Mistake ? - Marvin Hagler not rematching Sugar Ray Leonard ??

First topic message reminder :

I thought Leonard beat Hagler................Thought he outsmarted him.............Thought Hagler outsmarted himself early too.....

However even though I had it by three.......The consensus is it was much closer....With some having Hagler winning.....

No doubt both learn from the experience...........We can say though that Leonard fought the best fight he could.....We can also say that Hagler screwed up...........Perhaps second time around he jumps on Leonard early..........

On the Marvin flipside though he was showing his age and Leonard may have been the fresher of the two next time.....

Hard to call a rematch..............But for me Hagler made a mistake in not rematching Ray ................I think Hagler scrapes it !!

captain carrantuohil wrote:I place McIlvanney very high in the list of writers on any sport, but have to agree that the smoke and mirrors piece which he wrote after Leonard-Hagler wasn't his finest hour. It was impeccably written as ever, but it certainly reads as an exercise in self-justification, viewed now, many years after the event.

I have sometimes mused whether it was an attempt to balance the slate for another piece, which Hugh had written after Leonard-Hearns I. There, he had inveighed against the judges who had Hearns leading after 13 and suggested that they were missing the point of Leonard's brilliance. It appeared to Hugh that commanding the ring from the outside was given too much weight by comparison with the fewer occasions (round 5, for example) on which Leonard had, to everyone's surprise, proved to be Tommy's master on the inside. Basically, he suggested that the judges needed a guide dog or didn't understand what they were watching. He had, by the way, had a fairly hefty bet on Leonard to win that fight and I still wonder whether that influenced his piece in any way.

In any case, Hugh was again not entirely with the majority when he wrote his silent beating piece. I didn't necessarily agree with him, although I still enjoyed the wordsmithery. One thing was clear - Antuofermo was right and Hagler had slipped. Leonard wouldn't have contemplated fighting the man who destroyed Sibson and Hearns; that man was clearly not in evidence by 1987 and wouldn't have been so in any rematch, either. I believe that Hagler's decision to retire, whoever was responsible for the Leonard rematch not taking place, was one of the best-timed in boxing history. He should have beaten Leonard  in the first place. Even if Marv had taken a hugely controversial decision, his reputation would have taken a knock - as it was, why risk any further damage to what he had so painstakingly built?

It was a strange piece on Leonard hearns captain. It turned into a rant on the merits of the 10 point must scoring system. The pro's and cons of which have been debated ad nauseum. Frankly, I think there have been countless better example fights he could have chosen. Had hearns hung on, he'd have deserved that decision for me and most observers.

milkyboy wrote:Well haz, I guess it depends on what you want from your journalists and commentators. Mcv has done some excellent pieces on the backgrounds to fights and fighters. But do I really need someone to tell me what I saw? Do people need the insight of a journalist to tell them what they saw with their own eyes?  I guess some people need that reassurance. I accept that subliminally we 're open to influence... Its a good idea to watch fights without the commentary, but ultimately nobody tells me what I watched.

I'm sure it pleased you that his insight has brought people round to your opinion. Frankly, I give more credence to those who watched the fight and called what they saw, whatever perspective that may be.

I actually find it disingenuous of mcilvanney to suggest that those that saw it for Leonard were duped... Or just lacked his insight... Rather than the more patently obvious fact, that people judge 'effective' aggression differently, and give more credence to one type if work than another... Which is what several of your other quoted sources suggest or imply.

You think its insightful because you agree with it. I think its pretentious rubbish, because I don't. Fancy that!

Even if I hadn't agreed with it (and I don't to a certain extent -- I feel Hagler won the fight but it was extremely close) I wouldn't label it "pretentious rubbish".

As the Grantland piece illustrates, Leonard's performance probably flattered to deceive and for McIlvanney to see that in the days (I won't say hours as he was afforded longer deadlines than most) following the fight is remarkable.

milkyboy wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:I place McIlvanney very high in the list of writers on any sport, but have to agree that the smoke and mirrors piece which he wrote after Leonard-Hagler wasn't his finest hour. It was impeccably written as ever, but it certainly reads as an exercise in self-justification, viewed now, many years after the event.

