Time to give Leonard more credit for Hagler??

First topic message reminder :

1. Hagler was past it.

2. Fight won in the boardroom.

3. Hagler was robbed.

Tend to see a lot of the above when discussing this issue...None of which are true!!!

What is true is that this was an amazing achievement by a huge underdog who wasn't given a prayer!!!...hadn't fought for three years and was supposed to get knocked out..

You can gain an advantage in the boardroom but to say anybody wins a fight there is detrimental to his opponent....Unless we are talking catchweight..(leonard let himself down with Donny for sure!! but that's another story)

Hagler was a fearsome warrior who had never dealt on speed... but relentless pressure, switch hitting and durability..!!! Two of the three he showed but the relentless pressure he wasn't "allowed" to show...

Leonard outboxed the southpaw and the orthodox Hagler, outsmarted him....For sure Hagler may have landed the more hurtful shots but Leonard knew he wouldn't knock Hagler out anyway....

Superb Boxing performance by a guy who was out of the game for three years against a foe that post-Curry was considered at the top of the tree!!

Should we give Leonard more credit...Yep I think we should and acknowledge a superb Boxing performance and achievement!!

Leonard ALWAYS found a way.

Hearns 1, Duran 2, Lalonde, Hagler, Benitez.

Yes he had to work but he still won.

Fighting the wrong fight is simply no excuse, a fighter who always wins doesn't lose a fight because of such a whimsical excuse. I've watched No Mas and Duran was more than holding his own in that fight before he lost the plot, there was a round or two in it at the time.

Hagler struggled with the big strong powerful Mugabi, now to me I don't see any parallels between Mugabi and an old Leonard.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Leonard ALWAYS found a way.

Hearns 1, Duran 2, Lalonde, Hagler, Benitez.

Yes he had to work but he still won.

He didn't find a way against Duran 1 did he?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Leonard didn't win any of his big fights convincingly.

Duran, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler all made him work very hard for his wins.

Of course they made him work, they were all time greats... what's convincing for you in a big fight ghosty? Outboxing and stopping the best defensive fighter of the era (who was still unbeaten at the time), stopping the unbeaten hearns, going up a weight to stop the unbeaten kalule.

Can't believe the lack of credit given for the hearns fight... yes he couldn't get past the reach and was losing, so he took some risks and got the ko. If it had been a 12 round fight, maybe, just maybe he'd have chanced his arm earlier.

I think hagler would probably have beaten leonard in a rematch because i think marv would have learnt from his mistakes and after years of shoving white powder up his nose, leonard was an old 30 year old... but to suggest that marv would just have swarmed all over him from the first round and battered him is laughable. I know he's not the smartest bunny, but i think marv might have tried that tactic at some point in the first fight if he had it in him.

And Truss, i know you were rising to onetwo's bait but really, mentioning norris and camacho on a leonard thread is like mentioning danny williams on a tyson thread... or, dare i say it, rene the onion seller on a don curry thread. Poor form fella.

All his wins over Hagler, Duran, Benitez and Hearns were great Milky but was more pointing out that saying he always won convincingly was far from the mark, it would be akin to saying that Chavez always won convincingly prior to Randall which he didn't. While a great great fighter like everyone he was evidently beatable.

Winning by KO is fairly convincing in my book. If it was a sepia fighter you would level the same amount of scrutiny.

azania wrote:Winning by KO is fairly convincing in my book. If it was a sepia fighter you would level the same amount of scrutiny.

A ko victory isn't always convincing nor am I sure why you're bringing colour into it?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:Winning by KO is fairly convincing in my book. If it was a sepia fighter you would level the same amount of scrutiny.

A ko victory isn't always convincing nor am I sure why you're bringing colour into it?

A KO is the most convincing way to win a fight. Colour? A sepia fighter is a fighter from the black and white era.

SRL had to up his game to beat Hearns. That he did. He beat Wilfredo convincingly after a tight chess match of a fight. Completely demoralised Duran and outsmarted* Hagler.

