Does Leonard's Honesty Hurt His Fanbase?

Firstly i've often stated I don't like Leonard's personality outside the ring.

I find him a bit slimy and the way he describes using what I would call 'unsporting tactics' to win i.e. winding up Duran and 'stealing' rounds against Hagler etc just winds me up.

Something i've thought about for a while is that Leonard is just extremely honest and says things many others do or think it's just that he's not afraid to admit it.

An example is Leonard saying he agreed to fight Hagler after he saw him look less than perfect against Mugabi. Many boxers do this i.e. only fight a fighter after they look beyond their prime but it is seldom they actually admit it.

I've softened to Leonard recently with the view that his honesty should be praised rather than used as a source to criticise and that many of the greatest boxers have probably done some things not perfect but because they won't admit it they are treated a little different.

Your thoughts?

I like Leonard and i admire his honesty. He does'nt always put himself in the best of lights, like many others, and is willing to put himself down.

Genuine person

His honesty should be praised, can't imagine Calzaghe coming out and saying I only fought RJJ because I knew he was shot.

I think it does, but probably unfairly so. There are certain aspects about him that I can understand why they arent popular, but others I dont really agree with at all.

Duran gets a huge amount of credit for drawing Leonard into a brawl, getting inside his head and ultimately beating Leonard in the first fight. But when Leonard turns the tables its almost used as underhand tactics and he gets comparitively little credit in return. Duran insulted Leonard and his family so I think Leonard was entitled to play his own mind games in the second bout which were just as effective. Not sure why Duran should be given a pass for saying derogatory things about Leonards wife and kids but Leonard is seen as slimy for basically taking the mick out of Duran. And I say that as a huge Duran fan. Ive no complaints over his tactics against Hagler either. I think its fair to say Hagler was on the slide by then but Leonards own condition after bad injuries and years on booze and drugs meant he couldnt be classified as in ideal condition either.

I admire Leonard's honesty, and gamesmanship is and alway's will be part of boxing as well as a lot of other sports.

I was alway's a huge Leonard fan,but didn't actually know he had a drink problem,alway's came over as a bit cool and unflustered,but hey behind the painted smile just shows.

I thought he was fantastic on Ringside last night. He seemed slightly nervous at first but really got into it as it progressed.

I admire his honesty and I like the fact that he's honest about his successes and the potentially controversial way they happened, but he's also honest about his failings too, or he's honest about difficult situations he faced in and outside the ring.

I think that honesty makes him such an endearing character and when he talks I feel you're getting the real SRL and he's not protecting an image or false posturing.

I do think it does to a degree, it does seem on occasion he is downgraded for being smart, which should not be a crime. Have seen him criticised for asking for an immediate rematch with Duran because he knew he was partying hard, what was he meant to do say to him take a warm up or a few extra month preparation so you can give me hell again?

Similarly he gets grief for getting the Hagler fight over 12, again just smart to me, he is not the first of the last guy who puts the money on the table to drive a hard bargain and does not deserve slaughtering for it, nor should he be marked down for being willing to admit to it, every fighter in a similar position would do likewise so lets not kid ourselves otherwise.

Thought he come across well on ringside as well, like the fact he comes across as a nice guy but does not do the whole false modesty thing which is plain annoying, loved it when he said flat out he would beat Mosley, not only is it refreshing it is also 100% true.

A different perspective, I've stated before. It's my belief that Leonard has a kind of intellectual inferiority complex. He'd rather be seen as clever than as tough or a great fighter. I think he is telling the truth about the edges he gained on Duran and hagler but over plays his hand with them. IMO he won his fights because he was supremly talented and had bags of heart. Most boxers, want us to believe they're great fighters but he wants us to believe he was smart.

Take the hagler fight, wow, he thought Marv might be slightly past his best, wow he negotiated favourable terms, wow, he tried to get inside marvs head, wow, he tried to catch the judges eye at the end of each round. Not rocket science, and its not like he invented these strategies.

Honest, perhaps but overplaying his hand IMO. And people use his comments against him, so yes it does effect how his legacy is perceived by some

I do wonder if Leonard had been a little more "street" - whether he might have been a bit more popular.

Leonard was for real - he had a chin, a punch, blinding speed and fantastic skill.

Sometimes it seems that people forget this - or choose to ignore and forget this - and his honest and forthright attitude probably influences this.

I think I've probably said this on another thread before,Leonard for me is the best boxer in the last 40years.