I have sometimes mused whether it was an attempt to balance the slate for another piece, which Hugh had written after Leonard-Hearns I. There, he had inveighed against the judges who had Hearns leading after 13 and suggested that they were missing the point of Leonard's brilliance. It appeared to Hugh that commanding the ring from the outside was given too much weight by comparison with the fewer occasions (round 5, for example) on which Leonard had, to everyone's surprise, proved to be Tommy's master on the inside. Basically, he suggested that the judges needed a guide dog or didn't understand what they were watching. He had, by the way, had a fairly hefty bet on Leonard to win that fight and I still wonder whether that influenced his piece in any way.

In any case, Hugh was again not entirely with the majority when he wrote his silent beating piece. I didn't necessarily agree with him, although I still enjoyed the wordsmithery. One thing was clear - Antuofermo was right and Hagler had slipped. Leonard wouldn't have contemplated fighting the man who destroyed Sibson and Hearns; that man was clearly not in evidence by 1987 and wouldn't have been so in any rematch, either. I believe that Hagler's decision to retire, whoever was responsible for the Leonard rematch not taking place, was one of the best-timed in boxing history. He should have beaten Leonard  in the first place. Even if Marv had taken a hugely controversial decision, his reputation would have taken a knock - as it was, why risk any further damage to what he had so painstakingly built?

It was a strange piece on Leonard hearns captain. It turned into a rant on the merits of the 10 point must scoring system. The pro's and cons of which have been debated ad nauseum. Frankly, I think there have been countless better example fights he could have chosen. Had hearns hung on, he'd have deserved that decision for me and most observers.

Here's Pat Putnam's account:

Leonard had Hearns reeling in the sixth and seventh rounds; was within a couple of punches of knocking him out in the 13th; and finally bullied him so brutally in the 14th that Pearl had to stop it. However, if the fight had run its 15-round course, Hearns no doubt would have won because of the judges' distorted scoring.

The scoring was on the 10-point must system, which is a fair method if competently applied. The winner of a round receives 10 points while the loser has to settle for nine or less. It is the "or less" that seems to have been miscalculated by judges Lou Tabat—who has been known to count punches on his fingers—Duane Ford and Chuck Minker. Pearl, who didn't have a vote, said, "I figured Hearns was winning all those light-hitting rounds. But Leonard was doing all the heavy damage. I thought it was close. Jeez, what if I had let the fight go on and Ray just barely won the last round, and they gave Hearns the decision? Caesars wouldn't have had to tear the stadium down for the Grand Prix [a Formula I auto race that will take place on the hotel grounds Oct. 17]. The people would have done it for them."

The flaw in the 10-point system was plainly evident when you compare the scoring for Rounds 1 and 2 with that for Rounds 6 and 7.

Hearns won Rounds 1 and 2, with a 10-9 edge, mainly because he was the one moving forward. Leonard's powerful domination of 6 and 7 was unjustly rewarded by one-point margins also. The opening rounds were so dull, in fact, that Pearl said: "What do you say we get something going here? Hell, you're both making $10 million. Let's fight."

Bumming leonard again Milky, I see. Long time since you've been on - all well in the milky household?

Round 6 (not 5 as I had it) was a borderline 10-8 round for Leonard and 7 was a solid 10-9 for Ray, I agree, Haz. 13 was an obvious 10-8 and scored that way by all judges, I think. In between times, though, Leonard found getting past the Hearns jab to be a tricky exercise, especially when Hearns forgot about walking through Ray and operated more or less exclusively from his bike. It's hard to remember a single round that Ray took between 8 and 12 inclusive and it wasn't for nothing that Dundee smacked his backside and told him that he was blowing it at the end of the 12th.

Strangely, Hugh makes little of Angelo's legendary intervention in his post-fight piece. If there is a weakness in McIlvanney's otherwise outstanding journalism, it is a tendency to sideline opinions or events that fail to chime with his own perceptions. There was every justification for Hearns being seen as slightly ahead after 13; at any rate, the scoring didn't deserve the diatribe which Hugh composed about it.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Well haz, I guess it depends on what you want from your journalists and commentators. Mcv has done some excellent pieces on the backgrounds to fights and fighters. But do I really need someone to tell me what I saw? Do people need the insight of a journalist to tell them what they saw with their own eyes?  I guess some people need that reassurance. I accept that subliminally we 're open to influence... Its a good idea to watch fights without the commentary, but ultimately nobody tells me what I watched.

