Does Leonard always beat Hagler at 160 ? I think he does..

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 4:04 pm

One of Boxing's biggest disgraces is that Leonard doesn't get enough credit for beating Marvin........Truly awesome performance against the current p4p number 1..........Hagler was a quality operator and very intimidating to anybody let alone a guy with three years ring rust.....

I had it to Leonard by three rounds......

Thing is that a lot of people say well Hagler was past it!!.........Well Leonard was no spring chicken and was coming off a shocking performance against Howard and a three year layoff as alluded to earlier.......

Thing is Hagler's reign was full of fights he made more difficult..........Hamsho 1 , Vito, roldan and Duran in 83........The same year Leonard was scheduled.......

Hagler was arrogant too.......Like in 87 I believe he wanted to show how good a boxer he was to Leonard........I mean arrogance led to him fighting orthodox early and chucking rounds away...........I beleive he always wanted leonard's respect and would try to show him...It was in Marvin's psyche.........Marvin always thought he didn't get enough respect !!

For sure in 83 Hagler would be more in his prime.........But so would Leonard...........Not sure also a Hagler-Hearns attack would work either.......Leonad would be to clever to join in unlike the macho Tommy...........

I think Leonard always beats Marvin.......

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 4:09 pm

I'm not sure he even beat him the first time. Would Leonard have won over 15 rounds? You'd have to figure not.

by **Seanusarrilius** Wed 09 Oct 2013, 4:19 pm

I think the fight is always the same, but the scoring could vary dramatically. Bit of a cop out, but I think it depends on who scores.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 4:32 pm

Duran did say in 83 to Leonard "You fight him..You'll f**K him"

Love him or hate him Roberto fought both of them.......

Although his is only one opinion and his word certainly shouldn't be taken as law..

Unlike other more knowledgeable historians..

by Atila Wed 09 Oct 2013, 5:23 pm

Duran also said that Hearns was a chicken and called Leonard's wife a hoare. Duran was clearly a man of deep thoughts and wisdom.

I always thought that Leonard got too much credit for his win over Hagler at the time. Now it's settled down a bit and Leonard can't seem to keep his mouth shut and admits himself that he knew Hagler was done and that's why he came back to fight him.

If they had met in their primes then I'd still favour Hagler. I actually thought he was further past his best than Leonard was when they fought and I still thought Hagler won.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 5:25 pm

Hagler was world number 1......Aged 32....Hugely intimidating and Leonard had fought once in five years.......

Can't give Leonard mpre credit If I tried..

but your opinion is welcome Mate.........

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 5:52 pm

Atila wrote:Duran also said that Hearns was a chicken and called Leonard's wife a hoare. Duran was clearly a man of deep thoughts and wisdom.

I always thought that Leonard got too much credit for his win over Hagler at the time. Now it's settled down a bit and Leonard can't seem to keep his mouth shut and admits himself that he knew Hagler was done and that's why he came back to fight him.

If they had met in their primes then I'd still favour Hagler. I actually thought he was further past his best than Leonard was when they fought and I still thought Hagler won.

Here, here.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 09 Oct 2013, 5:53 pm

So you are saying Duran's opinion means nothing.........

Bob Mee who has never fought at this level means everything ..........

Okay Mate......

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 6:03 pm

That is a f'ing startling piece of evidence.

Blew the whole case wide open....

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 09 Oct 2013, 6:03 pm

These boxers no nothing Truss, not like Moore faced countless legends of the sport and had a huge hand in training two of the greatest heavyweights. But hey he's not a historian so his opinion doesn't matter.

For me it boils down to how clever Hagler decides to try and be, if he fights more naturally he beats Leonard no matter what year it is but if he tries to be smart he puts his fate in the hands of the judges. I think it is an inherent fault in his make up that he wanted everyone to think he was brilliant in each and every way as a puncher and as a thinker but if the fight happens before Hearns he may well just throw caution to the wind and win easily. Early in his reign I think he's more likely to charge Leonard knowing he doesn't have to worry about what's coming back in return and makes life absolute hell for Ray.

