Why did Hagler fight Leonard the way he did?

[Ambling Alp]

Have you read what I said about Sullivan on the Hall of Fame thread? I voted for him, and have voted for him the last 7 times.

[raylawpc]

Have you read what I said about Sullivan on the Hall of Fame thread? I voted for him, and have voted for him the last 7 times.

Yes. What do you think the meant? It was a joke. I assume you know I'm not related to Marvin Hagler, so you were joking too, right? I was just giving it back a little.

That said, I did have Hagler winning 7 rounds.

[ringsider]

Have you read what I said about Sullivan on the Hall of Fame thread? I voted for him, and have voted for him the last 7 times.

Yes. What do you think the meant? It was a joke. I assume you know I'm not related to Marvin Hagler, so you were joking too, right? I was just giving it back a little.

That said, I did have Hagler winning 7 rounds.

You need glasses then.....plodding around chasing after SRL and being unable to cut the ring off are not the attributes of a decent MW champion......probably why Hagler could do nothing when he fought Leonard. You don't win rounds by chasing foreward...........

[raylawpc]

You don't win rounds by continually running and holding, either.

btw: I wear glasses, and my last eye exam showed that my glasses make my vision 20/20. But, hey, thanks for your concern over my vision!

[granberry]

For those outside the USA or too young to remember. A couple weeks after the fight, ABC had an in studio Saturday afternoon recap of the fight with Sugar Ray Leonard. Marvin Hagler was also asked to appear but declined the offer. I suppose everyone will say that naturally SRL handpicked his highlights.....There were alot of maybe 10 second clips shown at halfspeed.....

That is nothing short of hilarious.

ABC TV was the main selling agent for Ali and then his replacement Leonard.

Now ABC TV has a contrived show selling their long time product Leonard?

Who could have guessed.

LOL
.

And of course the sheep swallow every word of it.

That is how they learn their "boxing."

[Knucklez]

That fight should have been made in 1982 or 1983, when BOTH of them were in their primes.

Hagler had been chasing the fight for years.

I saw Ray Leonard give a speech at a charity event once when he described how the fight came about. He was at the Hagler-Mugabi fight and noticed the decline in Hagler's skills and speed, not to mention a tough, gruelling fight. At that point he decided to put his challenge in, knowing that Hagler would take it because it would be a monster pay day.

During the build up, Leonard pulled every trick in the book to turn the fight in his favour. He got the ring size he wanted, the referee and the gloves. And he repeatedly banged on about how Hagler couldn't box, had no skills, no sweet science, was nothing but a clumsy brawler etc etc ad nauseum. Hagler took the bait and came out orthodox to try to prove to Ray and the world that he could match Leonard as a pugilist.

[Smokin'Moe]

i gave hagler 6 rounds Leonard 4 with 2 even.

Hagler came on in the later rounds. Leonards flashy combos were either too little too late in the later rounds or were mostly blocked. Each time he threw them in the later rounds hagler would come back with body blows and worked him over. It was a very close fight but in the end i focused on clean effective punching as leonard continued to try to steal rounds by running and throwing ineffective slap-like combos that were blocked. Hagler didnt look impressive at all but he did score more often than leonard did as the fight wore on.
sugar ray did land the best punches of the fight but you have to be more consistent to win. btw those bolo low blows were brutal!

[raylawpc]

For what its worth (and except with for scoring, which I had 7-5), I agree with your assessment of why Hagler deserved the majority of rounds, Moe. Plus, Leonard's continual holding did not sit well with me when scoring the fight.

[Ambling Alp]

For the record, Leonard did land more punches than Hagler did. If a fighter lands more punches and lands the better punches, than he probably deserves the decision; of course each round is scored seperately so it's not always the case, but usually is.

It's not the job of the judge to determine if a fighter holds too much. That shouldn't factor into his scoring of the fight.
It doesn't matter how much "running" a fighter does. He has to land punches. Leonard clearly did that.

[Smokin'Moe]

For the record, Leonard did land more punches than Hagler did. If a fighter lands more punches and lands the better punches, than he probably deserves the decision; of course each round is scored seperately so it's not always the case, but usually is.

It's not the job of the judge to determine if a fighter holds too much. That shouldn't factor into his scoring of the fight.
It doesn't matter how much "running" a fighter does. He has to land punches. Leonard clearly did that.

Leonard did not land consistently though. when he ran in the later rounds, he would hardly land any of his punches or sometimes none at all. If you watch very closely, a lot of those flashy flurries are not landing cleanly.

[Ambling Alp]

I did watch the fight very closely many times, like many others. Of course not all of Leonard's punches landed, and some of them that did were grazing shots. However, it's the same with Hagler. Hagler missed punches and some of the ones that he landed weren't clean.

Almost all of Leonard's punches that he landed weren't when he was running.

I think there are so many misconceptions that many people have about this fight.
-People say that Hagler came on strong in the later rounds. Well, it's true, that he did better than the earlier rounds, the early rounds count justr a s much. You don't get more points for winning a late round than an ealtrier round. Leonard did win some of the later rounds.

