. I would though.


With Hearns it was just a matter of him growing out of the division. that's not leonard's fault. He must have felt some psychological edge over Tommy but the fact is, Tommy outboxed him and proved to be more skilled than Leonard. The fact that he was so far ahead on the scorecards of the three judge and went out late, there's no other way to look at it other than he was undernourished.

Had he two more pounds of muscle covering him he would have been stronger and won the fight. This fight was determined by a lack of stamina and strength on Tommy's part. Gil Clancy has said exactly the same repeatedly throughout the fight so there's no way you can say that I'm using weight as an excuse for Tommy's loss to leonard. :nono

have i ever been wrong before?

 

1982/3

 

It's funny how Tommy's tank began to run dry at exactly the moment Leonard went for broke. Huge coincidence that was.


ps. Norris fight. I don't know why you brought that fight up with me. I have never defended Leonard on anything 'post-Hagler' and generally agreed with the consensus that he was avoiding younger, fresher fighters like they had leprosy.