I'm sure it pleased you that his insight has brought people round to your opinion. Frankly, I give more credence to those who watched the fight and called what they saw, whatever perspective that may be.

I actually find it disingenuous of mcilvanney to suggest that those that saw it for Leonard were duped... Or just lacked his insight... Rather than the more patently obvious fact, that people judge 'effective' aggression differently, and give more credence to one type if work than another... Which is what several of your other quoted sources suggest or imply.

You think its insightful because you agree with it. I think its pretentious rubbish, because I don't. Fancy that!

Even if I hadn't agreed with it (and I don't to a certain extent -- I feel Hagler won the fight but it was extremely close) I wouldn't label it "pretentious rubbish".

As the Grantland piece illustrates, Leonard's performance probably flattered to deceive and for McIlvanney to see that in the days (I won't say hours as he was afforded longer deadlines than most) following the fight is remarkable.

It was a fight haz. He presents his argument for hagler winning. That's remarkable? You present it like an apple dropped on his head and he discovered gravity.

I'm as capable of being influenced as the next guy on a whole variety of things, but a boxing match is a physical battle that happened at a moment in time. No amount of theories change the action, changed what happened. Sure, your perception of a result might change if you learn of PEDs or weight troubles etc after the event, but not of the actual action. I accept, you can watch a fight live, see it again later and see it differently because your values have changed or you're less emotive about it... or it was just so close that many rounds were difficult to score. Ultimately, though, do you really need someone's insight to tell you what you watched?

ShahenshahG wrote:Bumming leonard again Milky, I see. Long time since you've been on - all well in the milky household?

I've still been around... shame you've missed some of my fine work  

All good with team milky, thanks, shah. Trust the same goes for the house of shah.

milkyboy wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Bumming leonard again Milky, I see. Long time since you've been on - all well in the milky household?

I've still been around... shame you've missed some of my fine work  

All good with team milky, thanks, shah. Trust the same goes for the house of shah.

Yeah all quiet on the western front. Though my daughter keeps punching my wife and is now banned from watching boxing with me and i'm banned from buying her sweets every time she leads with the left.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Well haz, I guess it depends on what you want from your journalists and commentators. Mcv has done some excellent pieces on the backgrounds to fights and fighters. But do I really need someone to tell me what I saw? Do people need the insight of a journalist to tell them what they saw with their own eyes?  I guess some people need that reassurance. I accept that subliminally we 're open to influence... Its a good idea to watch fights without the commentary, but ultimately nobody tells me what I watched.

I'm sure it pleased you that his insight has brought people round to your opinion. Frankly, I give more credence to those who watched the fight and called what they saw, whatever perspective that may be.

I actually find it disingenuous of mcilvanney to suggest that those that saw it for Leonard were duped... Or just lacked his insight... Rather than the more patently obvious fact, that people judge 'effective' aggression differently, and give more credence to one type if work than another... Which is what several of your other quoted sources suggest or imply.

You think its insightful because you agree with it. I think its pretentious rubbish, because I don't. Fancy that!

Even if I hadn't agreed with it (and I don't to a certain extent -- I feel Hagler won the fight but it was extremely close) I wouldn't label it "pretentious rubbish".

As the Grantland piece illustrates, Leonard's performance probably flattered to deceive and for McIlvanney to see that in the days (I won't say hours as he was afforded longer deadlines than most) following the fight is remarkable.

It was a fight haz. He presents his argument for hagler winning. That's remarkable? You present it like an apple dropped on his head and he discovered gravity.

I'm as capable of being influenced as the next guy on a whole variety of things, but a boxing match is a physical battle that happened at a moment in time. No amount of theories change the action, changed what happened. Sure, your perception of a result might change if you learn of PEDs or weight troubles etc after the event, but not of the actual action. I accept, you can watch a fight live, see it again later and see it differently because your values have changed or you're less emotive about it... or it was just so close that many rounds were difficult to score. Ultimately, though, do you really need someone's insight to tell you what you watched?