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 6:07 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:These boxers no nothing Truss, not like Moore faced countless legends of the sport and had a huge hand in training two of the greatest heavyweights. But hey he's not a historian so his opinion doesn't matter.

For me it boils down to how clever Hagler decides to try and be, if he fights more naturally he beats Leonard no matter what year it is but if he tries to be smart he puts his fate in the hands of the judges. I think it is an inherent fault in his make up that he wanted everyone to think he was brilliant in each and every way as a puncher and as a thinker but if the fight happens before Hearns he may well just throw caution to the wind and win easily. Early in his reign I think he's more likely to charge Leonard knowing he doesn't have to worry about what's coming back in return and makes life absolute hell for Ray.

Are you two related? The synergy is....like....amazing.

by Guest Wed 09 Oct 2013, 6:11 pm

Hagler was arrogant too.......Like in 87 I believe he wanted to show how good a boxer he was to Leonard........I mean arrogance led to him fighting orthodox early and chucking rounds away...........I beleive he always wanted leonard's respect and would try to show him...It was in Marvin's psyche.........Marvin always thought he didn't get enough respect !!

..but for Leonard to win every time you would have to presume that Marv enters the ring with that mindset every single time he faces Leonard and I just don't see that happening. Hagler changes his mindset, he changes his tactics and it alters the complexion of the fight. If that happens then with a more aggressive Hagler you have to believe he puts more rounds in the bag and, for Ray to claw them back he has to fight in the pocket and that puts him in a precarious postition.

Just don't see Ray winning 100% of the match-ups

by hazharrison Wed 09 Oct 2013, 6:20 pm

Leonard pulled off an amazing feat, however, Hagler made a number of concessions to get Leonard in the ring.

Hugh McIlvanney described the fight thusly:

It is not only in Las Vegas that professional boxing's system of scoring shows all the intellectual consistency of a rolling pair of dice.

Don't blame the desert air for the rush of blood to the brain that caused Jose Juan (Jo Jo) Guerra, a WBC judge, to make Sugar Ray Leonard a winner by 10 rounds to 2 over Marvin Hagler while another official, Lou Filippo, was giving the April 6 fight at Caesars Palace to Hagler 7 rounds to 5. If the record of judges sanctioned by its State Athletic Commission is anything to go by, Nevada is a congenial environment for officials with the glorious eccentricity of mind brought to his work by Guerra. But bad decisions know no boundaries.

The simple truth is that at this stage of its long and erratic history, prizefighting is still nowhere near establishing any consistently accurate means of measuring performance. If the comparative effectiveness of two fighters is so difficult to calibrate (or so open to extravagantly subjective interpretations) that Guerra and Filippo can contradict each other as outrageously as they did, then even when everybody stays honest, boxing clearly carries a far higher risk of recurring injustice than any other sport.

When judges talk about focusing on paramount criteria—on identifying effective aggressiveness, clean punching, ring generalship and quality defense—they are merely emphasizing the complexity, perhaps the impossibility, of the exercise. Much of the time all they can do is review a fighter's performance, much as a theater critic would an actor's, making the pseudoscientific adjustment of putting their impressions into figures.

No one has ever understood the boxing judge as reviewer of theater better than Sugar Ray Leonard. Even Muhammad Ali, who substituted histrionics for real fighting often enough in the latter part of his career, was usually more concerned with disconcerting his opponent and getting the crowd on his side. Leonard sought those dividends too against Hagler. But the overriding priority for him appeared to be the manipulation of official minds.

Naturally, to achieve that end, Ray had to bring a lot to the party. Physically and mentally, he was astonishingly strong, sharp and resilient after what had been, essentially, a five-year layoff.
Thus, looking and moving so much better than anyone had a right to expect, Leonard was in a position to exploit the Schulberg Factor. This phenomenon—a compound optical illusion—may not have been discovered by Budd Schulberg, the novelist and fight aficionado, but he receives credit here for pointing it out to a few of us who were asking ourselves how Hagler came to be so cruelly misjudged. Budd's reasoning was that people were so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was.

Similarly, having expected extreme destructiveness from Marvin, they saw anything less as failure and refused to give him credit for the quiet beating he administered.

