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

First topic message reminder :

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.......

hazharrison wrote:

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 ws 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.

Great they may have been.............But not evenly matched skill wise..........which makes a difference............

This fight is why I have Hagler 4th or 5th in the middleweight rankings, Greb, Monzon and Hopkins would never have let a welterweight beat them not even one as good as Leonard.

Haz puts  Hagler above Mayweather though..............So his opinion is hugely biased.

Although just as valid as mine.......even though I'm  an authority..(My book is coming out soon)

The only one out of 35 posters on my top 10 thread.........Maybe strongy also can't recall..

Haz doesn't like modern 90-present fighters.............and he overrates Hagler as he does Duran.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Haz puts  Hagler above Mayweather though..............So his opinion is hugely biased.

What exactly does that mean?

I rate Hagler over Mayweather and so I'm biased against Ray Leonard? How does that even work?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:This fight is why I have Hagler 4th or 5th in the middleweight rankings, Greb, Monzon and Hopkins would never have let a welterweight beat them not even one as good as Leonard.

It's amazing how closely your views resemble Trussman's. Amazing.

Would Hagler have let Jermain Taylor beat him twice? Not a chance.

Was Hagler defending his title at the age of 40 no he wasn't so we have no idea how he'd have fared at that age so it's an unfair comparison.

It means you are rating Hagler way too high.............as Consensus shows........

So by implication giving him abilities he doesn't have.......After all he beat nothing but stiffs for seven years......

so you must rate him that high for a reason..

You don't rate the Hearns win dear boy because you moaned when Hatton got beat at welter by Mayweather "What history had Hatton had at the weight" as a way to downplay Floyd's win......

What history did Hearns have at middle ???...... 

Far be it from me however to say you have double standards........

The thing is guys.........How good was Marvin Hagler really ............

You dismiss Leonard's chances.........But let's be honest Duran lost by one round in a "Superfight" in 83.........

How can you dismiss Leonard's chances when Leonard would have won that night in all probability........

Minter landed with ease............Vito drew with the guy...........

He looked awesome against the slugger Sibson and in a brawl with Tommy........But Hamsho 1 and Roldan was sloppy......

Mugabi hit him in the 4th with a lead uppercut!!!!!!

Leonard was the best fighter he ever fought .......The record shows Hagler struggled with much lesser puzzles......

Leonard and Hearns would beat Greb and Hopkins in my opinion.

I'd love to hear your basis for Greb beating or losing to anyone while predictably you pick Hopkins to lose.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It means you are rating Hagler way too high.............as Consensus shows........

So by implication giving him abilities he doesn't have.......After all he beat nothing but stiffs for seven years......

so you must rate him that high for a reason..

You don't rate the Hearns win dear boy because you moaned when Hatton got beat at welter by Mayweather "What history had Hatton had at the weight" as a way to downplay Floyd's win......

What history did Hearns have at middle ???...... 

Far be it from me however to say you have double standards........

I rate Hagler high in comparison to you. You, though, are not a concensus. The board as a whole may rate Mayweather higher, however, boxing experts tend to be split on the matter (if Roy Jones was still in his prime I imagine he'd be ranked in a similarly too-high position by posters -- that's the nature of experiencing a great fighter in their prime without the luxury of perspective -- they look so good in our time we wonder whether they can be the best of all time).
 
Hagler compiled one of the greatest middleweight records in history -- he was the epitome of a champion. He is usually rated highly
 
While Hearns had no history at the weight, he achieved sufficient in the aftermath (at middleweight and beyond) to illustrate he was world class and the effort he put in against Hagler was superb (despite defeat). Hatton had history at welterweight and proved ineffective there. Subsequent fights at 147 verified that -- he was a light welterweight and no more.
 
I'm happy to explain any of my views without decending into childishness but you have proven incapable of that. You seize upon someone's post, select a line from it and then spin it.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'd love to hear your basis for Greb beating or losing to anyone while predictably you pick Hopkins to lose.

Doesn't need to explain.........Just find a historian that agrees with him and then tell us we know f**k all because he's a historian..

Bob Mee told me

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The thing is guys.........How good was Marvin Hagler really ............

You dismiss Leonard's chances.........But let's be honest Duran lost by one round in a "Superfight" in 83.........

How can you dismiss Leonard's chances when Leonard would have won that night in all probability........