His insight was remarkable -- especially considering how so many fans, writers, experts etc. have shifted their opinion on the fight with the luxury of hindsight. He was able to see what a good many couldn't watching live.

....fans, writers, experts, sheep. In my book, any 'expert' that can't watch a fight, draw an opinion and stick to it, is pushing the boundaries of what you might judge as an expert haz. If you bought your wife a diamond engagement ring from a diamond dealer, and he contacted you a few years later and said "i've just read a book, and i now believe that the ring i sold you last year is a cubic zirconia, sorry". Would you call him an expert diamond dealer?

Whichever, we were never going to agree on this one. So moving on:

10 point must system. For as long as i can remember if you don't knock them down, you usually have to batter someone from pillar to post for 3 minutes unanswered (preferably with a baseball bat) to have an outside chance of a 10-8. Yet a flash knockdown in an otherwise even round guarantees it.

I'm all for more liberal use of 10-8's, just as i don't think you should kill yourself to find a reason to give a round to someone instead of scoring it 10:10. I think it gives a fairer reflection of who the better man was. However, the premise (in terms of how it's universally applied) is that each round is a stand alone contest and in reality its about how many you win, not how well you win them. Take Macklin sturm as a recent example. No candidates for a 10-8 round, but macklin dominates his rounds, sturm edges his. People think Macklin was jobbed, but on a round by round basis it was close.

milkyboy wrote:....fans, writers, experts, sheep. In my book, any 'expert' that can't watch a fight, draw an opinion and stick to it, is pushing the boundaries of what you might judge as an expert haz. If you bought your wife a diamond engagement ring from a diamond dealer, and he contacted you a few years later and said "i've just read a book, and i now believe that the ring i sold you last year is a cubic zirconia, sorry". Would you call him an expert diamond dealer?

Whichever, we were never going to agree on this one. So moving on:

10 point must system. For as long as i can remember if you don't knock them down, you usually have to batter someone from pillar to post for 3 minutes unanswered (preferably with a baseball bat) to have an outside chance of a 10-8. Yet a flash knockdown in an otherwise even round guarantees it.

I'm all for more liberal use of 10-8's, just as i don't think you should kill yourself to find a reason to give a round to someone instead of scoring it 10:10. I think it gives a fairer reflection of who the better man was. However, the premise (in terms of how it's universally applied) is that each round is a stand alone contest and in reality its about how many you win, not how well you win them. Take Macklin sturm as a recent example. No candidates for a 10-8 round, but macklin dominates his rounds, sturm edges his. People think Macklin was jobbed, but on a round by round basis it was close.

Not sure where you're going with it to be honest. It's a really difficult fight to score -- most people have changed their view on the scoring on playback (umpteen times in some cases).

Its certainly a fight open to interpretation and personal preferences. I listed legitimate reasons for why you might change your mind, i just don't think "oops, i missed the quiet beating, glad hugh spotted it and put me right" is a compelling one for someone calling themselves a boxing expert.

But people like Mcilvanney are opinion shapers, so i don't doubt his influence on fans views. Personally, i'm happy for him to educate and inform me... enlighten me on things i wasn't aware of or haven't seen. I just don't need him to tell me what i saw when i watched a fight.

milkyboy wrote:Its certainly a fight open to interpretation and personal preferences. I listed legitimate reasons for why you might change your mind, i just don't think "oops, i missed the quiet beating, glad hugh spotted it and put me right" is a compelling one for someone calling themselves a boxing expert.

But people like Mcilvanney are opinion shapers, so i don't doubt his influence on fans views. Personally, i'm happy for him to educate and inform me... enlighten me on things i wasn't aware of or haven't seen. I just don't need him to tell me what i saw when i watched a fight.

 
I don't belive that was his intention. He highlighted the weaknesses in boxing's scoring mechanism and described how Leonard used that to his advantage. He attempted to make sense out of a pretty confusing situation -- odd that it would offend you. Who is calling themselves a boxing expert (you've kinda lost me)?

