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

milkyboy wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I could understand the controversial card though........

Leonard's output may have been slappy punches at times but If following someone around the ring doing sack all is effective aggression..You can keep it !!

It was a silent beating truss. Hugh mcilvanney, respected hack said so. Must be true. Hagler worked him over without anyone knowing or witnessing it... Except Hugh... Who is simply more perceptive than the rest of us.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not interested you've been owned........

Abraham is the head of HBO.........He's good enough for me.....They would have put on the fight!!

However Mcilvanney is a historian so no doubt he's spot on Milky...

Hardly Taylor-Chavez was it milkster..

88Chris05 wrote:McIlvanney is a brilliant writer, but like anyone he drops the odd clanger now and then, and I was glad when milky poured scorn over that piece that he wrote immediately after the Leonard-Hagler fight, because it was a load of cobblers.

Hugh just couldn't cope with or accept the fact that he'd called the fight so spectacularly wrongly beforehand (pretty sure he said that Leonard was going to get mangled), so rather than give Leonard any credit or acknowledge that he performed better than he'd expected him to, or admit that he didn't make a very good prediction, he came out with the 'silent beating' guff.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Didn't seem to hurt him all night.........Rememer when he was pinned on the ropes and then barraged his way off..Was it the 9th..

He was dancing in the last like he was fresh as a daisy.......

Chavez-Taylor is an example of hurtful punching Mate..

Leonard won for me...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I couldn't Mate and neither could all the guys who had him winning.....

Like KO, The ring and many of the historians....

Stupid statement to make Mate !!

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

3fingers wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote: I thought in the first fight, Leonard did enough to win by frustrating Hagler. I'm not sure his tactics were what Hagler expected so he was unable to effectively do the work he needed to early.

What do you think Hagler expected? Genuine question.

Leonard was well known for being fast as we know, but he'd been out of the ring for nearly 3 years - there was no way he'd still have the same snap, the same speed he had - that was I think what Hagler thought. He assumed a little of his speed would have been traded for power in the weight jump, or at the very least some sort of slowing. Wasn't the case. We saw the Leonard that frustrated Duran and I think Hearns came with completely the wrong plan. he adapted, but by then I think Leonard already had the judges admiring his work.

88Chris05 wrote:McIlvanney is a brilliant writer, but like anyone he drops the odd clanger now and then, and I was glad when milky poured scorn over that piece that he wrote immediately after the Leonard-Hagler fight, because it was a load of cobblers.

Hugh just couldn't cope with or accept the fact that he'd called the fight so spectacularly wrongly beforehand (pretty sure he said that Leonard was going to get mangled), so rather than give Leonard any credit or acknowledge that he performed better than he'd expected him to, or admit that he didn't make a very good prediction, he came out with the 'silent beating' guff.

horizontalhero wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:McIlvanney is a brilliant writer, but like anyone he drops the odd clanger now and then, and I was glad when milky poured scorn over that piece that he wrote immediately after the Leonard-Hagler fight, because it was a load of cobblers.

Hugh just couldn't cope with or accept the fact that he'd called the fight so spectacularly wrongly beforehand (pretty sure he said that Leonard was going to get mangled), so rather than give Leonard any credit or acknowledge that he performed better than he'd expected him to, or admit that he didn't make a very good prediction, he came out with the 'silent beating' guff.

All due respect Chris, but I suggest you re-read the article- HM gave Leonard plenty of praise- almost exactly along the line that his performance was far better than anyone had the right to expect, and conversly that haglar wasn't as good, but as far as I'm concerned the premise was bang on- Leonard  pulled off a great trick- I watched the fight withthe sound on live, and gave it to Leonard by a round, but then with the sound off, and the benefit a slow motion I changed my mind- nothing epitimised this more the the flurry in the ninth- looked brilliant at the time, but watch in slo-mo most it was clear that there was little power behind them, Haglar caught most of them, and then leonard grabbed hold of him again.
You may disagree with HM regarding who won, but that's no reason to question his motive for the article - he wrote it as he, and many, many other saw it. Who got it more wrong HM for seeing it by a slim margin to Haglar, or KO magazine 117-111?

horizontalhero wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:McIlvanney is a brilliant writer, but like anyone he drops the odd clanger now and then, and I was glad when milky poured scorn over that piece that he wrote immediately after the Leonard-Hagler fight, because it was a load of cobblers.