He may feel he was clever in gaining an advantage over his opponents,but like oxring says he was for real,he basically had everything and was simply a great fighter in what was a tough era.

Leonard had everything you could look for in a fighter and then some. Lightening quick, great skills, hard as nails and generally fought the best. Only one loss in his prime which was to a fellow ATG. Only criticism was he didn't have enough fights. Just as much talent as PBF but way more entertaining whats not to like?

paperbag_puncher wrote:Leonard had everything you could look for in a fighter and then some. Lightening quick, great skills, hard as nails and generally fought the best. Only one loss in his prime which was to a fellow ATG. Only criticism was he didn't have enough fights. Just as much talent as PBF but way more entertaining whats not to like?

100% agree say's it all.

Whats wrong with saying he wound up Duran and stloe rounds against Hagler?

They are tactics to win the fight. As long as he is not cheating then this shows he could use his wit and skill to frustrate opponents.

There are a sea of boxers past and present who use similar or worse tactics than Leonard but deny it and try passing themselves off as the kings of their divisions. That is what makes Leonard a rare gem in the sport, a phenomenal fighter with with humility and a great personality. If others were to follow his example we'd at least be that step closer to making boxing an honest sport again.

i have to admit though as much as I like Leonard his treatment of Dundee in particular in the Hagler fight was pretty low imo.
`

my oh my, its a sugar love in... where's atila when you need him to spice things up

Never liked him..... joking, the hearns fight alone way enough to elect him into boxing history. I'd have a slightly different angle on SRL. I think thats he's insecure, he had planned to become a lawyer after the olympics, but we all know how his hand was forced into a boxing lifestyle.

I think he's continued to use the media to show how much smarter than his opponent he is, i.e. disassociating himself from the other boxers. That's my freud bit on him.

I'd prefer him to have kept his mouth shut, there would be less scandle with Hagler, The Duran fight would be seen as him setting the record straight, and with the Benitiz and Hearns fights (untarnished) he'd be rated even higher than he is.

Good question, Valero's Conscience. Can a person be too honest? I suppose so, but perhaps Leonard felt the need to offload a few things. Maybe I need to read his book to answer your question properly, but from what I’ve read and heard so far, I would say no.

Think milkyboy has is spot on, and hes been saying it for a while. Leonard has a desperate need for everyone else to think he is as clever as he thinks he is. While it might taint it a little, I don't think it hurts it even though Hagler won (thieving Bar Steward Leonard) people realize that he was, after Ray Robinson the most complete boxer ever seen.

My main issue with Leonard is his negotiating with Duran, Hagler and LaLonde.

Duran- Only wanted to fight him again the cards were stacked fully in his favour, nothing wrong with demanding the immediate rematch but at least give him a third fight when it's still unclear who the better man was. People bang on about him dominating in the rematch but he simply wasn't, it looked set to go the full 15 rounds with both men capable of winning, he was at most 2 rounds ahead when Duran imploded.

Hagler- Should have fought him sooner but had no intention of taking him when he looked at his demonstrative best.

Lalonde- Joke of a fight, getting a light heavyweight to put his title on the line at a newly created 168lb division made the fight a mere fairground attraction, he is to me a three weight champion not five weight.


On the flipside of course is his extraordinary talent which exaggerates the above, were he not so good I don't think we'd even mention any of the above, a great fighter who in all honesty didn't need all the silly stipulations.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:My main issue with Leonard is his negotiating with Duran, Hagler and LaLonde.

You want the moon on a stick, you.

Duran was as much Eleta's fault as Leonard. No-one should fault Leonard for making that fight the way he did. Eleta, meanwhile, should have been strung up and beaten around the feet with sticks for such incompetence and downright stupidity. Eleta KNEW Duran wouldn't be ready - and if we're honest, he didn't care. There had been bad blood between Eleta and Duran for a while, this ensured Eleta one last payday of his old charge and allowed him to put a finger up to Duran's legacy as well. No other manager in history would have made that fight - they'd have found Duran a different WW, a tune up, or they'd have begged him to retire - anything but making the rematch straight away.