-Leonard's punches are seen as "flashy", but with little substance. However, his punches had had as much effect on Hagler as vice versia.

-Leonard did too much "running" -Other fighters do the same thing and it's great footwork. Running only takes you so far. You have to stop and land punches. If Leonard was running all the time, he would have been able to land all of those punches.

Leonard did too much holding? - Again that's up to the referee, not the judges. What % of a fights does a fighter actaully get penalized for too much holding? People act like he was holding contanstly, he wasn't. There was a lot of action in this fight. Besides, it's not like every single clinch was started by holding. Some times Hagler did it, and sometimes they became tangled up.

btw, how is it that Leonard held like John Ruiz and ran like Hector Camacho? Was he holding Hagler and running at the same time? He managed to hold contatly, run constantly, and still threw that many punches?

-The Hagler was "shot" excuse- thats funny, before the fight Hagler was the big favorite. He was supposed to destroy Leonard in a few rounds. Leonard said he saw some things to exploit and almost no one believed him.

-Leonard had the avantages ie Bigger ring, thumbless gloves etc. Those things are always neogitated before every major fight.
Hagler is fighting a guy who is moving up in weight and who hasn't fought in 3 years and Leonard has the advantages. That's rich.
How would Hagler would have done if he had to get down to welterweight after not fighting for 3 years and fight Leonard?

A lot of this goes down to "pretty boy" Leonard against "tough guy" Hagler. Leonard hit Hagler hard enough and often enough to get Hagler's respect, even if Hagler would never admit it. He won more rounds than Hagler and rightly got the decision.

[granberry]

I assume everyone here is discussing the so-called "middleweight title fight" with the huge ten-ounce-gloves, the 12-round "championship" distance, the more than thirty warning by name for holding given by so-called 'referee' Richard Steal to Leonard, the punching after the bell in FIVE out of the 12 rounds by Leonard--including 6 to 7 punches after the bell ending the 11th round, all with no warning from the 'referee'?

Some "middleweight title fight."

[Smokin'Moe]

Leonard did foul a lot in that fight. i can remember two huge bolo low blows that were brutal!
i still say hagler won a close decision. Leonard may have stole rounds with his occasional flurries but i watched it very closely each time and i still say hagler did a little more to win, if not then at least enough to get a draw.

not that good of a fight really

[granberry]

In the weeks after the Leonard-Hagler 10 ounce glove/12 round distance "title" fight

ABC TV (the promotion company for Leonard) excitedly and repeatedly showed a clip of Leonard's "bolo punch" against Hagler.

Leonard had said before the fight he was going to use it.
He really didn't know how to throw such a punch and it did not come naturally to him.

During the Hagler "fight" Leonard tried his attempt at a "bolo punch" just as Hagler was stepping in.

The "punch" landed halfway between Hagler's hip and his knee.

It was low by a good foot.

The referee, Richard Steal, did nothing.

THAT is the "bolo punch" ABC TV showed repeatedly, and with great excitement.

Apparently the ABC TV boxing "experts" were so incompetent (not to mention blind) that they were unable to see the "punch" landed a foot below the belt.

When I walked into Adrian Davis' gym he walked up to me and said in an irritated voice, "Did you this [crap] on TV where they are showing over and over 'Leonard's wonderful bolo punch'?

"Leonard doesn't know how to throw a bolo punch. Hagler was moving in when he tried to throw it and it landed way below Hagler's belt. And these idiots can't see that? Where do they get these TV announcers?"

In every aspect the Leonard-Hagler "fight" was a farce to anyone who knows what boxing is.

[raylawpc]

For the record, Leonard did land more punches than Hagler did. If a fighter lands more punches and lands the better punches, than he probably deserves the decision; of course each round is scored seperately so it's not always the case, but usually is.

It's not the job of the judge to determine if a fighter holds too much. That shouldn't factor into his scoring of the fight.
It doesn't matter how much "running" a fighter does. He has to land punches. Leonard clearly did that.

Why can't holding factor into how a judge scores a fight? Certainly, only the referee can declare whether a fighter committed a foul, and thus merited a point reduction. But doesn't a judge have a perogative to consider excessive holding when looking at the overall performance of the fighter, and how to score the round?

[ListonLeft]

Leonard lost. pure and simple. If you think he won that fight then you are a boxing hype follower, not a boxing fan. HE LOST BY AT LEAST 6 ROUNDS

[dr_devious]

I havent seen the fight for many years, but I watched it over and over at the time and every time I had Hagler 2 rounds in front. Leonard dominated the first half of the fight, Hagler the second, but overall Hagler just came out on top for me

[Goodnight, Irene]

"Why can't holding factor into how a judge scores a fight? Certainly, only the referee can declare whether a fighter committed a foul, and thus merited a point reduction. But doesn't a judge have a perogative to consider excessive holding when looking at the overall performance of the fighter, and how to score the round?" - Ray

Alp is mistaken. The fighter who initiates the clinches most often is intended to have it scored against him by the judges. I can recall several examples of the commentators saying as much, including Don Dunphy when he remarked during The Fight Of The Century that, "Ali has done most of the holding, & that will count against him in the final scoring."

