Why did Hagler fight Leonard the way he did?

[Seamus]

If all the silly claims about Leonard were really true it would just prove one thing. It would mean he was the smartest fighter in the history of boxing.

[raylawpc]

You are right that ring generalmanship and good defense are judgement calls. Sometimes it's easy to see which fighter is better, sometimes it's not. It's subjective.

However, too much holding shouldn't be subjective. You should be able to say if any fighter holds X amount of times in around, that's too much. This isn't an opinion. Either the guy held too much in a round or he didn't based on how many clinches he started. There is no legitimate reason why you can't do that.

Here is the real reason that people that think that "too much holding" should be a factor in scoring a round but won't say how much is too much:

If you leave it vague, then you pick and choose when you are going to apply it.
Don't like Ray Leonard? (or someone else for that matter) You can just say that he held too much in a fight therefore he doesn't deserve the decision.

However, if you say a certain amount is too much, then you leave yourself open. First you have pick the specific rounds that Leonard held too much that you otherwise would have gave to him. More importanlty, people can point out that Hearns held more in the 2nd Leonard-Hearns fight. People can also pick out other fights where one your favorite fighters held too much and shouldn't be given certain rounds and therefore the fight.

There is no legitimate reason why you can't put a number on this. It's not a gray area like some other things. It's black and white. That way you can be consistent in saying so and so held too much.

If "too much holding" is something that shows lack of ring generalmanship and good defense, and ring generalmanship and good defense are subjective, isn't "too much holding" subjective too?

I get the impression, Alp, that you think this is all about Ray Leonard. It isn't; at least, not in my mind. The original Sugar Ray is one of my boxing heroes, but if he had fought Hagler the same way Sugar Ray II did, I would still have scored it 7-5 Hagler.

Even though I think Leonard lost, I think it was a remarkable performance given his long lay-off before the fight. Even if he lost, it would have been a tremendous accomplishment in my mind. But in my judgment, he ran and held too much to win.

[Ambling Alp]

No holding too much it's not subjective, that has been my point all along.
You can't count numerically areas like ring generalmanship or defense.

You can count holding. Just count how many times a guy starts a clinch each round. If it's too many, than he held too much. If not, he didn't. There is no decision to make. Simple. Easy. Clear. Black and white. I don't know how else to put this.

How much "running" a fighter does should also have zero impact on judging a fight. If the guy chasing him can't cut off the ring, that's his problem. Sooner or later the "runner" is going to have to stop and land some punches or he isn't going to win the round. Bouncing around on your feet by itself shouldn't hurt or help you in the scoring. Ultimately, it's the punches that count. The quantity, cleanness of punches,and hard punches are what determines the winner.

I still would like to know how Leonard was able to run so much, hold so much, and still fight so much? If had done that much running and holding, you would think that there would be no action at all in that fight, and there was a lot.

I don't know if (like many people on this Forum) you have a bias against Leonard or not. Some of my comments were really directed toward others that do. However, if you think Leonard held too much, than if you are objective you would have to do this with many, many fights because Leonard didn't hold against Hagler as many other fighters have done that still won a decision. It's clear that judges seldom take this into consideration. How did John Ruiz ever win a decision?

[raylawpc]

No holding too much it's not subjective, that has been my point all along.
You can't count numerically areas like ring generalmanship or defense.

You can count holding. Just count how many times a guy starts a clinch each round. If it's too many, than he held too much. If not, he didn't. There is no decision to make. Simple. Easy. Clear. Black and white. I don't know how else to put this.

How much "running" a fighter does should also have zero impact on judging a fight. If the guy chasing him can't cut off the ring, that's his problem. Sooner or later the "runner" is going to have to stop and land some punches or he isn't going to win the round. Bouncing around on your feet by itself shouldn't hurt or help you in the scoring. Ultimately, it's the punches that count. The quantity, cleanness of punches,and hard punches are what determines the winner.

I still would like to know how Leonard was able to run so much, hold so much, and still fight so much? If had done that much running and holding, you would think that there would be no action at all in that fight, and there was a lot.

I don't know if (like many people on this Forum) you have a bias against Leonard or not. Some of my comments were really directed toward others that do. However, if you think Leonard held too much, than if you are objective you would have to do this with many, many fights because Leonard didn't hold against Hagler as many other fighters have done that still won a decision. It's clear that judges seldom take this into consideration. How did John Ruiz ever win a decision?