What Ray Leonard pulled off in his split decision over Hagler was an epic illusion. He had said beforehand that the way to beat Hagler was to give him a distorted picture. But this shrewdest of fighters knew it was even more important to distort the picture for the judges. His plan was to "steal" rounds with a few flashy and carefully timed flurries and to make the rest of each three-minute session as unproductive as possible for Hagler by circling briskly away from the latter's persistent pursuit. When he made his sporadic attacking flourishes, he was happy to exaggerate hand speed at the expense of power, and neither he nor two of the scorers seemed bothered by the fact that many of the punches landed on the champion's gloves and arms. This was showboating raised to an art form, and the brilliance with which it was sustained was a tribute to Leonard's wonderful nerve, which is cut from the same flawless diamond as Ali's.

But, however much the slick ploys blurred the perceptions of those on the fevered sidelines, they never broke Hagler. He has a different kind of spirit, but it is no less resolute than Leonard's. The hounding intensity that kept him unbeaten through 11 years from 1976 will soon be a memory, but he had enough left to press on through his early frustrations, throw the superior volume of hurtful punches. I'm convinced Hagler won the fight; a draw, and the retention of the title, was the very least he deserved.

by **88Chris05** Wed 09 Oct 2013, 7:43 pm

Difficult to say with any real conviction really, Truss, as Leonard's glorious peak from 1979 until his first retirement was spent below 160. No definite way of telling how great a Middleweight he might have been had that pesky retina not caused him so much jip.

But I do think there's enough evidence to suggest that Ray has a very good chance of beating Marvin at Middleweight whenever they fought (and I think he just about beat him when they did fight, anyway, although I could just about live with a draw - don't think Marvin deserved any more than that, personally).

I think with Hagler, there's too much of a tendency to look for convenient reasons as to why he underperformed in certain fights, rather than being blunt and honest about it.

He contributed to his own downfall against Antuofermo first time out (still won by about four points on my card though, in fairness), said that he was compelled to effectively carry Duran to put on a good show when they fought as a way of explaining why he didn't win as impressively as most thought he would, and then when he loses to Leonard it's the ring size, the scheduled number of rounds (which is a load of cobblers, really, as both the Hearns and Mugabi fights had been scheduled for twelve as well), the judges, Leonard winding him up etc, rather than addressing the point that he just didn't show up until the half way stage.

Yes, if they'd boxed at their peaks then 160 definitely suits Hagler more than it does Leonard, but outside of being simply the bigger man with heavier hands, Marvin doesn't have that many edges here; Ray is faster, a better mover, has a better ring IQ, is harder to land on and is just as tough, gutsy and well-conditioned as Hagler, too.

I reckon Leonard would take decisions off Hagler in a long series, but would drop some, too. Not sure who'd win more than they lose, but again I'll stress, Leonard is the overall better fighter, Hagler merely the bigger one, and he wasn't exactly a big Middleweight. I think people writing Leonard off, peak for peak, purely on size are on the wrong kind of road.

By the way, as far as I'm concerned, you'd have to be crazy to say that Leonard's win over Hagler in '87 was anything other than a fantastic achievement. We always hear about how Hagler was no longer prime, how the deck was stacked against him etc. Come on, lads. Leonard was having his first fight as a 160 pounder and had spent the previous three years out of the ring, pouring a shed load of booze down his neck and not exactly treating his body like a temple. Hagler had probably slid past his best by then, no doubt, but the way I see it he was in a much better state and set of circumstances to be fighting a Middleweight title fight in 1987 than Leonard was.

by Atila Wed 09 Oct 2013, 8:26 pm

88Chris05 wrote:By the way, as far as I'm concerned, you'd have to be crazy to say that Leonard's win over Hagler in '87 was anything other than a fantastic achievement.

Hmmm. I'd have to agree that Leonard deserved the win for me to think that the win was a fantastic achievement wouldn't I? And from what I remember it wasn't a great fight either. I'm not crazy.

Where's Milkyboy?

by **88Chris05** Wed 09 Oct 2013, 8:31 pm

Always had you down as a big Leonard fan too, Atila......