As for Leonard not granting an immediate 3rd fight - well - Duran wasn't exactly hot property after "no mas". He was arrested on his return to Panama, locals were throwing stones at his house, Eleta had deserted him and general opinion was that he "owed" the sport of boxing - to prove that he wasn't just a quitter. Duran then turned in a string of hopeless performances, looking fat, slow and finished - neither Gonzalez nor Minchillo were impressive performances - the loss to Benitez, whilst by no means as wide as people often make out (the way some talk, you'd think it was a shutout) - but it was a clear and comprehensive 3-5 round win - another fight where Duran looked simply lethargic and was frequently beaten to the punch. Then we had the glory of Kirkland Laing. King dropped him after that as well - and it was only a rather unimpressed Bob Arum who picked him up on the off chance he might make him some money. As it happened, after Cuevas and then Moore - Arum made an inspired decision.

I postulate that at no point during this period - from No mas to Duran joining Arum's stable - did Duran look like he deserved a rematch. He was to be boxing's prodigal son - but he was still out in the cold.

As for Hagler - in fairness to Sugar he was coming back out of retirement - and of course he was only doing it because Hagler looked a bit faded against Mugabi. However - I have little sympathy for Hagler. He spent most of the 80s calling out those below him - Hearns, Duran, SRL. He rehydrated from 160 to about 175 pounds on fight night - he was a MASSIVE MW. Meanwhile, sitting at LHW and calling him out was one Michael Spinks. Funnily enough, Marvin never mentioned Spinks.

Did Sugar hold a gun to Marvin's head? Nope. Did Sugar bend his arm behind his back? Threaten his children? Hagler was too eager to make the fight and neglected to use his common sense. He gambled that he could still beat Sugar against the odds. He was wrong. Harsh to beat on Sugar for that. Would be like beating on Roy Jones for making Toney fight - even though everyone knew that Toney had entered his training camp with about 40 pounds to lose.

As for LaLonde - yes, no-one likes catchweights much - so the easiest thing to do would be to ignore Leonard's LHW claim - as most do.

To put things another way - if Sugar Ray Robinson can get by having avoided Charley Burley - then Sugar Ray Leonard can get by having forced LaLonde to fight at a catchweight.

Thats fair enough ghosty, bit like a rich man mugging someone, and you've put it well. He didn't need those stips, just like I Imagine pac doesn't need these stips but he will forever have an asterix next to it. Leonard I don't think has that asterix, altghough we do debate it when trying to force our point across. THink the bigger the fighter the more nitpickling is done. Sorry, ive got some crumvbs in my keyboard, its gone all wonky.

When we talk about Leonard and Robinson in order to criticise them you have to beat them with a stick that you wouldn't anyone else.

Robinson not facing Burley isn't really a big deal as his opposition was so great we need to use one man in order to level any criticism his way. Bit like Leonard not facing Pryor, when you've faced and beaten Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler having Pryor on your record isn't going to make a huge amount of difference, great as he was.

In some ways - Pacman and Pacfans (also known as Pactards) hurt Leonard's career more.

People who don't know squat about boxing - and sadly, a few of them frequent/have frequented these boards believe that catchweights are ALL bad and ALWAYS create an asterix - which, to put things simply, isn't true. Sadly - when you point out that there have been catchweights throughout history - they respond by insisting those older fights were value-less - which isn't always true.

As such - Leonard's "toughness" at the negotiating table hurts him more with new fans of the sport today than it should, really. He has acted no differently from every other fighter in the history of the sport - and he's done it with a refreshing honesty.

Some times a catchweight is acceptable and other times it isn't.

Williams against Martinez- No problem as it didn't really benefit either
Pacquiao against Cotto- No need especially with a title on the line
Pacquiao against Margarito- No issue with the weight but the title being on the line was a joke
Leonard against Lalonde- Joke
Mayweather against Marquez- In theory was the right had Mayweather kept to the contracted weight.

jimdig wrote:Never liked him..... joking, the hearns fight alone way enough to elect him into boxing history. I'd have a slightly different angle on SRL. I think thats he's insecure, he had planned to become a lawyer after the olympics, but we all know how his hand was forced into a boxing lifestyle.

I think he's continued to use the media to show how much smarter than his opponent he is, i.e. disassociating himself from the other boxers. That's my freud bit on him.

I'd prefer him to have kept his mouth shut, there would be less scandle with Hagler, The Duran fight would be seen as him setting the record straight, and with the Benitiz and Hearns fights (untarnished) he'd be rated even higher than he is.

I dont buy that for a second. His first purse was $60k. Managers etc were all there in Montreal signing up all olympic fighters before their first fight. As soon as he went to the games, any career outside of boxing was discarded.