I think that this point we should agree to disagree instead of wasting bits of computer space arguing back and forth. Clearly, you are not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you.

BTW, I think a lot of fighters hold too much.

Leonard isn't my favorite fighter, but I don't think I'm particularly biased against him. I did generally favor the other guy, though. The only fighters I can recall ever actively disliking were Ali (whom I've come to respect now because of his heroic battle with Parkinson's), and Ron Lyle.

[Ambling Alp]

If all the silly claims about Leonard were really true it would just prove one thing. It would mean he was the smartest fighter in the history of boxing.

Not only that he must be a magician. If you consider some of of the claims against him:

- He beat 9 Top 10 opponents before fighting for the title, but somehow managed to have it easy on the way up.

- His record in title fights that went the distance was only 2-2-1. This includes the easy win over Duran in their 3rd fight. Yet somehow the judges always favored him.

- He should have been penalized by the referee for excessive holding even though the same referee didn't penalize Hearns for holding more against Leonard.

-H manages to get very little credit on this forum winning the title after a 3 year layoff with no tuneups no big deal even though no one in over 100 years has done this.

- Even though he had more fights including himself, Benitez, Duran Hearns, Hagler than anyone else despite missing almost 5 years, he still managed to have his opponents "well chosen".

-He managed to beat great opponents who always had some unlucky break that they never had against anyone else but Leonard.

-Roberto Duran was old at 29 (when he fought Leonard) and the great Terry Norris never won a fight after the age of 31, yet Leonard managed not to be old at the age of 34 when he fought Norris.

-He managed to convince many people to say Hagler was washed going into the Leonard fight after all, even though Hagler was considered all but invincible before the fight.

-He manages to get criticized for not giving rematches to fighters that leave his weight class. (You would think that if anything, they would get criticized for running from Leonard.) No one else in the history of boxing seems to get critized for this.

-Somehow he was able to stop Duran,Hearns,Benitez, back up iron chinned Marvin Hagler with "shoeshine punches".

-Perhaps his greatest trick: He somehow manages to get criticized on virtually every thread that mentions any opponent that he ever fought.

[The Great John L]

...The only fighters I can recall ever actively disliking were Ali (whom I've come to respect now because of his heroic battle with Parkinson's), and Ron Lyle.

Why the dislike for Lyle?

[raylawpc]

...The only fighters I can recall ever actively disliking were Ali (whom I've come to respect now because of his heroic battle with Parkinson's), and Ron Lyle.

Why the dislike for Lyle?

You know, John, I probably shouldn't have written that. I shouldn't speak ill of people, since its is just my opinion. I worked Lyle's corner with his trainer, Bobby Lewis, when Lyle fought Lou Bailey in Oklahoma City back in 1973, and, suffice it to say that it was not an enjoyable experience for me. It was probably more Lewis than Lyle. Maybe working with me wasn't enjoyable for Lewis either. So there you go.

Interestingly, you didn't ask, "Why did you dislike Ali?" Hmmm . . . I wonder why nobody asks why anyone would dislike Ali . . .

[ringsider]

I was never a Leonard fan....but you have to give him his props. He got it done when it needed to be done. He did have the champion's heart to go with his skills. I believe his punching power was very under rated.

[Robinson]

Alp

I think perhaps alot of people dislike Leonard because he is articulate, media saavy-friendly and has adjusted well outside of the ropes. Not to mention that style as we know upsets people at any weight.

In any case, his talent was undeniable and I can not see how any one who hates him can deny the fact that the 1980s was one exciting decade outside of the HW's and a good part of it had to do with him.

[Goodnight, Irene]

"I think that this point we should agree to disagree instead of wasting bits of computer space arguing back and forth. Clearly, you are not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you.

BTW, I think a lot of fighters hold too much.

Leonard isn't my favorite fighter, but I don't think I'm particularly biased against him. I did generally favor the other guy, though. The only fighters I can recall ever actively disliking were Ali (whom I've come to respect now because of his heroic battle with Parkinson's), and Ron Lyle." - Ray

I was just about to offer that advice. He is an absolute impenetrable wall of hero worship for Leonard. Notice how he steps straight past the fact I scored Leonard-Hagler for Leonard to attack me for an opinion deemed to diminish one of Leonard's other victories. It's hero worship. Statements like, "you have to be able to count how many times a fighter holds or it means nothing," &, "how much running a fighter does should have zero impact on judging a fight" tell me he doesn't know much about scoring a fight.