What more do you want?


* I had Hagler winning.

Chavez beating Taylor was not convincing
Froch beating Taylor was not convincing
Fitzsimmons beating Corbett was not convincing


A KO can be convincing but much of it is dependent on what goes before, if you are being comprehensively outboxed then get the KO I don't consider that convincing but obviously you will disagree for the sake of argument.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Chavez beating Taylor was not convincing
Froch beating Taylor was not convincing
Fitzsimmons beating Corbett was not convincing


A KO can be convincing but much of it is dependent on what goes before, if you are being comprehensively outboxed then get the KO I don't consider that convincing but obviously you will disagree for the sake of argument.

That's splitting hairs. Those fighters mentioned are hardky the same calibre of Hearns. Moreover SRL knew he needed a KO to win. He changed tactics just to score the KO. He didn't go wild and hoping for a lucky punch. He went for it and got it against a high quality fighter.

The quality of fighter does not matter.

Froch getting outboxed and getting the KO he needed is no different to Leonard being outboxed and getting the KO he needed. Meldrick Taylor and Corbett were both high quality opposition.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:The quality of fight does not matter.

Froch getting outboxed and getting the KO he needed is no different to Leonard being outboxed and getting the KO he needed. Meldrick Taylor and Corbett were both high quality opposition.

Meldrick is no Tommy Hearns.

A boxer coming back from adversity normally gets bags of credit for that. He had a gut check. I suppose Rocky was lucky against JJW. Lucky he got a dodgy ref against Moore also.

What are you baffling on about?

At what point have I discredited Leonard for his win over Hearns?
Where have I said he was lucky?

But obviously it's another opportunity for you to bring up Marciano and old timers, you are so predictable that I didn't bother mentioning it because it was obvious you soon would, get a grip honestly.

Interesting that milky and myself came to the conclusion that you were being somewhat unkind to SRL to say the least.

No worries. Different strokes for different eras then. STL beat an undefeated Hearns and Wilfredo via KO. Fairly convincing in my book. Both fighters at their absolute peak. Not washed up, not patchy records coming into the fight. Not blown up lower weight fighters. Prime and at their weight.

Another dig at Marciano, what a surprise, you're boring.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Another dig at Marciano, what a surprise, you're boring.

And you apply double standards. I suppose it makes you very interesting.

What double standards?

Sure there is finding a way....there is also realising that you don't want to have to find one again and not offering rematches.....

Think we'd all like to have seen If Leonard could've done Tommy twice back then..My guess is after the overall shock of being caught and stopped Hearns would realise he kind of had the guy's number...

You couldn't intimidate Tommy!!!!

I mean Shuler got stretched right after Hagler......No mental bloc there.

Works both ways...

you could be right truss and tommy did have bouncabackability (though that was shuler not a hagler rematch).... but the chavez taylor scenario is the more common 2nd fight scenario.

My feeling is that leonard had hearns reeling a few times in the fight and he was generally a good finisher, hearns might have known he could outbox leonard but ray knew he could take him out, my gut is that leonard would have had the stronger psychological edge.

I don't think so because Hearns was such a great competitior he wouldn't be intimidated..

remember when Leonard tried to psyche him at the end of the first and grabbed his head while grinning at him and got a right for his trouble..

Think he realised Hearns wasn't there for taking mentally....

Hearns thought he could beat king kong....

Steward would also have told him to take less chances and use the jab 24/7 again...

Leonard ate that didn't he..

Sorry leonard only has a punchers chance...but if Tommy lands right on the money Leonard goes too..

difference for me is if tommy lands, ray more likely to get up, and not sure tommy had discipline to hide behind jab all night.. everyone has a puncher's chance against tommy, but ray way more likely to land it than most.

but hey, we're just guessing

have to say though, if the hearns that fought duran and hagler had fought leonard, i.e. had really come looking for him, it would have been some fight while it lasted.