You mentioned boxing experts haz, suggesting that many had changed their minds on the fight down the years, and that mcilvanney was the trendsetter for the 'round stealing'.

My argument is simple enough, I watch a fight and I form a view on who I think won. I don't then change it because someone else tells me I'm the victim of an illusion. Rightly or wrongly I feel capable of watching punches land and miss without someone telling me i imagined  it because I'm subconsciously overplaying the success of the underdog.

Really though, how up yourself do you have to be to implicitly suggest that anyone who didn't see a fight as you did, has been hoodwinked?

Trust me haz, I take some offending. But its fair to say that its not my favourite boxing article   
.

milkyboy wrote:You mentioned boxing experts haz, suggesting that many had changed their minds on the fight down the years, and that mcilvanney was the trendsetter for the 'round stealing'.

My argument is simple enough, I watch a fight and I form a view on who I think won. I don't then change it because someone else tells me I'm the victim of an illusion. Rightly or wrongly I feel capable of watching punches land and miss without someone telling me i imagined  it because I'm subconsciously overplaying the success of the underdog.

Really though, how up yourself do you have to be to implicitly suggest that anyone who didn't see a fight as you did, has been hoodwinked?

Trust me haz, I take some offending. But its fair to say that its not my favourite boxing article   
.

I didn't claim that (why do I need to constantly repeat that sentence on these boards?). Experts have changed their opinions because watching the fight live, it appeared that Leonard had old manned Hagler - taught him a lesson. On second glance, though, that's clearly not the case.

McIlvanney had it right and great writing is about finding truth.

I find it bizarre you'd be offended!

Silly Milky..........How naive not to know Hugh Mcilvanney is right about everything...

Grow up Milky.....

I've just watched it again and yes Hagler beat the crap out of him.....

In fact let's not have any debate on here at all..............

Let's have an ASK HUGH site instead.......Where he can tell us who kidnapped the Lindbergh baby ??...Whether there was a JFK conspiracy???.......

Whatever his answers are.....I'll believe them !!...  

Believe me Haz i'm not offended. You said:

"Over the years, a large proportion of fans, writers and experts (as per the retro piece I posted) came to see the fight in a different way: they moved more towards the view of Hagler having landed the meaningful punches in the fight and Leonard stealing rounds (the word "steal" is littered in that Grantland piece I posted). McIlvanney reported this at the time."

Forgive me if i joined the dots incorrectly. So you're saying, that everyone came to the conclusion independently. The fact that many quote him directly or choose mcV's language to describe the fight is incidental to their decision process?

I don't want to put words in your mouth again, so correct me if i've misunderstood. The gist of your argument is:
1. At the time most people fell for the epic illusion.
2. Since that time, the enlightened have learnt to see through the illusion and realise that a quiet beating was taking place under their noses.
3. Mcilvanney's insight was remarkable because he saw what happened at the time, where others could only see it on reflection
4. It looked like Leonard had won on first viewing but it was clear that hagler landed the better punches on second viewing.

If you think that's a credible position to take then fine. You're welcome to your opinion.

I get that people can get carried away with the drama of the event they are watching. Sport is emotive, and boxing judging isn't very scientific. But any knowledgable or credible expert ought to see through that, or personally i'd question their credentials as an expert (and that's not an invite for you to list a whole stack of experts to try and prove me wrong... its my opinion).

Most other commentators on the fight, many of whom you have referenced, recognised that they were making a judgement on what style of work you give credence to. Leonard fought a hit, move and hold fight against a bigger stronger man, with showy bursts at the end of the round to catch the eye. Its no more complicated than that. It was a fight like any other fight... not the only fight ever that was subject to an illusion.

As the captain said earlier, the article is well written smoke and mirrors. I just think it was a self-serving and self-justifying piece that elaborated on the patently obvious, and then made the sweeping conclusion that anyone who thought leonard won had been tricked. In my view, done to justify his own position, he's basically saying you're all fools, but i'm clever... and i'm right. I find that a staggeringly arrogant position. But that's my take on it, its just a debate. ....find it bizarre if you wish fella!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Silly Milky..........How naive not to know Hugh Mcilvanney is right about everything...