I have been accused of being, "desperate to tear down Leonard." Alp --- or anyone --- please tell me how many anti-Leonard threads Goodnight, Irene has created on this forum. Someone, anyone, please tell me, at an estimate, how often you think I negatively address Leonard.

Oh, & one more thing, Alp --- please have someone stand directly in front of you, perhaps a friend, & smash their forehead into yours at speed. If necessary, repeat the process until your forehead is bleeding profusely & running down your face. Now, fight ten or eleven rounds with said friend. See if it impacts on you. Remember, if you ask for a rematch & it is denied, moving out of your friends weightclass makes you the bad guy. If you want a rematch, you will have to put your livelihood on hold until it suits your friend. Don't worry --- it'll be, "sooner or later."

Come down from the clouds. None of us have anything against Leonard. You're dreaming it.

[Robinson]

At the end of the day though G.I. Alp will always have one over you....

[Elton John]

I was never a Leonard fan....but you have to give him his props. He got it done when it needed to be done. He did have the champion's heart to go with his skills. I believe his punching power was very under rated.

Bullshit! The man was a fraud! If this were not so the Hagler fight would have happened at least 4 years sooner and he would have handled Norris without all those major problems. Terry Norris had the handspeed and you all saw what happened. Norris was no one at the time but his handspeed made up for his lack of name recognition and the fact Leonard was chosen by everyone in the media to win this easy. You should all be singing praises over Norris instead of that thing leonard.

[ringsider]

I was never a Leonard fan....but you have to give him his props. He got it done when it needed to be done. He did have the champion's heart to go with his skills. I believe his punching power was very under rated.

Bullshit! The man was a fraud! If this were not so the Hagler fight would have happened at least 4 years sooner and he would have handled Norris without all those major problems. Terry Norris had the handspeed and you all saw what happened. Norris was no one at the time but his handspeed made up for his lack of name recognition and the fact Leonard was chosen by everyone in the media to win this easy. You should all be singing praises over Norris instead of that thing leonard.

No it is not BS.....you are just stupid.

[Goodnight, Irene]

At the end of the day though G.I. Alp will always have one over you....

I can't see the pic, Robinson, though I can well imagine. You're a regular here at BOTP. How often would you say I exhibit this alleged need to tear Leonard down? See many threads or posts of mine that are anti-Leonard? What do you think, Kym?

[Robinson]

The pic is a lovely one of ODLH in some hot assed latino sex stockings....its hot...Ive gone through two tubs of butter already !

Now back to the question...

To be honest I figured you were kinda a Leonard fan...you did score the fight for him in any case didnt you ?

Was Alp refering to you or just others in general ? anyhow I personally do not recall you saying anything of the anti Leonard nature.

Kym

[Goodnight, Irene]

"This really shows how desperate you are to downgrade Leonard." - Alp to me.

Yes, I scored the fight for Leonard. I have no problem with Leonard. However, suggesting a bad cut carried through two-thirds of a fight impacted on one of Leonard's opponents is grounds for, "being a hater." It's absurdist hero worship.

[Robinson]

I shall have to watch the Leonard-Benitez fight again....saw it sooo long ago.

[Elton John]

I was never a Leonard fan....but you have to give him his props. He got it done when it needed to be done. He did have the champion's heart to go with his skills. I believe his punching power was very under rated.

Bullshit! The man was a fraud! If this were not so the Hagler fight would have happened at least 4 years sooner and he would have handled Norris without all those major problems. Terry Norris had the handspeed and you all saw what happened. Norris was no one at the time but his handspeed made up for his lack of name recognition and the fact Leonard was chosen by everyone in the media to win this easy. You should all be singing praises over Norris instead of that thing leonard.

No it is not BS.....you are just stupid.

Whatsa matter did I hurt your feelings?

Stop all this pretending. Leonard was never in the class of hagler or else this fight would have happened five years sooner and Hagler would have killed him. There was no legitimate reason for not taking this fight if he's still fighting...obviously. It's not like he had his license revoked for 3 years. It's not like he went to jail a few years for rape either. He was just waiting for the right time all along and I doubt that anyone here doesn't believe this including yourself and Alp despite the continued put on.

He was actually smart to duck him. Leonard never faces the elite fighters of their time and just like he ducked Hagler, he ducked Nunn and McCallum (main headliners) preferring the much safer Lalonde and shot Duran/Hearns retreads all old, soft, round, and flabby.