Alp, unfortunately, has a determined blindspot for Leonard. I scored this fight twice about six years ago, & came up with a draw the first time, & a narrow Leonard victory on the second go. Close fight. In their respective primes, Hagler would've beaten Leonard at Middleweight.

[Ambling Alp]

Why can't holding factor into how a judge scores a fight? Certainly, only the referee can declare whether a fighter committed a foul, and thus merited a point reduction. But doesn't a judge have a perogative to consider excessive holding when looking at the overall performance of the fighter, and how to score the round?[/quote]

Don Dunphy was wrong about that. The judge is supposed to score a round on effective aggressiveness,defense,ring generalmanship, and clean and hard punching. A judge's personal opinion of whether one fighter is holding too much is irrelevant. So no, a judge doesn't have that perogative. It's not a factor in scoring a round.

I often refute the garbage that is often thrown at him on this forum. I think he should be judged by the same criteria as everyone else and he often isn't.

[Goodnight, Irene]

You're mistaken about the holding, Alp. Excessive holding in a fight is a judges' business. I refer you to NPal.

[raylawpc]

Why can't holding factor into how a judge scores a fight? Certainly, only the referee can declare whether a fighter committed a foul, and thus merited a point reduction. But doesn't a judge have a perogative to consider excessive holding when looking at the overall performance of the fighter, and how to score the round?

Don Dunphy was wrong about that. The judge is supposed to score a round on effective aggressiveness,defense,ring generalmanship, and clean and hard punching. A judge's personal opinion of whether one fighter is holding too much is irrelevant. So no, a judge doesn't have that perogative. It's not a factor in scoring a round.

I often refute the garbage that is often thrown at him on this forum. I think he should be judged by the same criteria as everyone else and he often isn't.[/quote]

Can you cite a rule that says that? Isn't excessive holding part of "ring generalmanship?"

[Ambling Alp]

raylaw-goodnight was talking about Don Dunphy. I was really responding to him.

I have never read or heard of any rules that says a judge is supposed to take into account excessive holding. In fact, "effective clinching" is considered part of good defense. Nor do referees say anything about excessive instructuions before the fight.

Think about it, how would it really work?
Every round has to be scored individually. So if you are scoring round 7, you can't look at how much holding was going on before that. Most rounds have at least 1 or two clinches. So a fighter would have to clinch at least a few times in a given round before it you could do anything. Does a round that you would have scored 10-9 for fighter A but he clinched too much become 10-10? How many clinches does it take for it to than be 10-9 for fighter B? How many more before it becomes 10-8 for fighter B?
It's silly to even think that you can do this.

How would you guys score the 12th round of the 2nd Leonard-Hearns fight? Hearns held much more than Leonard in the Hagler fight. Does that mean that you guys scored it 10-5 for Leonard? I'm sure that you did. In fact how often does anyone even bring that up? btw, it was the same referee in that fight as the referee who did the Leonard-Hagler fight.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Jesus. Where is Elton John when you need him?

I think good footwork doesn't matter to a judge, either. Think about it, it's silly, isn't it? How would it work? If Fighter A moved his feet so many times, would you make a 10-9 round in his favour 10-8?

[granberry]

.......
How would you guys score the 12th round of the 2nd Leonard-Hearns fight? Hearns held much more than Leonard in the Hagler fight. Does that mean that you guys scored it 10-5 for Leonard? I'm sure that you did. In fact how often does anyone even bring that up? btw, it was the same referee in that fight as the referee who did the Leonard-Hagler fight.

Must have been the same officials too.

The same ones who gave Leonard Hagler's title for running away from Hagler and grabbing and holding on for dear life every time Hagler got near him.

The same ones who called the fight a "draw" where Hearns knocked Leonard down TWICE.

The same ones who "stopped" Leonard's fight with Kevin Howard and declared Howard "knocked out" ?

The same ones who stopped Leonard's fight with Benitez with SIX seconds left so Leonard could have a "knockout" win?

The same ones who called Leonard's fake second fight with Duran a "knockout" win for Leonard?

[Robinson]

I have to agree with Alp on this one guys/
I do not really think that the clinching that Leonard did was the excessive
in light of alot of other fights or fighters.

Its not as though he was as bad as say an Ali against Frazier or a Lewis
against most people when he would drop his forearm across the back of there
heads.

Leonards jab and grab and flurry and clinch strategy did enough to leave the
impression with alot of people that he won the fight.

As for things being in Leonards favour ??? How...

Ok both were not in there primes, but should have fought some time before
hand. Leonard may have won the negotioations for the size of gloves and
size of ring.

In 1987 12 rounds seem to be coming into vogue for Championship fights.

Also last time I checked it was Leonard who was fighting at haglers weight
range and had been inactive for so long.

I am a fan of both men, but I have tried scoring the fight for Hagler and I saw it
that way once, even then I was not convinced he won.

For whatever its worth as a casual fan I think that Leonard won the fight,
maybe he should have been penalised by Steele for holding.
Maybe he should have been deducted a point for the low blow...

But he wasnt and here we are .

I agree with you Granberry on the Draw with hearns being BS.

Kym