Whistle

Allow me to rephrase, then. Do you not think it was a fantastic achievement by Leonard, returning from a three year lay off at a weight brand new to him to give one of the division's finest ever champions a mightily close fight in which most were anticipating he'd be on the end of an absolute hammering?

by Atila Wed 09 Oct 2013, 8:38 pm

88Chris05 wrote:Always had you down as a big Leonard fan too, Atila......

Allow me to rephrase, then. Do you not think it was a fantastic achievement by Leonard, returning from a three year lay off at a weight brand new to him to give one of the division's finest ever champions a mightily close fight in which most were anticipating he'd be on the end of an absolute hammering?

No.

by Nico the gman Wed 09 Oct 2013, 8:41 pm

It was a fantastic achievement by Leonard, at the time (watched it on live satellite tv ) thought Leonard had won, though many around me disagreed,watched it again and like you Chris if it had been called a draw I couldn't have complained.
Loved Hagler but Leonard was and is my favourite fighter of all time so probably just a little bit biased at the time.

by azania Wed 09 Oct 2013, 8:49 pm

Peak for peak at 160 Hagler wins.

by **88Chris05** Wed 09 Oct 2013, 9:06 pm

Atila wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:Always had you down as a big Leonard fan too, Atila......

Allow me to rephrase, then. Do you not think it was a fantastic achievement by Leonard, returning from a three year lay off at a weight brand new to him to give one of the division's finest ever champions a mightily close fight in which most were anticipating he'd be on the end of an absolute hammering?
No.

To say that you're a hard man to please would be a masterpiece of understatement, fella.

by Nico the gman Wed 09 Oct 2013, 9:09 pm

Peak for peak never right Leonard off,great foot movement,hand speed and great chin,Hagler was a great fighter,Leonard the best I've ever seen.

by Atila Wed 09 Oct 2013, 9:33 pm

88Chris05 wrote:
Atila wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:Always had you down as a big Leonard fan too, Atila......

Allow me to rephrase, then. Do you not think it was a fantastic achievement by Leonard, returning from a three year lay off at a weight brand new to him to give one of the division's finest ever champions a mightily close fight in which most were anticipating he'd be on the end of an absolute hammering?
No.

To say that you're a hard man to please would be a masterpiece of understatement, fella.

I'm not hard to please at.

I never thought that Leonard would get a hammering. He and Angelo Dundee would never have taken the fight if they had thought that Leonard couldn't compete. I thought Leonard would be competitive but I didn't think he won. As for the brand new weight thing. You'll have to go back and read some of Leonard's comments. He said that when he came back he was a middleweight, he certainly wasn't going to make 147lbs again.

As for the time out of the ring he answers that in his book, and he says that between Hagler's inactivity and his 35 months out of the ring meant that there would be little diffrerence between them in ring rust.

by hogey Wed 09 Oct 2013, 9:43 pm

If Marvin came out in a rematch and fought his natural fight i find it hard to see how Leonard beats him at Middleweight, Leonard fought a great fight first time round, but Hagler threw it away with his strange tactics in the first few rounds. I find it strange that sometimes i watch it and think Leonard won and other times i think Hagler should have got the nod.

by **88Chris05** Wed 09 Oct 2013, 9:45 pm

Yes, but as Milky has also astutely pointed out once or twice, Leonard often seems more concerned with making people think, "Wow, what a smart and cunning bloke that Ray Leonard was", rather than making them think what an outstanding fighter he was. In a perverse kind of way, Leonard has made more excuses for Marvin than anyone else!

As I said, I do think that Hagler was less than one hundred per cent by 1987, but in terms of preparing for a Middleweight title defence I'd still much rather have had his three years beforehand than Leonard's. Hagler may have only had one fight between Hearns in '85 and Leonard two years later, but that's still better than having absolutely no fights in three years. Hagler was also a bleak, single-minded professional who kept himself trim in between fights in any case. I don't see how he could have been in any worse shape (or a more deteriorated shape) than the hard-partying Ray.

I'm not suggesting he could still make 147 (he obviously could still have made 154, mind you, as he did so for Norris four years later), but the fact is it was still his first fight at Middleweight and he didn't bother testing the waters there before fighting Marvin. Again, I'm not looking to slate Hagler, but that's another element which was in his favour, lest everyone gets all hung up (as they often do!) over how supposedly disadvantaged Marvin was against Ray.