Hugh just couldn't cope with or accept the fact that he'd called the fight so spectacularly wrongly beforehand (pretty sure he said that Leonard was going to get mangled), so rather than give Leonard any credit or acknowledge that he performed better than he'd expected him to, or admit that he didn't make a very good prediction, he came out with the 'silent beating' guff.

All due respect Chris, but I suggest you re-read the article- HM gave Leonard plenty of praise- almost exactly along the line that his performance was far better than anyone had the right to expect, and conversly that haglar wasn't as good, but as far as I'm concerned the premise was bang on- Leonard  pulled off a great trick- I watched the fight withthe sound on live, and gave it to Leonard by a round, but then with the sound off, and the benefit a slow motion I changed my mind- nothing epitimised this more the the flurry in the ninth- looked brilliant at the time, but watch in slo-mo most it was clear that there was little power behind them, Haglar caught most of them, and then leonard grabbed hold of him again.
You may disagree with HM regarding who won, but that's no reason to question his motive for the article - he wrote it as he, and many, many other saw it. Who got it more wrong HM for seeing it by a slim margin to Haglar, or KO magazine 117-111?

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Haz, I feel you're being unjust towards SRL, his performance may have upset a few stomachs (including yours evidently) however you can't really make out it was some sort of robbery. Leonard performed out of his skin considering he was 3 years out of the game and did not win the fight on that merit. He did the earlier work, controlled the pace - although he didn't manage to hurt Hagler, he showed above all in my eyes throughout that he was a better boxer. He was hitting Hagler with regularity, he was generally the tidier worker, landed more punches and had the fact he was boxing someone who didn't really know how to stop what he was doing.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He was a little unjust to Mayweather when he downloaded half a Bernstein article slating him..........and left the other half praising him out.........

Same with the above quotes...

I'm sorry he lost the plot...........Wasn't intending to wind him up...

I was just trying to debate..

Sensitive boy our dear Haz...

It was contentious and anybody who picked Hagler good luck to them..

But plenty of experts went for Leonard..including me...  

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

3fingers wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote: I thought in the first fight, Leonard did enough to win by frustrating Hagler. I'm not sure his tactics were what Hagler expected so he was unable to effectively do the work he needed to early.

What do you think Hagler expected? Genuine question.

Leonard was well known for being fast as we know, but he'd been out of the ring for nearly 3 years - there was no way he'd still have the same snap, the same speed he had - that was I think what Hagler thought. He assumed a little of his speed would have been traded for power in the weight jump, or at the very least some sort of slowing. Wasn't the case. We saw the Leonard that frustrated Duran and I think Hearns came with completely the wrong plan. he adapted, but by then I think Leonard already had the judges admiring his work.

catchweight wrote:Leonard benefited from being a big underdog. Hagler was supposed to waste him and when he didnt it made Leonard look like he was doing way better and Hagler look like he was doing way worse because it wasnt going to script. It was a great performance by Leonard, he won it just about the only way he could. But I though Hagler did enough to win. Even if he did, Leonard would have still been the story in heroic defeat. You often read it like Hagler was crap that night but Leonard was magnificent and even then could only barely sneak it. If Leonard had of been the big favourite and Hagler the underdog the perception would be different and I believe Hagler would have been given the win. Very close fight between two great fighters.  

catchweight wrote:Leonard benefited from being a big underdog. Hagler was supposed to waste him and when he didnt it made Leonard look like he was doing way better and Hagler look like he was doing way worse because it wasnt going to script. It was a great performance by Leonard, he won it just about the only way he could. But I though Hagler did enough to win. Even if he did, Leonard would have still been the story in heroic defeat. You often read it like Hagler was crap that night but Leonard was magnificent and even then could only barely sneak it. If Leonard had of been the big favourite and Hagler the underdog the perception would be different and I believe Hagler would have been given the win. Very close fight between two great fighters.  

horizontalhero wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:McIlvanney is a brilliant writer, but like anyone he drops the odd clanger now and then, and I was glad when milky poured scorn over that piece that he wrote immediately after the Leonard-Hagler fight, because it was a load of cobblers.

Hugh just couldn't cope with or accept the fact that he'd called the fight so spectacularly wrongly beforehand (pretty sure he said that Leonard was going to get mangled), so rather than give Leonard any credit or acknowledge that he performed better than he'd expected him to, or admit that he didn't make a very good prediction, he came out with the 'silent beating' guff.