Minter landed with ease............Vito drew with the guy...........

He looked awesome against the slugger Sibson and in a brawl with Tommy........But Hamsho 1 and Roldan was sloppy......

Mugabi hit him in the 4th with a lead uppercut!!!!!!

Leonard was the best fighter he ever fought .......The record shows Hagler struggled with much lesser puzzles......

Could it be that you underrate Hagler and Duran? Could that possibly be the case?

catchweight wrote:Bob Mee told me

I'll trade you Bob Mee for Hugh McIlvanney......... 

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'd love to hear your basis for Greb beating or losing to anyone while predictably you pick Hopkins to lose.

Doesn't need to explain.........Just find a historian that agrees with him and then tell us we know f**k all because he's a historian..

This stems from your inability to find one that supports your pithy arguments. And so you denigrate all experts and historians -- firstly citing yourself as one (you are far from that) and secondly stating their opinions hold only as much water as your own (while admitting you don't know who many of these people are).

Arrogance born of ignorance.

Calm down.........Kiddo.

Or is it just confidence in your opinion not needing reassurance?

At least I can debate despite my arrogance..........and I'm not always right.......

Haz stock answer when under pressure is "Bob Mee is an expert and you're not"..........Or to chuck a poll at you.....

Haz doesn't respect our opinions and yet makes articles asking for them.......

Perverse behaviour..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Or is it just confidence in your opinion not needing reassurance?

No. Otherwise you wouldn't feel so threatened by his bringing experts opinions into the debate and would be debating the point rather than denigrating the expert or reference of such experts.

Think Shah needs to read threads thoroughly before offering his insight........

Haz has been denigrading other posters by suggesting they know sweet FA.......which maybe true !!

Or better still maybe Shah should take his one-line wisdom elsewhere...

To where it's more appreciated.

You cant boxrec experts

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You think Leonard is an easy night for anybody.......


Mcilvanney is wrong..

Not at all Truss, but this was Leonard after five years of booze and drugs against an ATG middleweight who was bigger and stronger than him - so yes I expected an easy night for Haglar, that's not to say that Leonard at his best is an easy night.

Bigger and stronger in 87 Mate..........

why wasn't Duran an easy night ?? Horizontal ........should have been........

Is he a better boxer........than Leonard..........

lost by a point.........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think Shah needs to read threads thoroughly before offering his insight........

Haz has been denigrading other posters by suggesting they know sweet FA.......which maybe true !!

Or better still maybe Shah should take his one-line wisdom elsewhere...

To where it's more appreciated.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: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..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So you are saying Duran's opinion means nothing.........

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

Okay Mate......

You brought it in. I dont agree with Haz on a lot of things (Like Louis beating Frazier and foreman) but if he quotes experts as well as gives his own opinion fair enough. Now that he's done so you add Bob Mee or a reference to him in every other post as if its some sort of millstone to hang around his neck and he needs to shout "unclean" before he enters a dwelling.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:At least I can debate despite my arrogance..........and I'm not always right.......

Haz stock answer when under pressure is "Bob Mee is an expert and you're not"..........Or to chuck a poll at you.....

Haz doesn't respect our opinions and yet makes articles asking for them.......

Perverse behaviour..

 
Just yours Trussman.

Three lines this time........Good boy..

Perhaps the quotes where he's abused our opinions in your next post.........

Fairplay and all that.......

Or even better have an opinion on Leonard-Hagler 83............

I'm sure the people on 606 are dying to get a Boxing opinion from you.......

About time after being on here five years or so.......

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:At least I can debate despite my arrogance..........and I'm not always right.......

Haz stock answer when under pressure is "Bob Mee is an expert and you're not"..........Or to chuck a poll at you.....

Haz doesn't respect our opinions and yet makes articles asking for them.......

Perverse behaviour..

 
Just yours Trussman.

All opinons welcome..............and all as valid as eachother in my eyes..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Think Shah needs to read threads thoroughly before offering his insight........

Haz has been denigrading other posters by suggesting they know sweet FA.......which maybe true !!

Or better still maybe Shah should take his one-line wisdom elsewhere...

To where it's more appreciated.

You constantly order posters to go elsewhere or stop bothering you on a public forum. You try to push your c**k-eyed opinions down everyone's throats time and again -- it's like water torture.
 