I guess Leonard wouldn't have taken the Norris fight four years on if he didn't think he could compete, too. A fighter can convince themselves that they've still got it, no matter what. History tells us that hundreds of times over. Until you get in to that ring, it's never quite clear how much you've got left if you've been out of the swing of it for a while, and regardless of Leonard being confident, the majority of people involved thought that he was on for a hiding for nothing, or at least a painful points defeat.

by rapidringsroad Wed 09 Oct 2013, 10:00 pm

Even though I expected Hagler to win comfortably I agreed with the verdict. The Mugabi fight probably took more out of Hagler than he realised,but saying that,if they'd have had rematch in the next six months or so I would pick Hagler to reverse the result.I'm pretty sure he would do more southpaw rounds earlier as that was where he was having the better of Leonard and while I can't see him knocking Leonard out I would pick a narrow points win.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 10 Oct 2013, 2:53 pm

The Hagler that fought Vito and Duran loses to Leonard..........Also Hamsho 1 loses to him too.......

Which makes you wonder how could Hagler was...........

He never beat anybody with Leonard's skill or near it.......Apart from a stupid Tommy.....

Hagler for me is overrated............He was good but not as good as he thought..

by milkyboy Thu 10 Oct 2013, 3:01 pm

Atila wrote:
88Chris05 wrote:By the way, as far as I'm concerned, you'd have to be crazy to say that Leonard's win over Hagler in '87 was anything other than a fantastic achievement.
Hmmm. I'd have to agree that Leonard deserved the win for me to think that the win was a fantastic achievement wouldn't I? And from what I remember it wasn't a great fight either. I'm not crazy.

Where's Milkyboy?

you missing me mate.

i'm sooooo over this hagler leonard thing;)

by hazharrison Thu 10 Oct 2013, 3:06 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The Hagler that fought Vito and Duran loses to Leonard..........Also Hamsho 1 loses to him too.......

Which makes you wonder how could Hagler was...........

He never beat anybody with Leonard's skill or near it.......Apart from a stupid Tommy.....

Hagler for me is overrated............He was good but not as good as he thought..

So are we matching Hagler on a bad night against Leonard on a good one? Novel approach.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 10 Oct 2013, 3:08 pm

Be sensible or don't bother Mate.........Patronise someone else.......

by hazharrison Thu 10 Oct 2013, 3:10 pm

I'd never knowingly try to patronise anyone......but you spelt "good" wrong...

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 10 Oct 2013, 3:18 pm

Thanks for your contribution Haz........

Especially thanks to Chris for his superb analysis....Excellent as always..

by milkyboy Thu 10 Oct 2013, 3:22 pm

hazharrison wrote:Leonard pulled off an amazing feat, however, Hagler made a number of concessions to get Leonard in the ring.

Hugh McIlvanney described the fight thusly:

It is not only in Las Vegas that professional boxing's system of scoring shows all the intellectual consistency of a rolling pair of dice.

Don't blame the desert air for the rush of blood to the brain that caused Jose Juan (Jo Jo) Guerra, a WBC judge, to make Sugar Ray Leonard a winner by 10 rounds to 2 over Marvin Hagler while another official, Lou Filippo, was giving the April 6 fight at Caesars Palace to Hagler 7 rounds to 5. If the record of judges sanctioned by its State Athletic Commission is anything to go by, Nevada is a congenial environment for officials with the glorious eccentricity of mind brought to his work by Guerra. But bad decisions know no boundaries.

The simple truth is that at this stage of its long and erratic history, prizefighting is still nowhere near establishing any consistently accurate means of measuring performance. If the comparative effectiveness of two fighters is so difficult to calibrate (or so open to extravagantly subjective interpretations) that Guerra and Filippo can contradict each other as outrageously as they did, then even when everybody stays honest, boxing clearly carries a far higher risk of recurring injustice than any other sport.