He took one look at the Curry fight and did not like he saw. he also blacklisted Nunn after the Kalambay fight. He feared Nunn just like he feared Hagler but even so he still met with disaster in the Norris fight.

L12
KOby 5

Norris & Camacho back-to-back!!

[Elton John]

I shall have to watch the Leonard-Benitez fight again....saw it sooo long ago.

No wonder it's been so long,,once is enough to cure insomnia.

[Ezzard]

I'm in agreement with ray and bjermaine

Basically a close fight liek this can be scored either way. Anyone arguing too vehemently for oen or the other is fooling themselves.

My recollection of the fight as a kid going to the cinema to watch it live was that just about everyone there wanted Leonard to win. I did too. leonard was an under dog and it seemed like an amazing feat for him to attempt.

Leonard was getting the early rounds but like with a lot of Hagler's challengers they would often unwind right about the time they were having their success.

Hagler then had the most dominant round in the 9th. Leonard took it all and managed to punch back. It seemed then like he really could win.

Ray leonard was out on his feet though and in those last 3 rounds it was a matter of can he stay standing. Hagler seems to have him again at the end of the 10th and 12th but he just can't land the telling blow and he just runs out of time.

I'll admit that as a kid I got carried away and thought Leonard won clearly. I watched it on TV the next day and realised it was a very close fight that could be argued either way.

It all seemed set up for a rematch. Leonard had said he was only coming back for 1 fight but as he did so well I expected a rematch. When he didn't grant one Leonard diminished in my eyes, but I thought well he did say he'd only come back for 1 fight. When he then came back again and again when the timing was always just right for him I did feel like as a man he was a bit of a fraud.

Leonard was never "out on his feet" in the entire fight. It wasn't just a matter if Leonard could keep standing in the 10th,11th and 12 rounds.
Even Elton John has the 12 round even.
Even Robinson has the 10th round even.

However what really irks me is you calling Leonard a fraud. He obviously meant to stay retired after the Hagler fight. Fighters retire and than change their mind comeback all of the time. It's more the rule than the exception. It's not like he took another fight right after Hagler. It was another 19 months before Leonard fought again.

A fraud doesn't fight all those tough fights and not quit.
A fraud doesn't fight 9 Top 10 opponents before fighting for a title.
A fraud doesn't beat Benitez,Duran, Hearns, and Hagler.
A fraud doesn't have more mega fights than anyone else in his era (Of Leonard,Duran,Hearns,Hagler, and Benitez, it was Leonard who had the most fights among them) despite being out of action for almost almost 5 years.
A fraud doesn't comeback to boxing after a detached retina and multiple eye surgeries.
After Leonard got the detached retina, he didn't owe boxing anything. Yet he came back (past his best) and fought some exciting fights that gave the fans some excitement and got his opponents big paydays.

Booo!!!

He came back when the odds for the fights had moved in his favour... Ray held all the cards for the big money fights and only granted the fights when he was pretty sure that he'd win.

Read the post again and you'll see that none of your points actually address what I'm saying, just a knee jerk reaction to anyone criticising Leonard in any way.
You'll be posting about his good looks again any minute.

[Ezzard]

How the rounds were scored has nothiong to do with the state of the fighters... In Hearns - leonard I, Tommy is winning the rounds but Leonard is winning the fight. had that been over 12 Tommy would have won. That's not to say ray wouldn't have managed 3 more rounds with Marvin it just means that those were desperate rounds in many senses and I'm not the only one who thinks it.

besides, this is not even a criticism, it's a compliment that he could fight through it and survive until the end.

[Ezzard]

If all the silly claims about Leonard were really true it would just prove one thing. It would mean he was the smartest fighter in the history of boxing.

I think that he possibly was no matter how you view him...

[Ambling Alp]

I'm in agreement with ray and bjermaine

Basically a close fight liek this can be scored either way. Anyone arguing too vehemently for oen or the other is fooling themselves.

My recollection of the fight as a kid going to the cinema to watch it live was that just about everyone there wanted Leonard to win. I did too. leonard was an under dog and it seemed like an amazing feat for him to attempt.

Leonard was getting the early rounds but like with a lot of Hagler's challengers they would often unwind right about the time they were having their success.

Hagler then had the most dominant round in the 9th. Leonard took it all and managed to punch back. It seemed then like he really could win.