Wrong again Az, he had to be persuaded to go profressional as he fully intended to quit boxing straight after the olympics.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Wrong again Az, he had to be persuaded to go profressional as he fully intended to quit boxing straight after the olympics.

I've read that so many times. It doesn't square up with what John Tate said that there were agents, managers and promoters sniffing around with Howard Davis and Leonard being the ones who most were after.

SRL was no fool. He probably held out for the best offer and pushed the lawyer story. I dont think his education grades would have got him into law school.

Very true i'd rather believe you Az than Leonard himself.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Very true i'd rather believe you Az than Leonard himself.

I just believe its leonard trying to be humble. Just like Ali claiming he threw his medal in the ohio river. Many still believe that. It adds to their characters.

First it was SRL deciding to turn pro because his father needed medical bills. Whilst true, he would have turned pro anyway. The money he was guaranteed was ridiculous.

ShahenshahG wrote:Think milkyboy has is spot on, and hes been saying it for a while. Leonard has a desperate need for everyone else to think he is as clever as he thinks he is. While it might taint it a little, I don't think it hurts it even though Hagler won (thieving Bar Steward Leonard) people realize that he was, after Ray Robinson the most complete boxer ever seen.

you suggesting i'm a tad repetitive shah? Harsh but fair, on this topic certainly .

Good post Oxring, i've argued the toss over hagler spinks countless times and listened to the 'marv was a natural middle why should he move up' arguement. Reality is there was a paucity of talent at middle, which led to the likes of mustapha hamsho getting two shots at the title, and marv getting his big fights against the smaller guys moving up (if you can call hearns 'smaller'. I don't have a beef with hagler not moving up, though it would have been a great fight, but his fans can be a bit selective in their criticism imo... and i should know, i've rattled the cages of a few of them down the years.

To be fair, ghosty has been balanced on his comments on leonard in this thread

Knowing Leonards character it does lead me to believe him especially as he still maintains that story now.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Knowing Leonards character it does lead me to believe him especially as he still maintains that story now.

You know his character?

milkyboy wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Think milkyboy has is spot on, and hes been saying it for a while. Leonard has a desperate need for everyone else to think he is as clever as he thinks he is. While it might taint it a little, I don't think it hurts it even though Hagler won (thieving Bar Steward Leonard) people realize that he was, after Ray Robinson the most complete boxer ever seen.

you suggesting i'm a tad repetitive shah? Harsh but fair, on this topic certainly .

Good post Oxring, i've argued the toss over hagler spinks countless times and listened to the 'marv was a natural middle why should he move up' arguement. Reality is there was a paucity of talent at middle, which led to the likes of mustapha hamsho getting two shots at the title, and marv getting his big fights against the smaller guys moving up (if you can call hearns 'smaller'. I don't have a beef with hagler not moving up, though it would have been a great fight, but his fans can be a bit selective in their criticism imo... and i should know, i've rattled the cages of a few of them down the years.

To be fair, ghosty has been balanced on his comments on leonard in this thread

I would have liked to have seen a Hagler v Spinks fight, and with the benefit of hindsight, I would have picked Spinks. The problem is though, that were wasn't a big call for this fight. It's a fight that Hagler's detractors like to use to beat him up with, just like people who say Hagler 'avoided' Mike McCallum even though there wasn't a big call for that fight at the time. I remember Spinks calling for Hagler to fight him but like I said, there wasn't that much interest from what I remember.

There was certainly more interest in Hagler fighting Hearns or Leonard.

Atila has beaten me to it; the only person really calling for a Michael Spinks-Marvin Hagler bout was Michael Spinks himself. A guy like Hagler - who made Middleweight with ease - not considering taking on a fella who was big enough to find genuine success up at Heavyweight should not be held against him at all. It's interesting that a Carlos Monzon-Victor Galindez bout, on the other hand, actually was mooted, particularly in Latin America. I don't particularly think that Monzon has anyone to answer to for not taking that option, either, but if we're going to point the finger at Marvin then we're going to have to do it for a hell of a lot of other past Middleweight greats, too.

Monzon and Galindez was very much a nationality thing though wasn't it Chris, two great argentine champions a mere division apart. Do find it interesting that there seems to be far more Welterweights moving up to Middleweight like Griffiths, Hearns and Napoles than Middleweights moving up to light heavyweight, even though the jump isn't any different.