When judges talk about focusing on paramount criteria—on identifying effective aggressiveness, clean punching, ring generalship and quality defense—they are merely emphasizing the complexity, perhaps the impossibility, of the exercise. Much of the time all they can do is review a fighter's performance, much as a theater critic would an actor's, making the pseudoscientific adjustment of putting their impressions into figures.

No one has ever understood the boxing judge as reviewer of theater better than Sugar Ray Leonard. Even Muhammad Ali, who substituted histrionics for real fighting often enough in the latter part of his career, was usually more concerned with disconcerting his opponent and getting the crowd on his side. Leonard sought those dividends too against Hagler. But the overriding priority for him appeared to be the manipulation of official minds.

Naturally, to achieve that end, Ray had to bring a lot to the party. Physically and mentally, he was astonishingly strong, sharp and resilient after what had been, essentially, a five-year layoff.
Thus, looking and moving so much better than anyone had a right to expect, Leonard was in a position to exploit the Schulberg Factor. This phenomenon—a compound optical illusion—may not have been discovered by Budd Schulberg, the novelist and fight aficionado, but he receives credit here for pointing it out to a few of us who were asking ourselves how Hagler came to be so cruelly misjudged. Budd's reasoning was that people were so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was.

Similarly, having expected extreme destructiveness from Marvin, they saw anything less as failure and refused to give him credit for the quiet beating he administered.

What Ray Leonard pulled off in his split decision over Hagler was an epic illusion. He had said beforehand that the way to beat Hagler was to give him a distorted picture. But this shrewdest of fighters knew it was even more important to distort the picture for the judges. His plan was to "steal" rounds with a few flashy and carefully timed flurries and to make the rest of each three-minute session as unproductive as possible for Hagler by circling briskly away from the latter's persistent pursuit. When he made his sporadic attacking flourishes, he was happy to exaggerate hand speed at the expense of power, and neither he nor two of the scorers seemed bothered by the fact that many of the punches landed on the champion's gloves and arms. This was showboating raised to an art form, and the brilliance with which it was sustained was a tribute to Leonard's wonderful nerve, which is cut from the same flawless diamond as Ali's.

But, however much the slick ploys blurred the perceptions of those on the fevered sidelines, they never broke Hagler. He has a different kind of spirit, but it is no less resolute than Leonard's. The hounding intensity that kept him unbeaten through 11 years from 1976 will soon be a memory, but he had enough left to press on through his early frustrations, throw the superior volume of hurtful punches. I'm convinced Hagler won the fight; a draw, and the retention of the title, was the very least he deserved.

however..... i'm not over mcilvanney

The 'quiet beating' is my favourite of his sound bites on this subject. How on earth to you manage that in a boxing ring? Or indeed achieve an 'epic illusion'.

The 'thesaurus egosaurus' has an ego that puts leonard's to shame. Do you have the transcript from his pre fight prediction? The summary was that this was a terrible mismatch and that a ring rusty old welterweight had no place fighting hagler.

In context, the above piece looks like the 'ok i know it doesnt look like it, but i was right after all, because i'm incapable of admitting i'm wrong' piece of ballcocks that it is. Ooh fighting the last 30 seconds of every round, ooh showy punches. Yep, leonard invented all of that. The man was a revolutionary.

I had leonard by a couple. Such is boxing scoring that i've no beef with those who went for marv... it was a close fight. It's the robbery rubbish, and tosh from the likes of mcilvanney that gets my goat.

And both fighters were clearly past their best. Establishing which was further on the slide is just conjecture. Hagler had stamina but looked slow, leonard looked heavy legged and short of gas.

... but i'm over it

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 10 Oct 2013, 3:23 pm

Hugh Mcilvanney is a historian.............Hagler won because he said so.......

by milkyboy Thu 10 Oct 2013, 3:24 pm

88Chris05 wrote:Yes, but as Milky has also astutely pointed out once or twice, Leonard often seems more concerned with making people think, "Wow, what a smart and cunning bloke that Ray Leonard was", rather than making them think what an outstanding fighter he was. In a perverse kind of way, Leonard has made more excuses for Marvin than anyone else!