Grow up Milky.....

I've just watched it again and yes Hagler beat the crap out of him.....

In fact let's not have any debate on here at all..............

Let's have an ASK HUGH site instead.......Where he can tell us who kidnapped the Lindbergh baby ??...Whether there was a JFK conspiracy???.......

Whatever his answers are.....I'll believe them !!...  

Truss have you tried watching it with the sound off... It was a quiet beating remember.

Apparently mcilvanney is soon to release his theory on how spinks beat Tyson. It was a blind beating. If you close your eyes you can't see the illusory knockout.

Isn't McIlvanney just making one big excuse for calling that fight spectacularly wrong but being a well know writer some have fallen for it. Close fight that I think Hagler nicked but a silent beating it was not, as he did too often he tried to be clever and lost because of that, he has nobody to blame but himself.

milkyboy wrote:Believe me Haz i'm not offended. You said:

"Over the years, a large proportion of fans, writers and experts (as per the retro piece I posted) came to see the fight in a different way: they moved more towards the view of Hagler having landed the meaningful punches in the fight and Leonard stealing rounds (the word "steal" is littered in that Grantland piece I posted). McIlvanney reported this at the time."

Forgive me if i joined the dots incorrectly. So you're saying, that everyone came to the conclusion independently. The fact that many quote him directly or choose mcV's language to describe the fight is incidental to their decision process?

I don't want to put words in your mouth again, so correct me if i've misunderstood. The gist of your argument is:
1. At the time most people fell for the epic illusion.
2. Since that time, the enlightened have learnt to see through the illusion and realise that a quiet beating was taking place under their noses.
3. Mcilvanney's insight was remarkable because he saw what happened at the time, where others could only see it on reflection
4. It looked like Leonard had won on first viewing but it was clear that hagler  landed the better punches on second viewing.

If you think that's a credible position to take then fine. You're welcome to your opinion.

I get that people can get carried away with the drama of the event they are watching. Sport is emotive, and boxing judging isn't very scientific. But any knowledgable or credible expert ought to see through that, or personally i'd question their credentials as an expert (and that's not an invite for you to list a whole stack of experts to try and prove me wrong... its my opinion).

Most other commentators on the fight, many of whom you have referenced, recognised that they were making a judgement on what style of work you give credence to. Leonard fought a hit, move and hold fight against a bigger stronger man, with showy bursts at the end of the round to catch the eye. Its no more complicated than that. It was a fight like any other fight... not the only fight ever that was subject to an illusion.

As the captain said earlier, the article is well written smoke and mirrors. I just think it was a self-serving and self-justifying piece that elaborated on the patently obvious, and then made the sweeping conclusion that anyone who thought leonard won had been tricked. In my view, done to justify his own position, he's basically saying you're all fools, but i'm clever... and i'm right. I find that a staggeringly arrogant position. But that's my take on it, its just a debate. ....find it bizarre if you wish fella!

 
You got there in the end! I didn't interpret the piece that way. As per the Leonard vs Hearns report, McIlvanney is critical of the ten point must system, and if we're all perfectly honest about it, it's a point well made.
 
Hagler, like Leonard against Hearns, did all of the effective work. Leonard being scored the winner showed boxing's scoring system for what it was and still is: far too open to interpretation. I thought the points made -- the "compound optical illusion" and "showboating raised to an art form" lines -- were some of the more insightful I've ever read written in a fight report.
 
Something tells me I'm debating with a bunch of Leonard fans here, though?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Isn't McIlvanney just making one big excuse for calling that fight spectacularly wrong but being a well know writer some have fallen for it. Close fight that I think Hagler nicked but a silent beating it was not, as he did too often he tried to be clever and lost because of that, he has nobody to blame but himself.

Have you read it?

milkyboy wrote:Well haz, I guess it depends on what you want from your journalists and commentators. Mcv has done some excellent pieces on the backgrounds to fights and fighters. But do I really need someone to tell me what I saw? Do people need the insight of a journalist to tell them what they saw with their own eyes?  I guess some people need that reassurance. I accept that subliminally we 're open to influence... Its a good idea to watch fights without the commentary, but ultimately nobody tells me what I watched.

