Who did you perceive as being at a greater disadvantage for Hagler vs Leonard?

Didn't he? It isn't even debatable if one watches the films.

 

It is an interesting discussion. Ray had arguably more factors to overcome with even greater inactivity & moving up in weight after retired due to a threatening injury. His training, strategy & overll performance was greatly to his credit.

Though it is not accurate to say "Hagler mmay not have been as quite as good as 2/3 years previously". He was significantly declined from then, & more so from his peak about 5 years earlier. The extra couple years of age + many more fights & wars make a big difference.

Leanard had a greater # of factors to overcome. But both working to their capacity, Hagler had lost much more than Ray, who if he fought his prior peak self-almost as good as ever but larger & stronger-middleweight Ray would either make it very close or win. Thus I say Hagler being relatively washed up is a bigger disadvantage.

STILL it was very close. What do you think about the decision itself? At least with draw's going to the champion, did Ray really deserve the Title? Variois opnions & scoring from Marvin's Wikipedia page...

Reaction

Official ringside judge JoJo Guerra, whose 118–110 scorecard was derided in many quarters, commented that:
“ Leonard outpunched Hagler, outsmarted him, outboxed him. He looked just great. Sugar Ray Leonard was making him miss a lot, and then counterpunching him. Sugar Ray Leonard was beating him to the punch. They should call him Marvellous Sugar Ray Leonard. Boxing is the art of self-defense, and Sugar Ray was in command at all times. He was very fast and he was very clever. He made Marvin Hagler come to him. He dictated the fight.[15][16] ”

Judge Dave Moretti, who scored it 115–113 for Leonard:
“ Obviously, Hagler was the aggressor, but he was not the effective aggressor. You can't chase and get hit and chase and get hit, and get credit for it. Besides, the hardest punching was by Leonard.[17] ”

Lou Filippo, who scored it 115–113 for Hagler and felt that Hagler's bodyshots and aggression earned him the nod, said:
“ Hagler was doing all the work. The referee, Richard Steele, warned Leonard at least once every round about holding. Leonard fought in spurts. Leonard would run in and grab and hold. He did what he had to do. But I can't see a guy holding that much and getting points for it.[17] ”

Hugh McIlvanney, commenting in the British Sunday Times and Sports Illustrated:
“ What Ray Leonard pulled off in his split decision over Hagler was an epic illusion. He had said beforehand that the way to beat Hagler was to give him a distorted picture. But this shrewdest of fighters knew it was even more important to distort the picture for the judges. His plan was to "steal" rounds with a few flashy and carefully timed flurries and to make the rest of each three-minute session as unproductive as possible for Hagler by circling briskly away from the latter's persistent pursuit. When he made his sporadic attacking flourishes, he was happy to exaggerate hand speed at the expense of power, and neither he nor two of the scorers seemed bothered by the fact that many of the punches landed on the champion's gloves and arms.[18][19] ”

McIlvanny also referred to Budd Schulberg's contention about a 'compound optical illusion', namely that simply being more competitive than expected meant that Leonard appeared more effective and to be doing more than he actually was.[19] Harry Gibbs, the British judge who ironically had been rejected by the Hagler camp, said he also scored it for Hagler.

Jim Murray, long-time sports columnist for the Los Angeles Times felt that Leonard deservedly got the decision, arguing that Leonard landed more punches and showed better defense and ring generalship, and writing:
“ It wasn't even close...He didn't just outpoint Hagler, he exposed him. He made him look like a guy chasing a bus. In snowshoes. Leonard repeatedly beat Hagler to the punch. When he did, he hit harder. He hit more often. He made Hagler into what he perceived him to be throughout his career—a brawler, a swarmer, a man who could club you to death only if you stood there and let him. If you moved, he was lost.[20] ”

The scorecards from the ringside press attest to the closeness of the fight (6–5, 3 drawn) more pundits awarded the fight to Leonard rather than to Hagler, although counting those who scored it even, more felt Hagler deserved to keep his title than didn't:

Associated Press: 117–112 Hagler
New York Daily News: 117–111 Leonard
New York Times: 114–114
New York Post: 114–114
Newsday: 115–114 Hagler
Chicago Sun-Times: 115–114 Hagler
Chicago Tribune: 7–5 Hagler



Houston Chronicle: 115–114 Leonard
Washington Post: 114–114
Boston Globe: 117–111 Leonard
Boston Herald 116–113 Leonard
Baltimore Sun: 7–5 Leonard
Oakland Tribune: 117–112 Leonard
San Jose Mercury-News: 116–115 Hagler

SO: the official score has Leanord landing a few more punches, with a significantly great % of blows thrown. And a couple said he landeed the HARDER blows,& seemingly had better defense & ring generalship. But it has been argued that his success was more flashy/notable, many of the shots landed on Hagler's gloves & arms, Hagler was the aggressor, + I did not realize that Leanord was warned over 30 times for holding (& never had a point deducted).