As I said, I do think that Hagler was less than one hundred per cent by 1987, but in terms of preparing for a Middleweight title defence I'd still much rather have had his three years beforehand than Leonard's. Hagler may have only had one fight between Hearns in '85 and Leonard two years later, but that's still better than having absolutely no fights in three years. Hagler was also a bleak, single-minded professional who kept himself trim in between fights in any case. I don't see how he could have been in any worse shape (or a more deteriorated shape) than the hard-partying Ray.

I'm not suggesting he could still make 147 (he obviously could still have made 154, mind you, as he did so for Norris four years later), but the fact is it was still his first fight at Middleweight and he didn't bother testing the waters there before fighting Marvin. Again, I'm not looking to slate Hagler, but that's another element which was in his favour, lest everyone gets all hung up (as they often do!) over how supposedly disadvantaged Marvin was against Ray.

I guess Leonard wouldn't have taken the Norris fight four years on if he didn't think he could compete, too. A fighter can convince themselves that they've still got it, no matter what. History tells us that hundreds of times over. Until you get in to that ring, it's never quite clear how much you've got left if you've been out of the swing of it for a while, and regardless of Leonard being confident, the majority of people involved thought that he was on for a hiding for nothing, or at least a painful points defeat.

good stuff chris... especially the milky being astute bit

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 10 Oct 2013, 3:26 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Thanks for your contribution Haz........

Especially thanks to Chris for his superb analysis....Excellent as always..

Apart from the milky bit..........

by milkyboy Thu 10 Oct 2013, 4:26 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Thanks for your contribution Haz........

Especially thanks to Chris for his superb analysis....Excellent as always..
Apart from the milky bit..........

by Atila Thu 10 Oct 2013, 5:53 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hagler for me is overrated............He was good but not as good as he thought..

I was a big Hagler fan but I've no problem with this statement.

I'm not one of these boxing fans that think just because they like a good fighter that it makes him the greatest. And as much as I liked Hagler I really have no idea were to rate him amongst other top middles.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 10 Oct 2013, 5:59 pm

I don't mind anyone disagreeing.......Just have a problem with a guy chucking "A source" at me despite there being thousands out there... and saying end of argument..

Your opinion is as valid as any historian.......

by TheMarvelousOne Thu 10 Oct 2013, 10:48 pm

It was a very close fight and I have no problem with anyone seeing it either way. I personally had it Hagler by a round but that may have been seen through rose-tinted specs as I was a big fan. I think a peak Hagler at middleweight fighting like he did the second half of the fight all the way through would beat Leonard.

by horizontalhero Fri 11 Oct 2013, 9:46 am

I think that in essence McIlvanney was about right- we expect an easy win for Haglar, Leonard put on a magnificent performance, but when viewed in the cold light of day, yes, lots of his flurries looked great , but did little damage, a lot landing on Haglar's arms and gloves.- no round better suummed up this fighht than the ninth- Haglar landed some decent shots against a tiring Leonard, who responded with a lighting fast flurry that had the crowd and commentators going crazy, but watched in slow motion, only one or two of the punches actually landed.
I think robbery is far too strong a word for it- I had Haglar winning by a round (though only after a second viewing , with the sound turned off, having initially had it for Ray by three rounds)- so illusion isn't a bad description- it looked like Leonard was winning to me but when I watched more careful I came to the conclusion that he didn't. It takes nothing away form Ray- it was a great performance- wish it had been a draw.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 11 Oct 2013, 9:58 am

You think Leonard is an easy night for anybody.......

Sorry.........Duran lost by a round and Vito made him struggle..Hamsho and Roldan offered problems..

Mcilvanney is wrong..

by hazharrison Fri 11 Oct 2013, 10:25 am

horizontalhero wrote:I think that in essence McIlvanney was about right- we expect an easy win for Haglar, Leonard put on a magnificent performance, but when viewed in the cold light of day, yes, lots of his flurries looked great , but did little damage, a lot landing on Haglar's arms and gloves.- no round better suummed up this fighht than the ninth- Haglar landed some decent shots against a tiring Leonard, who responded with a lighting fast flurry that had the crowd and commentators going crazy, but watched in slow motion, only one or two of the punches actually landed.
I think robbery is far too strong a word for it- I had Haglar winning by a round (though only after a second viewing , with the sound turned off, having initially had it for Ray by three rounds)- so illusion isn't a bad description- it looked like Leonard was winning to me but when I watched more careful I came to the conclusion that he didn't. It takes nothing away form Ray- it was a great performance- wish it had been a draw.