I'm sure it pleased you that his insight has brought people round to your opinion. Frankly, I give more credence to those who watched the fight and called what they saw, whatever perspective that may be.

I actually find it disingenuous of mcilvanney to suggest that those that saw it for Leonard were duped... Or just lacked his insight... Rather than the more patently obvious fact, that people judge 'effective' aggression differently, and give more credence to one type if work than another... Which is what several of your other quoted sources suggest or imply.

You think its insightful because you agree with it. I think its pretentious rubbish, because I don't. Fancy that!

Absolutely agree............  

He highlighted weaknesses in the 10 point must system in his Leonard hearns piece. He was more pointing out how boxing scoring in general is a minefield in hagler Leonard... Given there wasnt a round in Leonard hagler that could be a 10-8 on anyone's card.  He blames the system in one fight he didn't like the scoring in, and human nature in another (where he couldn't blame the system). Frankly whatever suits the premise of his argument at the time.

You mentioned earlier that 'Owned' is the language of the troll. Dismissing those that disagree with your opinion as fans runs it close haz.

I'm a fan of Leonard's talent but was never a particular fan of him. I was rooting for duran in Montreal and think hearns was ahead of Leonard at the time of the stoppage (as does truss, as do most people). I just happen to think that Leonard beat hagler. If there's a fanboy here, at all, the most likely candidate from what i've read would you be you... of mcilvanney.

"Professional boxing suffers from a permanent glut of expert opinion and over nearly every big fight there looms a garbage mountain of ill-conceived and arrogantly delivered prediction"

My favourite mcilvanney line. Its from his Leonard hearns piece, would have worked better in his hagler Leonard piece.

Not sure either Milky what makes Hugh's opinion better than other historians who have Leonard winning.....

Art of the smokescreener (D4 was a specialist)...To just chuck articles and "Expert" opinions that agree with you at people............

Knowing full well there are just as many articles and opinions that don't !!

I've never argued Hagler-Leonard wasn't contentious.....

People forget that historians and experts are all inherently biased...We all are....It's part of being human..

Ranulph fiennes a Polar expert loves Captain Scott and fights his corner ad nauseum...........

I think Scott was brave but useless as do many others including actual Polar experts.......all over the World...

Shackleton thought him an idiot..

You get my drift......

More abuse coming soon..........

Mcilvanney has a style that can curdle milky

I posted the mcilvanney quote for haz' benefit:

1. Its scathing of other experts
2. Implies he thinks he's the real expert, but not ill conceived and arrogant like the others!
3. ... And yet somehow sums up his prediction on the hagler Leonard fight (conspicuous by its absence from his published collections)

'Curdle milky' loving your work shah!

Truss, absolutely we all give priority to opinion that suits our argument... Even you on occasion  , even me once in a while. And, dare I say it, even the great Hugh mcilvanney.

milkyboy wrote:He highlighted weaknesses in the 10 point must system in his Leonard hearns piece. He was more pointing out how boxing scoring in general is a minefield in hagler Leonard... Given there wasnt a round in Leonard hagler that could be a 10-8 on anyone's card.  He blames the system in one fight he didn't like the scoring in, and human nature in another (where he couldn't blame the system). Frankly whatever suits the premise of his argument at the time.

You mentioned earlier that 'Owned' is the language of the troll. Dismissing those that disagree with your opinion as fans runs it close haz.

I'm a fan of Leonard's talent but was never a particular fan of him. I was rooting for duran in Montreal and think hearns was ahead of Leonard at the time of the stoppage (as does truss, as do most people). I just happen to think that Leonard beat hagler. If there's a fanboy here, at all, the most likely candidate from what i've read would you be you... of mcilvanney.

How have I dismissed your opinion? And yes, huge fan of McIlvanney. Not sure what a "fanboy" is, though. Like a ladyboy?

