New Leonard-Hagler book: "Sorcery at Caesars"

[SorceryatCaesars]

"Sorcery at Caesars: Sugar Ray's Marvelous Fight". By Steve Marantz.

I am the author and I thank this board for allowing me to introduce myself.

I covered boxing for the Boston Globe from 1979 to 1988 - including the careers of Leonard and Hagler.

"Sorcery" is about their rivalry, their controversial 1987 bout, and its lingering effect.

Twenty-one years later, fans still debate the decision, and Hagler still is angry.

Though I covered the bout, there was much about Leonard and Hagler that was hidden from view. It took 21 years to piece the story together.

Glad to be a new member of this site - I welcome comments and questions.

Steve

[walter5]

I look forward to reading it.........Are both fighters cooperating with the book?

[turn2stone]

The Ring had a very interesting and positive critique in the most recent issue. Based on that article, I'm going to buy the book.

[TheGoods]

Bought it a few weeks ago. Been desperately trying not to sneak a peak as going on holiday next week and it will do for my reading rather than having to talk with my missus before the bars open! Looks a cracker from what I have read to be fair.

[turn2stone]

just thinking of that night brought back this gem of a memory.
here's how different the times were just 20 years ago. i didn't own a house and small satellite dishes were not around yet. i guess i just didn't know anyone getting the fight on a big dish either. so that fight night i ended up at a bar, hoping they might have the show rather than travel to the closest city that was showing it closed circuit at an arena. the bar did not have the fight. so i would go out to my car and listen to the between-round updates on the radio (something about licencing etc did not allow stations to broadcast the fight, or give you live updates), then run in and yell them out to everyone. back and forth....over and over and over.
technology has grown by leaps and bounds....boxing remains the same. :)

[Robinson]

I'm going to jump onto amazon later and grab me a copy.

It was a great fight and both men are true champions.

Welcome to the board.

[ringsider]

Hopefully the words "medicore,stumbling, plodding, and southpaw" are in the book describing Hagler.

[Flump]

Hopefully the words "medicore,stumbling, plodding, and southpaw" are in the book describing Hagler.

Yeah, thanks for coming...

[Ezzard]

I paid £20 back then for a ticket to the CCTV show in Birmingham. What an event. That night watching it seemed Leonard won easily but it was a very pro-Leonard crowd, and everyone wanted to see somethign special. When I watched it on TV at home the next day it was a shock to see how close it actually was.

I'll put this book on my Xmas list.

Big thanks to you, Steve, for putting this together. Hope you sell a million.

[funso banjo baby]

i was and still am completely biased. i thought Hagler won on aggression..he was slow and one dimensional by then but i simply wouldnt have counted most of sugar rays slaps either.

didnt find it an exciting fight but it couldnt have possibly lived up to the hype...the only fight that did was of course the greatest of all time Hearns hagler

[bennie]

In watched the fight 'live' in a packed London cinema. On the night Leonard was expected to get absolutely nowhere, so his form was a revelation and the audience were willing him to win. The fact he fought so well against all the odds (floored and tentative in his previous fight, three years earlier) undoubtedly swayed the big crowd, too. The judges inevitably picked up on that but, make no mistake, Leonard boxed well and it WAS a close fight and anyone who says Hagler was robbed is talking shite. Hagler is angry because he fought a stupid fight (expecting Leonard to tire, and thus giving away the early rounds; Hagler also tried to outbox Leonard in a form of 'you can't come out of retirement and beat a living legend like me; I'm going to humiliate you, the master boxer'). Ultimately, Leonard got to Hagler mentally, and Leonard didn't give Marvin a deserved rematch of course.

[Ezzard]

. Hagler also tried to outbox Leonard in a form of 'you can't come out of retirement and beat a living legend like me; I'm going to humiliate you, the master boxer'). Ultimately, Leonard got to Hagler mentally, and Leonard didn't give Marvin a deserved rematch of course.

I pretty much agree with this.

[ringsider]

Hopefully the words "medicore,stumbling, plodding, and southpaw" are in the book describing Hagler.

And I repeat........

[Collins2000]

Hopefully the words "medicore,stumbling, plodding, and southpaw" are in the book describing Hagler.

And I repeat........

And as usual no one agrees with you.

See you on the next hagler thread where you will still be spouting the same nonsense.

[ringsider]

Denial is a terrible thing......just watch the fight and it becomes so obvious.

[raylawpc]

I thought the fight was close, but I had Hagler winning a narrow decision.

[ringsider]

I thought the fight was close, but I had Hagler winning a narrow decision.

Then you surely need your eyes checked. Hagler gave away the first 4 rounds, so in order for him to win, he would have had to totally dominated Leonard in the next 8 rounds.....he did not. He spent most of those rounds bumbling around, and unable to do the most basic boxing move....cut the ring off. That is not an all time great anything....it is not even a decent novice golden gloves fighter.

[bennie]

On one of the official cards, Hagler won rounds three and four.

[raylawpc]

Hopefully the words "medicore,stumbling, plodding, and southpaw" are in the book describing Hagler.

And I repeat........

And as usual no one agrees with you.

See you on the next hagler thread where you will still be spouting the same nonsense.

I won't be seeing him here or anywhere else. It seems that his sole purpose on this board is to diss Hagler, and respond in a caustic manner to anyone who disagrees. The ignore feature is a wonderful thing!!

[Ambling Alp]

On one of the official cards, Hagler won rounds three and four.

And that is the problem. Leonard won rounds three and four clearly. They were easy rounds to score. If anyone doesn't have this on tape, it's on Toutube for all to see. If that judge would have given them to Leonard like he should have, even he would have had it 7-5 for Leonard, not Hagler, and it would have been a unanimous decision.

[raylawpc]

On one of the official cards, Hagler won rounds three and four.

And that is the problem. Leonard won rounds three and four clearly. They were easy rounds to score. If anyone doesn't have this on tape, it's on Toutube for all to see. If that judge would have given them to Leonard like he should have, even he would have had it 7-5 for Leonard, not Hagler, and it would have been a unanimous decision.

That judge - Lou Flippo, if memory serves - didn't have the advantage of being able to look at it later on You Tube, from the angle of the You Tube camera. From where he sat, Hagler won rounds three and four. That's why they put judges on different sides of the ring - so they can see things at different angles.

[Ambling Alp]

Brilliant. With that logic, you can make an excuse for the scoring by a judge for any round in any fight that has ever taken place.
Now we know not to question any decision ever again. If a decision seems bad, it's probably because the judges had a different angle than everyone else.

[raylawpc]

If the fight looks the same from all angles, why put the judges on different sides of the ring?

I neither said nor implied "you can make an excuse for the scoring by a judge for any round in any fight that has ever taken place." (Emphasis added) Of course, many rounds aren't close, and its apparent who won no matter where the judge is sitting. With many rounds, a person watching from the rafters at his or her first boxing match would know who won the round. But it does make a difference if the round is close. Where the judge is sitting - and what he (or she) sees from his or her perspective - can make a different in how the judge scores the round.

I think most people had a great deal of respect for Lou Filippo as a judge and referee. If he scored those rounds for Hagler, Filippo must have seen something that he liked in Marvin's performance.

[Ambling Alp]

I agree that some rounds are really close and two unbiased and knowledgeable people can see it differently. However in this case neither round was particularly close. Hagler was doing almost nothing.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I just never saw the controversy in the decision on this one. Leonard won that fight, I thought.