I agree with the illusion quote -- great piece of writing.

There are some similarities to what Hopkins does these days. He has the old man thing going for him (leading us to doubt his capabilities) and is highly adept at nicking rounds in the event.

by Scottrf Fri 11 Oct 2013, 10:28 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hugh Mcilvanney is a historian.............Hagler won because he said so.......

He's not a historian. But he is a fantastic writer.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 11 Oct 2013, 10:33 am

I agree.........

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 11 Oct 2013, 10:41 am

Can't agree with you Haz that Hopkins is an illusion at all, he wins by completely shutting down his opponents offence so that he doesn't have to do much in return. He tried to nick rounds against Dawson and Calzaghe because he couldn't shut them down but against Cloud, Pavlik and Pascal he won quite easily and decisively.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 11 Oct 2013, 10:42 am

I agree Hammer..........gifted fighter and master spoiler.........

by hazharrison Fri 11 Oct 2013, 11:03 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Can't agree with you Haz that Hopkins is an illusion at all, he wins by completely shutting down his opponents offence so that he doesn't have to do much in return. He tried to nick rounds against Dawson and Calzaghe because he couldn't shut them down but against Cloud, Pavlik and Pascal he won quite easily and decisively.

I think there's an element of the optical illusion thing going on with Hopkins. His age is usually the talking point going in, only for him to explode expectations by fighting on even terms with men half his age. It's a different scenario of course, but there are elements that bear comparison.

by Strongback Fri 11 Oct 2013, 12:32 pm

I remember the Hagler v Leonard fight well. I was boxing at the time and the fight was a massive talking point. I remember going into the fight how impressed I was with Leonards ability if he started to get on top in a fight. The throwing of 7 or 8 punch combos using a huge variety of shots invariably all landing.

Hagler by comparison was a beast. He had proved it many times he could out tough an opponent. Haglar was seen as unbeatable in 1987.

What I remember clearly at the time was the talk in the club that Leonard had bided his time and had waited until Haglar had started to decline. This type of talk was happening before the fight amongst our trainers. It was definitely a talking point. The very same as before the second Tommy fight.

Thats my clear memory of 1987. I can still remember the conversation I had about it with a senior multiple national champion walking home from the club one night.

It's was a close fight but it is not retrospective thinking that Leonard was seen as choosing to fight Haglar after he had seen a decline.

Prime for prime is anyone's guess but at middleweight I would lean towards Haglar.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 11 Oct 2013, 12:35 pm

Fair summation.........and your opinion is as valid as any Boxing writer's to me.......

As is any other 606ers.......

by hazharrison Fri 11 Oct 2013, 12:38 pm

Strongback wrote:I remember the Hagler v Leonard fight well. I was boxing at the time and the fight was a massive talking point. I remember going into the fight how impressed I was with Leonards ability if he started to get on top in a fight. The throwing of 7 or 8 punch combos using a huge variety of shots invariably all landing.

Hagler by comparison was a beast. He had proved it many times he could out tough an opponent. Haglar was seen as unbeatable in 1987.

What I remember clearly at the time was the talk in the club that Leonard had bided his time and had waited until Haglar had started to decline. This type of talk was happening before the fight amongst our trainers. It was definitely a talking point. The very same as before the second Tommy fight.

Thats my clear memory of 1987. I can still remember the conversation I had about it with a senior multiple national champion walking home from the club one night.

It's was a close fight but it is not retrospective thinking that Leonard was seen as choosing to fight Haglar after he had seen a declined.

Prime for prime is anyone's guess but at middleweight I would lean towards Haglar.

Leonard readily admits this (to his credit). He saw (from ringside) that Hagler has slipped and decided the time was right to make history.

It was still a remarkable performance from him. Prime for prime you've got one of the all time great middleweights against one of the all time great welterweights and in that type of scenario, it's the larger man that usually prevails.

by Sponsored content