When debating it's usual to cite evidence. Expert opinion can go some way to providing that.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bigger and stronger in 87 Mate..........

why wasn't Duran an easy night ?? Horizontal ........should have been........

Is he a better boxer........than Leonard..........

lost by a point.........

I expected Haglar as the natural middleweight to be stronger and a harder puncher, I also thought that Leonard's timing would be off, that he would be slower, and generally ring rusty from his layoff, and by judging his last fight prior to Haglar. As it happens I was wrong- hindsights a wonderful thing

Regarding Duran, yes - on paper that should have been easier, and to me it's a black mark against Haglar that his biggest wins were against weight jumpers, one of whom was past his best. Again great performance by Duran, and a tad underwhelming by Haglar, but that doesn't mean that Haglar shouldn't have won the fight, which is pretty much how I feel about the Leonard fight too.

Leonard definately better boxer than Duran esp. at MW- so yes it is possible that Leonard would have been able to beat Haglar had they met earlier, but if they had, and it was over 15 rounds, with 8oz gloves then I would still lean toward Haglar.

horizontalhero wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bigger and stronger in 87 Mate..........

why wasn't Duran an easy night ?? Horizontal ........should have been........

Is he a better boxer........than Leonard..........

lost by a point.........

I expected Haglar as the natural middleweight to be stronger and a harder puncher, I also thought that Leonard's timing would be off, that he would be slower, and generally ring  rusty from his layoff, and by judging his last fight prior to Haglar. As it happens I was wrong- hindsights a wonderful thing

Regarding Duran, yes - on paper that should have been easier, and to me it's a black mark against Haglar that his biggest wins were against weight jumpers, one of whom was past his best. Again great performance by Duran, and a tad underwhelming by Haglar, but that doesn't mean that Haglar shouldn't have won the fight, which is pretty much how I feel about the Leonard fight too.

Leonard definately better boxer than Duran esp. at MW- so yes it is possible that Leonard would have been able to beat Haglar had they met earlier, but if they had, and it was over 15 rounds, with 8oz gloves then I would still lean toward Haglar.

That's fairplay..........Leonard-Hagler 83 is open to interpretation and what you say is interesting .......

Just for me Hagler had so many off nights it's conceivable Leonard does him.........

One things for sure, had they met in 83 it would have been a much better fight.

15 rounds as well..........

Think horizontal makes some fair points. I always thought at the time hagler would have had too much in his prime for Leonard... Too much of a beast. On reflection I'm not so sure, Leonard was pretty resilient. It's possible hagler could have walked him down and stopped him, but not impossible that srl could have picked him off for a points win.

In other words you agree with me but can't get yourself to say it........

How's the kid.......Has he started talking in an american acccent yet.

hazharrison wrote:

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.

One man's great piece of writing is another man's platitudinal piece of tosh. No original thought in it, just trying to justify his pre fight comments. Lots of hagler luvvies hang on his words in the subject as it suits their marv was robbed theory.

To be a decent piece of writing it needed to start with at least giving Leonard some credit, before crying about the result. But it doesn't. No balance.

Can't stand mvilvanney on any subject, not just this one. multi award winner he may be, but he impresses a lot of people by using long words that they need to look up. I find his pieces generally arrogant and self serving. Though, I'm sure he's a lovely bloke in real life!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:In other words you agree with me but can't get yourself to say it........

How's the kid.......Has he started talking in an american acccent yet.

I agree with you on many subjects truss, this being one of them, though I do rate marv higher than you.

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 decline.

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

Interesting inside take strongy. The Leonard biding his time for hagler to slide bit, wasn't emphasised in the press or by the bookies.

milkyboy wrote:

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 decline.

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

Interesting inside take strongy. The Leonard biding his time for hagler to slide bit, wasn't emphasised in the press or by the bookies.

Not directed at you Milky just giving my personal memory of the time.

As far as bookies go it is well known there are so many Man Utd fans in England that they drive down the odds on Utd in every game they play.  Lots of things influence odds.  Leonard was the bookies favourite going into the Norris fight.

Haglar was seen as a beast but his performance against Mugabi was food for thought.  

I'm not saying Leonard didn't fade either, I am making the point that Hagler fading was discussed before the fight.  It is not just something that came about because of a comment Leonard made after the event to make himself look clever.

