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

Not convinced of this. Holmes had wins over Ali (former champ), Berbick (future champ), Spinks (former champ), Witherspoon (future champ), Smith (future champ who he stopped...even Tyson couldn't do that)....kept the title well over five years into the 80s. Of course, Michael was an excellent fighter.

 

The worst thing about this forum, a great one, is all you low life trolls coming back in new alts.

You've done nothing but attention seek and troll since you slimed your way back in.

 

John, I can't believe you'd speak to an honoured guest in such a manner. Please contain yourself!

 

I've highlighted the operative word.

 

Hagler would have won more clearly than he actually did in 87. The deck was stacked against Marvin that nite. All the sympathy was for Leonard, so anything Ray did was okay. The referee was paid off.. Besides Leonard's fouls you should consider that in 1982 its most likely a 15 round fight.

 

Oh yes don't worry, he shan't be staying long. But I know what highlighted means, you didn't have to point it out.

 

You might but one or two on here may not

 

I recognize Mike as one of the top performers. That is why I rank him so high. He seemed to be the complete package

 

? Who else should I be that I would find it necessary to change my identity and why not continue under that same identity?

 

Marvin wouldnt need 15. 12 would be more than enough, even ten since Marvin is a fast starter, as we have often seen

No offense to a great fighter like Leonard but no matter how hard I try, I dont see him lasting long. He seemed hesitant to defend his WBC title and I suspect it is because he felt he wouldn't be able to defend it. Can you imagine Ray Leonard vs any of the top rank contenders? Realistically, how long would his reign last and would we get an introduction to new, never before seen names of Stefan Tangstad or Donny Lalonde caliber?

Greatest fighter of the last 50 years? You wouldn't catch me alive ever saying such things

 

Come on guys. Yes Hagler had declined in his bout with Leonard. That is true.
BUT Hagler gave the first THREE rounds away with Leonard trying to show Ray he could box too. A stupid strategy by Hagler. And it cost him the fight.
Leonard's comeback was one of the greatest in the history of boxing. Fought a dominant champion in a weight division he never fought before. And I'm a Hearns fan!

 

Hagler in 82 was way sharper and had way faster reflexes. Leonard was a slick talented fighter, but would've been out of his element at MW against a prime Hagler. Hagler would go in knowing he would need to score a KO to win. Hagler stops Ray in this one. Just too strong, hungry and relentless.

 

I hope everyone is, my friend.

 

Come on, do you really think the quick and sharp Hagler of the Sibson fight would look anywhere near as slow as molasses as when he fought Leonard? He was shot, that's why he didn't come back. I don't care what newspaper cuttings there are. He would have administered a Sibson fight-esque beat down on Mugabi if he was prime, but he was shot.

Was any version of Leonard such a quicker and better fight than prime Hagler, so that he could have made him look so amateurish at any time? Leonard slipped a bit maybe, but his freshness and simulated real fights were enough to get him by against a Hagler who had slipped so much further by then. It's used as a knock on Hagler that Leonard was 'rusty', if he'd not been 'rusty', he wouldn't have won.

 

I agree 100%. This has all the makings of a mismatch as prime Leonard is not a suitable opponent for 1982 Hagler
A far worthier opponent for Hagler is a prime Roy Jones who has none of Leonard's frailties

To be fair to Leonard, he is not really a middleweight and cannot be expected to compete there for long as you might expect from a typical top ranked contender