ShahenshahG wrote: Mcilvanney has a style that can curdle milky

Hugh himself would have been proud of that one, Shah.

milkyboy wrote:"Professional boxing suffers from a permanent glut of expert opinion and over nearly every big fight there looms a garbage mountain of ill-conceived and arrogantly delivered prediction"

My favourite mcilvanney line. Its from his Leonard hearns piece, would have worked better in his hagler Leonard piece.

 
He's correct in that assessment. Never more so than in 2014.

Here’s what went down on this thread:
 
1. Trussman insinuated that Hagler walked away from a Leonard rematch.
2. I suggested that was incorrect based on the timeline of events.
3. Trussman threw his dolls out (standard).
4. Milk boy suggested Hugh McIlvanney was a hack.
5. I pointed out he was far from that.
6. Trussman suggested I’d been “owned”.
7. I pointed out that “owned” was an odious comment.
8. Trussman claimed I’d abused him as a result.
9. Trussman suggested Leonard was as “fresh as a daisy” at the end of the fight.
10. I posted a quote from Leonard saying he was exhausted from the 5th round on.
11. I posted a series of quotes from a retro article illustrating that expert scoring had been split.
12. A few people had a chip on at McIlvanney, claiming his report was disingenuous.
13. I disagreed.
14. Milk Boy (eventually) accused me of being dismissive and a “fanboy”.
 
It seems pointless posting on here. Very little actual debate is stimulated in between long-winded “articles”, trolling and abusive posts from a series of odd individuals who I’m convinced can’t all be separate people.
 
If someone tries to evidence an argument, they’re accused of “posting it to suit their argument”. Why else would you post it?
 
There seems to be some sort of inherited hierarchy that set the board’s views and should anyone question it (which I do repeatedly), the bottom feeders on here start hurling abuse left, right and centre.
 
I’ve repeatedly been warned by mods for responding to the most abusive poster on the boards (Trussman), who is so utterly infantile, he rails against everything I post and then messages me in private to say sorry.
 
Think I’ll be better off joining Eastside Boxing with the rednecks and the necrophiles.

Where to start with that  

I truly can't be bothered so I'll just quote

hazharrison wrote:
 
Something tells me I'm debating with a bunch of Leonard fans here, though?

That's not dismissive? If you think we're all abusive, odd, bottom feeders... Or one scizophrenic abusive, odd bottom feeder, with multiple accounts., then why are you here? Surely in the years since you got kicked off the beeb you've found a site with worthy debating talent to call home. If not good luck with your search

But don't leave, we'll all pm you begging you to stay 

Haz got kicked off the beeb ??

Be proud to have milky as an alias haha

Had to remove the last few posts as they broke house rules, lads. Try to keep it at least half-civil, please! And Haz - private messages are called that for a reason.

88Chris05 wrote:Had to remove the last few posts as they broke house rules, lads. Try to keep it at least half-civil, please! And Haz - private messages are called that for a reason.

Aye and thats why theres so much beef on here - putting messages on your genitals inevitably leads to posters comparing dick sizes.

Chris can you make sure this thread stays on topic

It was written in good faith

Probably me to blame truss. Haven't had a rant about mcilvanney's Leonard hagler piece in years... just couldn't help myself.

I'm going to pm myself to tell me to behave.

Let's share the love and have a chat about something we can all agree on. Joe Louis' p4p all time ranking anyone?

milkyboy wrote:Probably me to blame truss. Haven't had a rant about mcilvanney's Leonard hagler piece in years... just couldn't help myself.

I'm going to pm myself to tell me to behave.

Let's share the love and have a chat about something we can all agree on. Joe Louis' p4p all time ranking anyone?

Maybe a Lewis is Canadian or something .....

Or Duran overrated...

Been a while.....since one of them..

By the way to all of you apart from Lumbering who is only here to stir..............I've written a good piece on The Klit legacy.........

Opinions welcome.............

Right, I've cleared off the offending posts (again) from this thread and am unlocking it now, so for the love of God, try to keep it reasonably good-natured, lads. Have done two clear ups on it already but can't be bothered to do a third. Debate, give each other a bit of good-natured ribbing and banter, challenge opinions etc, but just don't cross the line, please. Thanks.

It's only ever been good natured with me Mate.....