Ray leonard was out on his feet though and in those last 3 rounds it was a matter of can he stay standing. Hagler seems to have him again at the end of the 10th and 12th but he just can't land the telling blow and he just runs out of time.

I'll admit that as a kid I got carried away and thought Leonard won clearly. I watched it on TV the next day and realised it was a very close fight that could be argued either way.

It all seemed set up for a rematch. Leonard had said he was only coming back for 1 fight but as he did so well I expected a rematch. When he didn't grant one Leonard diminished in my eyes, but I thought well he did say he'd only come back for 1 fight. When he then came back again and again when the timing was always just right for him I did feel like as a man he was a bit of a fraud.

Leonard was never "out on his feet" in the entire fight. It wasn't just a matter if Leonard could keep standing in the 10th,11th and 12 rounds.
Even Elton John has the 12 round even.
Even Robinson has the 10th round even.

However what really irks me is you calling Leonard a fraud. He obviously meant to stay retired after the Hagler fight. Fighters retire and than change their mind comeback all of the time. It's more the rule than the exception. It's not like he took another fight right after Hagler. It was another 19 months before Leonard fought again.

A fraud doesn't fight all those tough fights and not quit.
A fraud doesn't fight 9 Top 10 opponents before fighting for a title.
A fraud doesn't beat Benitez,Duran, Hearns, and Hagler.
A fraud doesn't have more mega fights than anyone else in his era (Of Leonard,Duran,Hearns,Hagler, and Benitez, it was Leonard who had the most fights among them) despite being out of action for almost almost 5 years.
A fraud doesn't comeback to boxing after a detached retina and multiple eye surgeries.
After Leonard got the detached retina, he didn't owe boxing anything. Yet he came back (past his best) and fought some exciting fights that gave the fans some excitement and got his opponents big paydays.

Booo!!!

He came back when the odds for the fights had moved in his favour... Ray held all the cards for the big money fights and only granted the fights when he was pretty sure that he'd win.

Read the post again and you'll see that none of your points actually address what I'm saying, just a knee jerk reaction to anyone criticising Leonard in any way.
You'll be posting about his good looks again any minute.

None of my points address what you were saying? huh? They specifically address what you were saying.
-You said that he was out on feet, I pointed out that that didn't happen.
- You said that it was just a matter of if Leonard could remain standing in the last 3 rounds. I pointed out that even elton john thought thought the 10th was even and even Robinson thought the 12th was even. Obviously he did more than just hang on the last 3 rounds.
-You called him a fraud. I pointed out why that was a ridiculaus statement.

Now you are criticizng Leonard because "He came back when the odds for the fights had moved in his favour..." Well, he was a pretty big underdog for the Hagler fight. Hardly anyone gave him any chance at all. Most so called experts were saying that he would only last a few rounds.
It's not like he was fighting tomato cans after Hagler. People make fun of Donny Lalonde, as if he was a joke, but he certainly could have found an easier opponent. He then fought Hearns, Duran, and Norris, not exactly stiffs.

Ray held all the cards for the big money fights and only granted the fights when he was pretty sure that he'd win. - Well, what bigger money fights other than a Hagler rematch were out there? He fought Hearns and Duran, which were the fights that everyone wanted to see.
He held all of the cards? Well he was the biggest draw. That certainly wasn't his fault. If it wasn't for him, Hagler, Duran, and Hearns would have made a lot less money in their careers.

He only granted fights when he was pretty sure that he would win? Well yeah. It makes sense for a fight to fight fights that he can win. What did you want him to do, fight heavyweights?
Are you seriously going to argue that there were no risks at all in the fights that he took during his comeback?
Lalonde was much bigger than him and was coming off some decent wins. Tommy Hearns is certainly a risk? Duran was obviously past his best but had just beaten Iran Barkley.

A Hagler rematch is the only real fight that you can make any kind of arguement that he should have took. That's one fight. You can say that about literally any fighter that ever lived.
One fight in a career that includes a fight against Benitez, moving up to fight Mugabi, Duran three times and Hearns twice and of course Hagler.

[ringsider]

These Leonard bashers are just retarded........

[BoxBuzz]

These Leonard bashers are just retarded........

You know these left wingers, it's all about emotion.


(for context for those of you who just tuned in this year....ringsider is one of those who villify the lefties in general and believe that the use of the southpaw stance is an abomination and disrespectful to the game of boxing.)