What if Marvin Hagler vs Sugar Ray Leonard 1982

[marchegiano007]

The fight should had happen in 1982. Leonard retired and comeback in 1987 and beat a somehow slow Hagler. But let say Hagler vs Leonard 1982 both in their primes and scheduled for 15 rounds. I think Hagler would had won by tko in 13 or 14 rounds or by decision, Hagler in his prime would had been very different that what happen in 1987 and the fight scheduled for 12 rounds.

[Goodnight, Irene]

The peak Hagler's too much Middleweight for nigh-on any Welter in history, & Leonard falls this time around. It's a stoppage somewhere around the 10th-13th, IMO.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Agreed, Marvin's biggest mistake when they fought was agreeing to 12 rounds, Leonard never could have lasted another 9 minutes. While it was crazy to try and outbox him for four rounds and agree to the circus tent ring, the rounds are what cost him his title.

He just wanted Leonard so badly that he caved in on everything. He honestly didn't have to, the Hearns rematch was all set and was bigger than anything else Leonard could have done. Ray was a great fighter but a real POS.

[Ezzard]

Agreed, Marvin's biggest mistake when they fought was agreeing to 12 rounds, Leonard never could have lasted another 9 minutes. While it was crazy to try and outbox him for four rounds and agree to the circus tent ring, the rounds are what cost him his title.

He just wanted Leonard so badly that he caved in on everything. He honestly didn't have to, the Hearns rematch was all set and was bigger than anything else Leonard could have done. Ray was a great fighter but a real POS.

I agree that Leonard was out and ready to unravel. 3 more rounds and he probably would have gone.

One thing to note though, Marvin's previous 2 fights had been scheduled for 12 rounds.

Here's a question... Do you think Hearns would have beaten hagler that night?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hard to say, if Marvin fought like that I would say yes. But I don't think he would have and Hearns legs never were the same at 60 after beating Andries. I wish we would have found out, no doubt it would have been a better fight.

[Ezzard]

Hagler was 2 years older and slower and taking shots off Mugabi and Leonard he should never have taken.

If Hearns' hand stays whole and he brings a different game plan to the table I think it would have been an even better fight than the first one.

It was really unfair that Leonard could just bounce back and not have to fight a challenger first. perhaps he expected Hearns would beat him to the historic win.

[Seamus]

Sorry Ezzard, but that argument would only have been valid if Leonard was convincingly beaten. Hagler v Leonard made money and that's the reason it happened. It's a shame Herol Graham didn't get a crack at Hagler, but quite frankly it just didn't generate the same interest that Hagler v Leonard, Duran, Hearns or even Mugabi did.

[Ezzard]

Sorry Ezzard, but that argument would only have been valid if Leonard was convincingly beaten. Hagler v Leonard made money and that's the reason it happened. It's a shame Herol Graham didn't get a crack at Hagler, but quite frankly it just didn't generate the same interest that Hagler v Leonard, Duran, Hearns or even Mugabi did.

Hmmmmm, not sure...

The reality of boxing is that box office always wins the day. BUT I like to think of it as a sport. I guess I'm the one who is proven to be wrong as certain fighters don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Hagler had been fighting one guy a year and the last 2 challengers had been the best on offer. Hearns had blown Shuler away and really should have been Marvin's next fight regardless of what the result versus Leonard was. Nobody knew how the fight would play out when the match was made.

[marchegiano007]

Hagler vs hearns 2 should had happen in sept 1986. This time i see maybe Hearns winning by decision or maybe Hagler could had ko him again but not in 3 in about 8 rounds.

[marchegiano007]

Another interesting rematch would had been in 1988 or 1989. Hearns vs Duran 2. I do think this time the Hearns that lost to Barckley would had had a very tought fight against the Duran that beat barckley. In the Hearns fight Duran had to lose 40 pounds in about 2 months that weaken him a lot. But the Duran of february 1989 that beat Barckely was very well prepared he took a lot of hard punches and he did not go anywhere.

[Seamus]

And yet the consensus on the forum (except for me) is that Duran's next fight after Barkley, vs SRL, was totally meaningless, because Duran, who had just pulled off an amazing victory in his last fight, was now way passed it.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I don't think there's any legitimate denying that Duran was well, well, well past-it by the time of the third stoush with Leonard. He may've had a great performance against Barkley (one of very few by this stage, to add some colour to the picture), but his prime ended a full decade & four or five divisions earlier.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hard to imagine having to explain that Duran was well past it at Super Middleweight. Add in a23ft ring and Leonard waltzing like it's a ballroom. Only thing that makes that fight worthwhile is Leonard made the mistake of getting within 10ft of Duran in the final round and got his face split open for the miscalculation.

[NazNaci1]

I would have to agree, that circa 1982, Hagler, would have won. I am not certain about him stopping SRL, though.

Leonard did have the whiskers and heart to hang with the best of any era. Hagler's workrate would win the day.

As for Hagler - Hearns II, I agree with SaadOffTheDeck, Tommy's legs just weren't there @ 160. It would a great fight, but at some point Tommy would have to come off his toes and bang, maybe not 3 rounds, like before, but couldn't see it going a whole lot longer tbh.

[boxing_fanatic_87]

Hagler wins by KO sometime after 10.

[elmersalsa]

Hagler in 1982 would have beaten Leonard by TKO in 10, maybe less.