Would if Marvelous Marvin Hagler had fought Sugar Ray Lenard in 1982?

I guess that would be true if Leonard definitively won the Hagler fight. Close to half the people who saw that fight thought Marvin won. Including me and select members here. No offense intended whatsoever.

 

As mentioned, Foreman did something similar. He was going to retire anyway, and he knew he won the fight.

 

Hagler mentioned retirement during his interview with Al Bernstein that followed his fight with Mugabi. SaintPat doesnt know what he's talking about.

 

When I consider P4P I consider at their best .. I feel at their best Ray's exceptional combination of speed and power distinguish him. Not just of hand but of foot and exceptional defensive skills ... Tommy Hearns was lighting fast at 147 and could not land his money shot flush on Ray once in their welterweight classic bout .. I feel Ray had much more confidence than Marvin in his own abilities .. Confidence to me was Marvin's greatest flaw .. It's just how I feel .. two A plus fighters ..

 

Duran was another exceptional fighter .. right in there ..

 

Opinion polls don’t matter. Hagler couldn’t take the fact that he lost — no matter if some people thought he might have edged it — so he took his ball and went home.

 

Gotta say I agree with every word.

The indisputable facts are that Ray had fought once in five years. Marvin had been active in that time and looked pretty impressive. He had been named joint Ring fighter of the year only 12 months previously.

Hindsight tells us that he had slowed down in the Mugabi fight but, as you say, no boxing media felt it to be a terrible career-ending decline and he was installed as a prohibitive favourite when the Leonard fight was made, based on his form and the fact that Leonard had had five years out, bar that fight with Kevin Howard.

One fight in five years, a booze and coke habit, a detached retina (big deal in the 80s) is not the ideal backdrop for Ray to be sitting out the masterplan of waiting for Hagler to slow down. Particularly as Ray's main asset was speed which is the first thing to dissipate with age and inactivity. And whatever anyone says, Ray's clock was ticking along at the same rate as Marin's.

I disagree with anyone who says the cards were stacked in Ray's favour. Okay he got his choice of gloves, ring size and fight duration but those are the only advantages. As an inactive welterweight with substance abuse problems and a bad eye, he had a fair bit to overcome. To be honest, given his inactivity, injury, lack of experience at middleweight and Marvin's standing, it was amazing the fight was even sanctioned. Well. I say 'amazing'. It generated a huge sanctioning fee so that solves that mystery.

Put it this way. Let's take names out of it. Fighter A is a welterweight who has fought once in five years and looked crap. He had built his career on his speed but was now approaching 31 and had all that ring rust. In that five years of inactivity he had aged five years, same as everyone else, and had done a load of drugs and booze. And he was fighting fighter B who is bigger, had been active, was generally considered one of the world's best fighters, indeed had been the best only 12 months prior. Yes, fighter B may have been considering retirement but he backpedalled on that as soon as he knew he could fight fighter A, who he had always wanted to fight. Fighter A might have assumed that fighter B had found some motivation to carry on. I wonder if taking the two names out of it shows just what Leonard achieved that night.

 

If he was affected by the layoff, and hadnt went in with a soft Hagler Like I said, then why is it He dindt fare better in his susequent fights? Wouldnt it make sense that Ray Leonard would have improved on his 1987 performance? Instead we see a tough scrape with a limited fighter, a questionable draw, and an embarrassing, one sided loss. and 3 years before that, another unexpected struggle with a 20 - 4 fighter. I wont even bring up the Camacho fight

With that in mind, it proves your assessment of both fighters is wrong; you are overblowing Ray's abilities

Ray is only 4th or 5th best fighter of that decade because there were more qualified, established champions ahead of him: Hagler, Spinks, Sanchez, Tyson, and even Hearns

If you want to be the best fighter of the decade, then you have to set higher standards

 

You do know he beat two of the five fighters you rate higher than him, don't you?

I know the Hagler victory is disputed but there are many boxing people who gave Ray the nod and it was an exceptional performance, for reasons I have already listed, to even stir debate. And, yes, I know Marvin wasn't at his best but he should have been a lot closer to his best than Ray was to his, again for reasons already stated.

 

He may have whipped Tommy the first time but did he whip him the second time?

and you do know that in between the first time and the second time, Tommy had progressed phsyically but without the wear and tear seen in the second fight?
in regards to the Hagler fight, I had Marvin winning and Ray losing. the name of the game is scoring points, and while Ray made him look bad, he failed to outscore him

Sure we get fighters who win in major fights. Pryor did that. Micheal Nunn did that. buster Douglas did it, but I grade higher for consistency, and if a guy is making ten defenses or whatever the number against top grade competition, there is less chance in finding fault with the fighter whereas with Leonard, one could say maybe he got lucky. let's see him do it again or, look to challenge another fighter, hopefully not one who is dreadfully faded like Hagler

 

You mention Spinks over Holmes? That takes a bit away from your argument. No offense.

 

It really is this easy. If it was say, a Duran, the adulation would be beyond anything, ever.

There's was none of Hagler being shot, Hagler being this, Hagler being that in actual real time and Leonard's win was considered one of the best in history. sure there was some varied cards but they were split quite evenly and there was certainly no robbery. The longer time has gone on the more the win has been downplayed.

 

not so because Michael came into his own as Larry was winding down. Consider; Mike had won his biggest match, an uneventful, but convincing win over Braxton while Larry had begun to decline, and badly.

Michael had more success during the 80s

 

This is nonsense and nothing more than offering more excuses as a means to cover for personal favortism