Actually strongy, I wasn't (for once) being facetious. You had an inside boxing take, I had only a boxing fans take. The widespread press coverage, gave Leonard no hope, and little was made of hagler looking faded against Mugabi. At least nothing I remember reading.

Personally, I thought Mugabi hagler was an under-rated fight and that marv showed his metal against a hard hitting hungry unbeaten fighter. I guess the counter theory is, he had no business shipping that much leather from a fighter at a level below him.

There were also the theories around why Leonard decided to come back from retirement at that particular time and not earlier.

We shouldn't looking back underestimate how big a star SRL was. He was the most celebrated fighter of the 80's. Every school boy knew his name. He was a myth to me and my friends.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: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.......

I do disagree with you though when you refer to some of Hagler's challengers as stiffs. You're saying that the great Wilfred Benitez who is held up as one of Leonard's best wins was beaten by one of Hagler's stiffs? Granted middleweight may have been a bit too much for Benitez but if Hamsho really was a stiff, then Benitez should have beaten him.

Most of Hagler's challengers were mandatories, and back in the 80's mandatories had to be made or the champ would be stripped.

Hamsho beat a past it Benitez at a higher weight than he was happy at...........and why fight him twice as with Obelmijas. ..........Caveman Lee, Vito again, Roldan, a jr midd in Mugabi who had been close to being stopped off Hard rock Green, .......

Hearns and maybe Sibson in seven years..........and Hearns never got another shot..

Atila wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: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.......

I do disagree with you though when you refer to some of Hagler's challengers as stiffs. You're saying that the great Wilfred Benitez who is held up as one of Leonard's best wins was beaten by one of Hagler's stiffs? Granted middleweight may have been a bit too much for Benitez but if Hamsho really was a stiff, then Benitez should have beaten him.

Most of Hagler's challengers were mandatories, and back in the 80's mandatories had to be made or the champ would be stripped.

Benitez was more or less finished when Hamsho beat him. And Hamsho was a stiff.

Strongback wrote:There were also the theories around why Leonard decided to come back from retirement at that particular time and not earlier.

We shouldn't looking back underestimate how big a star SRL was.  He was the most celebrated fighter of the 80's.  Every school boy knew his name. He was a myth to me and my friends.

However you spin it..........Hagler was supposed to win easy hence the 6-1 odds... and he was still p4p number 1.. a title he regained after Honey-Curry..........A title that should have been Spinks after beating Larry........

Period..

The thing is people tend to forget that SRL was coming off a long layoff. Not even Ali jumped into the lion's den after his enforced layoff. No amount of sparring can replicate Hagler. Great result for SRL.

I say result because I had Hagler winning.

azania wrote:The thing is people tend to forget that SRL was coming off a long layoff. Not even Ali jumped into the lion's den after his enforced layoff. No amount of sparring can replicate Hagler. Great result for SRL.

I say result because I had Hagler winning.

People like Hagler better than Ray...........Blue collar hero.......

Sat down with a cuppa and revisited this fight today -- here's my score:

1. Barely any contact made by either (Leonard).
2. Leonard nicked it in last 30 seconds (Leonard).
3. Hagler starts round well but Leonard adjusts and has his best round (Leonard).
4. Hagler lands all of the hard punches; Leonard flashier – nicks round (Leonard).
5. Hagler changes gear. Lands quality uppercut and bullies Leonard on the ropes. (Hagler).
6. Difficult to split them – Leonard gritty countering. Hagler struggling with timing (Even).
7. Hagler, solid, hurtful shots (Hagler).
8. Miscrocosm of fight; Hagler lands powerful right and takes last 30 seconds (Hagler).
9. Hagler beating him up; Leonard gutsy but ineffective flurries. (Hagler).
10. Hagler stronger punches, edged a really tight round (Hagler).
11. Leonard outsmarts him, nicks a close round (Leonard).
12. Hagler closed strongly despite flashy bursts from Leonard (Hagler).

Final score: 115-114 (6-5-1)

Both fighters looked a way past their best (Hagler was as slow as molasses). Scoring live I could quite easily imagine a couple of those rounds changing sides so miraculous was Leonard's performance.

116-112 Leonard...............Hagler was outfoxed and outboxed.

Can't see it that wide either way -- a lot of Leonard's flurries were picked off. Hagler did all of the hurting.