Leonard couldn't take the rematch when Tommy was half dead....

Say it again maybe he does take the rematch but and a big but he has to get past the jab and the right hand...

Tough and Leonard would've been scarred by the first as much as Tommy after all Tommy's was a sudden decline..Leonard suffered throughout the fight!!

Psychologically Leonard a la Camacho-Rosario would've been damaged...

If Hearns lands either the right hand which took Duran out or wobbled Hagler, Leonard is gone.

Thing is Ghosty people on here tend to think Hearns is the only one who gets scarred from the first fight!!

Leonard was hurt...had his eye shut and ate the hard stiff jab....

My guess is he becomes a little more gunshy next time around unless he trys a Hagler-Hearns which wouldn't work against a non-tired lightning fast tommy...The right that stunned Marv puts Leonard away!!

Can see Leonard winning a return but I certainly wouldn't bet my father-in-law's house on it!!

I tend to think that Leonard had less confidence in his ability than people think, wouldn't rematch Duran or Hearns and waited years to face Hagler.

yeh, terrible ducker really with all these rematches he should have had... if he hadn't been bullied into fighting benitez, duran, hearns and hagler, the unbeaten kalule, he'd have fought nobody. Add into that the shameless running from pryor...

please guys, he fought them, he beat them, he retired, he partied hard, kept half of columbia in employment, he came back half the fighter he was, he beat hagler, (whether you like it or not )... and he gave tommy and duran rematches when they were all well past their best and he had nothing to prove.. and yes hearns deserved the nod in their meaningless 2nd fight

and of course he was shown up by norris and thrashed by camacho a blown up lightweight... pretty rubbish really

quit whinging about rematches

Mate If you can't debate properly don't debate at all.

Leonard is 4 in my alltime list higher than most...

But he did like the cards stacked in his favor...

Easier to return with Duran when in against a guy who couldn't devastate him..

end of!!

Leonard-Hearns - pickem for me.........Leonard-Hagler 2...Hagler for me!!

We all know Leonard fought the wrong fight against Duran and so did he!!!!!!

Fact is he couldn't outbox Hearns end of..and me thinks he knew it..

Milky, so Leonard is beyond any sort of criticism?

To be honest, the only rematch avoidance that miffs me a little with regards to Leonard is the third fight with Duran, which really should have happened straight after 'No Mas' rather than all those years later in 1989. I think Ray's excuse of not having a third bout in 1981 "because the media would kill it" was a little odd. Mind you, by September 1981 he was squaring off against Tommy, so it's not as if he thought he was entitled to a walk on easy street after beating Roberto.

I certainly don't think he should get a hard time for not going after Hagler until 1987, personally. I don't think too many Welterweights across history, if transplanted in to Leonard's era, would have considered it a sensible option. People tend to forget that Leonard hadn't really looked all that good against Kalule before forcing the stoppage in his 154 lb pit stop. In 1982, when he quit for the first time, he was still making Welterweight very, very comfortably. Hagler certainly wasn't an unknown at that time, far from it, but at that stage of Leonard's career the likes of Benitez, Duran and Hearns had all been bigger names than Marvin, who took until the 1983 / 1984 mark to really hit 'star' status.

Yes, he waited until Marvin was a step slower, but I maintain that in 1987, Hagler was in a much better position to contest a Middleweight title fight than Leonard was. Acting as if a peak Leonard picked on an over-the-thill Hagler is way off the mark. Great achievement by Leonard and, in my eyes, one which isn't really diminished by it coming a few years later than it might have done.

As for the Hearns rematch issue, it's worth noting that Steward made the decision to move Tommy up to 154 lb almost immediately after the first fight with Ray. Given that Leonard had just unified the 147 lb belts by beating Hearns, why would (or should) he feel obliged to instantly step up to another division for the rematch? People sometimes talk as if Hearns was banging on Leonard's door every day for a return, but that wasn't really the case. As soon as he moved up to Light-Middleweight, the instant rematch became anything but the automatic choice for either man.

