Who's performance was better

If Pac had barely beaten Margarito, I would give him the edge on this question.

Oscar aint no Margarito. Period. :bart

Ask JM22.:good

 

Good Lord! The fight was for 12 rounds :hey

 

I certainly thought they went 15. If not, than I am wrong. But it does not take away from what Ray accomplshed over the course of the fight, and the odds he had to overcome, compared to whipping on a man who clearly doesn't have it.

Oscar in his ****ing prime couldn't come close to ****ing with Hagler. Not even close.

 

This question will be better answered if we know the odds of the fight prior to their fights. What were the predictions of the "boxing experts" for these fights?

We are not giving that much credit to Pacman now because of the total domination he had against DLH but that was not the case before the fight. A lot of posters here called their fight a FREAK SHOW because of the size difference. Can we say the same thing against the Leonard vs Hagler fight?

 

Hagler was not only a live opponent, but still an absolute beast. De La Hoya was a shot, weight-drained, walking punching bag.

Both fighters fought great performances, but I'd like to have seen Pacquiao do as well as he did against an actual live opponent. I can't see it against someone of Hagler's level, not a chance.

 

Pretty ridiculous comparison and results. Pacman beat a shot DLH, not to mention NO version of DLH was near any version of Hagler. SRL won a controversial decision over a very close to prime Hagler, arguably the greatest MW of all-time.

No comparison whatsoever. DLH can't even hold SRL or Hagler's jock....and that's not to slight the Golden Boy, but they were both so much better...

 

Because it an unfair poll thats why .. while SRL was smaller, inactive and Hagler was unbeatin for 10 years ... all those aganist SRL.

now Pacquiao is smaller but Oscar is the hardly active and been losing for 4-5 years

the poll is who's performance is batter while Pacman had the easier fight (not an easy fight but easier than SRL's).

 

Why are people forgetting this. :huh

Pac fought an old an worn out DLH. Ray fought a very relevant and active Hagler.

And even Hagler at his WORST would STARCH a DLH in his prime well under 6 Rds.

Not to take away from Pac, but this performance, considering the level of competition cannot be compared to SRL's against Hagler. :bart

 

The OP didn't ask "which win was better", he asked "which performance was better".

In this case, Pac's performance is obviously better than Sugar's.

 

Bollocks. Sugar Ray Leonard performed enough to beat Marvin Hagler after a three year lay off.

Performances are all relitive. De La Hoya was never ever in Haglers league.

Let alone in that fight where De La Hoya couldnt even let his hands go a bit. Ask Roach. Hagler... Hagler could let his hands go a hell of a lot.

Beating the crap out of somebody compared to winning a close Desicion is not always better and this is one of those cases.

Leonard beating Hagler is one of the best wins ever.

 

DLH/PBF was more like SRL/Hagler, a hide and seek thing...DLH/Pacquiao ,more action..result was uncontested

 

make that a poll option so I can pick something

 

Leonard's was better, but that's taking nothing away from Pacman who was magnificent.

 

I am a big Pac fan and a big Hagler fan but what SRL did was definitely by far better.

SRL came out of 3 or so years retirement, came back and fought a bigger guy to his very own division...and Hagler was prolly on the way down but still within his prime years I should say (just not at his peak)..and that fight was very brutal from start to finish - not many can equal that accomplishment IMO.

 

Leanord. Pacquiao is in his prime wheras Oscar is way past his. On the other hand Leanord was way past his prime inactive for a long time and Hagler while past his prime was a much more live opponent fighting at his best weight.