How do YOU score the fight?

 

He fought the better fight because he still had the skills to do so. Hagler's had eroded far more. Again, the films don't lie.

 

Then you haven't watched and compared their prime fights vs their '87 fight lately. What about SRL jumps out at you as "diminished" in that fight? HUGE difference with Hagler. I saw little to nothing diminished with Leonard. It was all there. The speed. The combos. The movement and mobility. The sharpness and timing.....all intact.

Hagler? Again, watch Marvin's prime fights. HUGE difference between that Hagler and the one you see vs Leonard. Nobody has told me the difference in what we see with what prime SRL brought to the table and the SRL we see in the ring with Hagler. Not too much change there.

 

Once again, the point however, is that no one thought that at the time. There was talk that he got hit too much and had perhaps slowed, but not one saw that as any reason whatsoever for him to possibly lose to Leonard. In that case, at the time when the chips were all on the table and you had to ask who had all the cards, how could that have been spun as any kind of advantage to Leonard whatsoever? Virtually to a man, every expert thought Hagler was going to kill him.

The opposite argument is like saying Tyson was the disadvantaged one in Tokyo because he was lethargic and one-dimensional. It's a total misuse of the term "disadvantaged."

 

No man, that is a poor analogy. Tyson was technically at a disadvantage in Tokyo because of his own poor habits, whoring, partying & terrible training (& weight draining). His fault & entirely avoidable.

The experts did not NOTICE ther decline in Hagler, does not mean it was not very significant. Part of it was that it was a while since Hagler had fought, this + age & the wars had taken more out of him then expected, but it was very understandable.

Leanord also was credited with landing a few more punches only...And many allege many landed on Hagler's arms & gloves. Funny some saw Leanard landing the harder punches...True, or flash/smoke & mirrors?

Who thinks Hagler won OR it should have been a draw? It was very close, I just do not know. But I do think that Leonard should have had a point taken away for the constant (over 30(!) holding warnings. With that & not able to rely on the tactic, likely Hagler at least ekes out a clear victory.

 

None of this addresses the point that no one saw it coming except a bunch of guys who like to pick **** apart on message boards 25 years later.

 

What disadvantage did Hagler have to overcome? Fighting in a twenty foot ring? Done that before. Fighting in ten ounce gloves? Again, done that before? Fighting in a scheduled twelve round bout? Three of his previous four fights had the same distance.


Ask this question with a straight face in 1987 and you'd be laughed at for even having such nerve. But it's been three decades since then - plenty of time for Hagler's ardent supporters to rationalise him losing a fight he had no business losing rofl @ the dunce arguing Leonard was at the same level then as he had been during his peak.)

 

I think Ray looks much closer to his prime than Leonard, & when you factor in greater muscular size & strength to help offset any deterioration, it is not close. Anyway it is childish & mean to call names because you happen to disagree with a subjective assessment.

Salsa, I did addressed your faulty analogy & the general question, I never disputed that few thought Sugar Ray had much of a chance then. It was an impressive achievement. Though without all the holding & no points deducted to stop it,, he would not likely ede out Hagler. And I am unsure who deserved the win anyway, so posted various sometimes contradictory opinions, such as who landed the harder blows.

To tie in with the last comment: in such a close fight gloves & ring size could have made the difference. As could the clinging, 1st 2 rounds, anything.

The only things I am confident about is that Hagler eroded more & Leonard made the best of things with training, less ring wear, & bulking up effectively. And if they both fought at their best, or best they could ever be, Hagler would have the mobility & reflxes to cut off the ring + land much more, & Sugar Ray would be unlikely to avoid a KO.

 

You and many other Hagler fans have this false impression of him being a great pressure fighter, which is something he was never close to being. He was never effective at cutting the ring off, never effective at leading; this was exposed more than enough times during his career to conclude that this was more than just an off night.


By the way, how did all that added bulk benefit Leonard's conditioning? The man who went fifteen rounds at a hellacious pace with Duran, blowing chunks out of his arsehole by the middle rounds against Hagler? You think that's the same guy, the same athlete?

 

How about mileage? Erosion of speed and reflexes (things that were clearly still intact in Leonard's case)?

My argument was that SRL looked much more like his prime self and had much more of the old stuff than Hagler did. I stand by that and the films back that stance. It is completely inarguable by any sane ocular standards.

Yes, dunce. That would be me. I know nothing about boxing history (especially when stacked up against you) Ask anyone and I'm sure they'll agree with you. Good call :good