Well Ghosty, naturally the fact that the two of them were both Argentines did add fuel to the fire, but I still think that if anyone's going to drag Hagler through the mud for not dipping his toes at 175 lb, then a similarly harsh eye needs to be cast over a few other great Middleweights - particularly as Monzon-Galindez was a much more realistic proposition whichever way you look at it.

It's true that the weight gap from Welterweight to Middleweight is almost on an equal footing to the gap between Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight, but I think it's worth remembering that, up until Cruiserweight was introduced, the 175 lb weight class was often seen as a stepping stone to Heavyweight. Almost all of the best pre-WWII champions of the division ended up going after the Heavyweight crown (O'Brien, Carpentier, Loughran, Lewis, Conn etc), often giving up their Light-Heavyweight title to do so. Truth be told, the Light-Heavyweight division, unfairly, was never really seen as glamorous, or at least not as much as the divisions either side of it. Many of the top names within it up until the seventies were very big guys just squeezing themself down to 175 lb while they could before going after the 'real' prize of the Heavyweight title.

I said on another thread about Robinson and Leonard, that when assessing great fighters you have to really look for things to be critical of which leads to slightly unfair criticism of both Hagler and Monzon. If anything it's more applicable to Monzon as I feel he was a better middleweight more capable of the step up although early on in his reign there was the small matter of Bob Foster, only after he moved on did it become more realistic.

That is a very fair point even the greatest of champions in Moore was more interested in heavyweight than he was light heavyweight truth be told, Charles used it as a stepping stone as did Tunney. Seemed to become a major landmark to become the first light heavyweight champion to step up and become heavyweight champion, after Spinks achieved it, men stepping up seemed to stop.

As you suggest, Ghosty, I think Monzon would have been very, very well advised to have given a step up to Light-Heavyweight a miss while Foster was still around! It seems almost unfathomable, the thought of Monzon, so dominant and iron-chinned, being knocked out early, but I think that's exactly what may have happened had he gone after Foster in the early seventies. At 175 lb, Foster just seemed so perfect. He looked invincible at the weight, indomitable, omnipotent. I don't think there's a Middleweight in history who'd have stood a chance trying to usurp Foster at his peak, to be honest.

As I'll tell anyone who's daft enough to listen, I love Galindez to death - but I think his style is almost tailor-made for Monzon. Although he's my favourite Light-Heavyweight ever, Galindez was overly reliant on the other man coming after him so that he could utilise his ferocious counter-punching. Monzon didn't mind letting the other man dictate the pace, and if Galindez goes looking for him I think he eats Monzon's jab all night. Monzon was a brute at 160 lb so I imagine he'd still carry his strength up to Light-Heavyweight pretty well, certainly well enough to beat an all-time very good, rather than great, like Galindez.

no doubt spinks was the one shouting for the fight, but it would have been pretty easy to market.. two undisputed champions, one golden boy olympian, one tough guy from the streets. Hagler leonard in reverse. I'm sure spinks would have let hagler choose the rounds, the ring size, the gloves and offered to fight southpaw to get the fight

Spinks was the man at light heavy after the qawi fight in 83 and undisputed by 84, there was about a 2 year time slot when this was viable. In the meantime, hagler amongst his more challenging opponents, also fought roldan and hamsho, a guy he'd already battered to a pulp, so he could keep the wbc happy.

I reiterate, spinks was a big light heavy and i don't blame hagler for not being interested. Its just interesting how he is often positioned as the tough 'fight anyone guy' while leonard is perceived as the sly 'loaded dice' guy. Look at their records and see who took the most career risks.

I've always thought hagler, monzon was a pickem, though it seems fashionable now to think monzon. Outside Ali, Carlos was my favourite fighter of the 70's, but he made hard work of some fights. He certaibly had the frame to carry light heavy if he wished, so any criticism of hagler would have to at least equally apply to monzon. I agree he would probably take galindez, and foster would be a case of when the fight happened, as it was only practically viable in the early/mid 70's you could argue that foster was maybe on the slide and ripe for the picking then. prime for prime, its a different argument.

Again, a Hagler Spinks fight would have been interesting but there wasn't really any noise for it to happen. Only Spinks was calling for it and a future internet poster called Milkyboy.

There was certainly more call for a Leonard v Pryor fight and a Hagler v Leonard 2 fight and those fights didn't happen either.

Damn that Marvin Hagler. Always running from a challenge.

I say it all the time but I don't see how Hagler goes about beating Monzon, he either gets outboxed or outbrawled over the full 15 rounds. When we talk about dominant champions he is for me number one, 13 of his 14 titles defences were against men ranked in the top 5 at the time with the exception being Jose Napoles who was a world class and all time great Welterweight, not many if any champions can claim such dominance of their weight.