All due respect Chris, but I suggest you re-read the article- HM gave Leonard plenty of praise- almost exactly along the line that his performance was far better than anyone had the right to expect, and conversly that haglar wasn't as good, but as far as I'm concerned the premise was bang on- Leonard  pulled off a great trick- I watched the fight withthe sound on live, and gave it to Leonard by a round, but then with the sound off, and the benefit a slow motion I changed my mind- nothing epitimised this more the the flurry in the ninth- looked brilliant at the time, but watch in slo-mo most it was clear that there was little power behind them, Haglar caught most of them, and then leonard grabbed hold of him again.
You may disagree with HM regarding who won, but that's no reason to question his motive for the article - he wrote it as he, and many, many other saw it. Who got it more wrong HM for seeing it by a slim margin to Haglar, or KO magazine 117-111?

milkyboy wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:McIlvanney is a brilliant writer, but like anyone he drops the odd clanger now and then, and I was glad when milky poured scorn over that piece that he wrote immediately after the Leonard-Hagler fight, because it was a load of cobblers.

Hugh just couldn't cope with or accept the fact that he'd called the fight so spectacularly wrongly beforehand (pretty sure he said that Leonard was going to get mangled), so rather than give Leonard any credit or acknowledge that he performed better than he'd expected him to, or admit that he didn't make a very good prediction, he came out with the 'silent beating' guff.

All due respect Chris, but I suggest you re-read the article- HM gave Leonard plenty of praise- almost exactly along the line that his performance was far better than anyone had the right to expect, and conversly that haglar wasn't as good, but as far as I'm concerned the premise was bang on- Leonard  pulled off a great trick- I watched the fight withthe sound on live, and gave it to Leonard by a round, but then with the sound off, and the benefit a slow motion I changed my mind- nothing epitimised this more the the flurry in the ninth- looked brilliant at the time, but watch in slo-mo most it was clear that there was little power behind them, Haglar caught most of them, and then leonard grabbed hold of him again.
You may disagree with HM regarding who won, but that's no reason to question his motive for the article - he wrote it as he, and many, many other saw it. Who got it more wrong HM for seeing it by a slim margin to Haglar, or KO magazine 117-111?

Can't agree HH.

The article in the Sunday times, reproduced later in sports illustrated (easily findable in their archive for those interested) damns Leonard with faint praise. Yes he comments that Leonard performed better than expected and needed nerve to carry off the plan (but really, its kind of stating the obvious), but the agenda was pretty clear. Leonard set out to manipulate the judges and pull off an epic illusion. Poor old marv dishes out his quiet beating and gets jobbed.

It's basically saying Leonard set out to cheat hagler out of the fight by conning the judges (combined with the hardly revolutionary concept that the underdog gets favoured if he performs above expectations, compounded if the underdog is goldenb*lls). Reading the article you'd think Leonard invented the concept of fighting the last 20 seconds of every round, and that it wasn't taught to everyone who ever laced up gloves.

Mcilvanney is a talented and award winning wordsmith. I was impressed by his flowery prose when I was younger, but grew to find it increasingly self-serving and pompous. Each to their own on that front, he has written some very good pieces and I can see why people lap it up. Whichever, its understandable that plenty of hagler fans (or anyone who thinks hagler won) like to quote his views on the fight. It's like a stamp of approval.

However, When you read that article in context with the one before the fight (where he feared for Leonard's health and labelled it a complete mismatch) to me, it reads very much like a man who was trying hard to justify himself. Interestingly, the 'before' article is missing from his 'hardest game' book, despite the inclusion of both before and after pieces on other fights. Can't think why it failed to make the final cut.

I digress. Mcilvanney might well have thought hagler won. Plenty did. If we're being charitable we can say that everyone else was writing about how great Leonard was, and he wanted a different angle. After all, his job is not to recount the fight blow by blow but to paint the story behind it. However, just as Hugh believes the judges were victims of 'the Schulberg factor', I'm going to suggest that Hugh himself was rationalising his own cognitive dissonance... He'd so nailed his colours to the hagler mast for that fight, that he was justifying the result to himself.  Hey, its a theory, an opinion... just  like 'epic illusion' is a theory, and 'quiet beating' is a concept.

He could have written 'how wrong was I?. Congratulated Leonard, paid genuine tribute to his achievement (rather than drop it in as an aside)  and then gone on to say that he thought hagler won and why. But he didn't did he? A touch of humility goes a long way.

If this reads like a hatchet job on one of this country's legends of sports journalism, I will point out that I've acknowledged he's a brilliant writer, and therefore its balanced.