And after that, Leonard spent much of the next half-decade out of the ring. No ducking there; it was a legitimate retina injury which required extensive surgery. Can't blame Leonard there, can we? Of course, a Hearns rematch would have been better a few years before 1989, but the idea that Leonad flat out refused to take one or did all he could to put it off for as long as possible does him a disservice, I think.

They didn't have to rematch at 147 did they???

Obviously at 6' 2 he was dragging....

Remember Honey calling out the 154 pound Curry before Mccallum..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:They didn't have to rematch at 147 did they???

No, of course they didn't. But how often does a fight of that magnitute happen without a world title being on the line? How many undisputed world champions, having just beaten a certain fighter to attain that status, would then chase that same fighter up to another division for a rematch straight away?

People act as if Hearns and Steward were pulling out every stop to make a rematch with Leonard in 1981 / 1982, when the truth is that they actually turned their focus away from him, if anything.

Maybe you should ask why they took it away from him...

Perhaps Leonard saying he had nothing left to prove against Tommy may have been one of the reasons...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mate If you can't debate properly don't debate at all.

Leonard is 4 in my alltime list higher than most...

But he did like the cards stacked in his favor...

Easier to return with Duran when in against a guy who couldn't devastate him..

end of!!

Leonard-Hearns - pickem for me.........Leonard-Hagler 2...Hagler for me!!

We all know Leonard fought the wrong fight against Duran and so did he!!!!!!

Fact is he couldn't outbox Hearns end of..and me thinks he knew it..

gotta luv your chutzpah trussy, only you could deadpan a comment about debating properly whilst telling people to 'jog on' and ending your opinions with 'end of'... you big cuddly chunk of shoofly pie you.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I tend to think that Leonard had less confidence in his ability than people think, wouldn't rematch Duran or Hearns and waited years to face Hagler.

of course not ghosty, the lalonde fight was a disgrace and i have no love of the way he milked the public with his veterans tour later in his career, nor the way he used his marketability to get things his own way in negotiations earlier...though i suspect most would do the same in his shoes.

my beef is when the criticism of him isnt balanced... and it seems that its generally disgruntled hagler fans who chuck the dirt, your comments on this thread don't appear to give him a fair crack of the whip imo. I also recognise that we are judging guys at the highest levels by the highest standards, so he's fair game like anyone else, just as its fair for me to defend him.

I

Is that irony..... Milky???

I'm American I don't get...Irony!!!

Chutzpah...can't argue with a guy who chucks in words like that!!

I would remind people I have him no 4 on my alltime list...

Not sure he had too much of a confidence problem but liked to have the cards stacked in his favor to seal the deal!!!

Think Hagler lost to Leonard rather than Leonard beating him...If that makes sense!!!!

just a gentle tease truss after your pop at me... you seem a little feisty today... agree with much of what you say on this thread - and you have leonard higher on your all time list than i do

My main problem is Leonard getting too much credit based entirely on his inactivity.

1. It wasn't a great performance
2. The negotiations were all one way (ring size and 12 rounds both suited him)
3. Years after the fight could and should have happened
4. Hagler had looked poor and appeared to have lost a step in his last fight with Mugabi

agree with much of what you say...............

I take that as read!!!!!!

Disagree it was a great performance Ghosty!!

You make Hagler out to be a victim in waiting...Sure Leonard had the cards in his favor but he still had to do a job most people didn't have the skill or the bottle for!!

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

DaveVDK wrote:Dont see how anyone can argue that Hagler was on the slide considering he knocked out John Mugabi, undefeated and ranked at number 1 by all governing bodies previously.

It was the manner of victory which was a slight worry, Mugabi was a decent fighter but not the kind of boxer you would have expected the Hagler of old to have trouble with, he looked slower and more labored. I do believe it was the performance in that fight which resulted in the Leonard fight being made, if he looked at his devastating best then Leonard steers well clear.

Leonard said exactly this on Ringside last night.