Atila wrote:Damn that Marvin Hagler. Always running from a challenge.

Don't think milkyboy OR I are criticising Hagler and beating him with a "he ducked Spinks" stick - as Milkyboy has already said - we were responding to the suggestion that Hagler was this warrior who took on any and everyone with no added advantages whilst Leonard was a wicked shyster who had to scrap and scrape for every advantage he could eke out of a situation.

As Milkyboy said - Leonard actually took an awful lot of risks with his career - the Spinks-Hagler thing was to point out that no-one is immune from a rather silly brand of criticism.

Incidentally - my old supervisor in the lab for my undergrad project who grew up through the 70s and 80s as a major boxing fan - he wanted Spinks-Hagler too. So it wasn't just Michael Spinks, Michael Spinks' mother and Milkyboy calling for the fight.

I'd have called for it, but I wasn't born.

Seems weird to suggest the middleweight champion face the light heavyweight champion, there is now of course the stepping stone of the completely pointless super middleweight division but would there be calls for Martinez to face Hopkins?

We may suggest Martinez face Mayweather but not for him to face Hopkins, strange scenario. The natural weight difference between Hopkins and Martinez is probably smaller than it is between Martinez and Mayweather.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Seems weird to suggest the middleweight champion face the light heavyweight champion, there is now of course the stepping stone of the completely pointless super middleweight division but would there be calls for Martinez to face Hopkins?

We may suggest Martinez face Mayweather but not for him to face Hopkins, strange scenario. The natural weight difference between Hopkins and Martinez is probably smaller than it is between Martinez and Mayweather.

Martinez is a small MW to be fair - but I can think of a recent MW champ who stepped up to fight the LHW champ - albeit at a catchweight of 170 in Pavlik...

oxring wrote:

Atila wrote:Damn that Marvin Hagler. Always running from a challenge.

Don't think milkyboy OR I are criticising Hagler and beating him with a "he ducked Spinks" stick - as Milkyboy has already said - we were responding to the suggestion that Hagler was this warrior who took on any and everyone with no added advantages whilst Leonard was a wicked shyster who had to scrap and scrape for every advantage he could eke out of a situation.

As Milkyboy said - Leonard actually took an awful lot of risks with his career - the Spinks-Hagler thing was to point out that no-one is immune from a rather silly brand of criticism.

Incidentally - my old supervisor in the lab for my undergrad project who grew up through the 70s and 80s as a major boxing fan - he wanted Spinks-Hagler too. So it wasn't just Michael Spinks, Michael Spinks' mother and Milkyboy calling for the fight.

I'd have called for it, but I wasn't born.

That quote of mine that you used was obviously tongue in cheek as was the comment about Spinks and Milkyboy being the only ones who wanted a Hagler v Spinks fight. However, I stand by my comments that there wasn't a big call for that fight, which is probably why it never happened.

Earlier in this thread you described Hagler as a MASSIVE middleweight. There was a couple of defenses that he made were he weighed in on the day of the fight at 157lbs. He wasn't a massive middleweight at all. If he was fighting today and had the extra 24 hours to rehydrate I bet he could easily make 154lbs.

Hagler was a massive middleweight, rehydrating to 175lbs even today would make him a massive middleweight, he was a finely tuned athlete who I don't think would drop any extra weight particularly easily.

Oxy

My point was that Hopkins is a small 175lber, Martinez is a small 160lber and Mayweather is a very small 147lber but only one of two potential match ups ever gets mentioned. Pavlik and Hopkins I imagine will have weighed fairly similarly in the ring.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hagler was a massive middleweight, rehydrating to 175lbs even today would make him a massive middleweight, he was a finely tuned athlete who I don't think would drop any extra weight particularly easily.

Where did you hear that Hagler rehydrated to 175lbs? I've never heard that one before this thread.

Atila wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hagler was a massive middleweight, rehydrating to 175lbs even today would make him a massive middleweight, he was a finely tuned athlete who I don't think would drop any extra weight particularly easily.

Where did you hear that Hagler rehydrated to 175lbs? I've never heard that one before this thread.

I'll have a look which source I read that in. Heard it a while ago (whilst the old beeb was still running - so may take a while)

Think I saw it in an article in the ring magazine, detailing fights of the 1980's that never happened.