leonard Vs Hagler..who really won???

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 27 Nov 2005, 11:38

Ive heard alot of contraversy over this fight. of course it was haglers last, many people say that hagler won the fight, but i disagree. srl was relentless and althought he didnt hurt hagler at all and he didnt make a single mark on his face, punches are punches. they connected, which was SRL gameplan. punch and then avoid punches, he didnt care if they hurt him or not because he knew he couldnt KO hagler and would probly not be able to take him the distance if he tried to hurt hagler.

ManonFire · Post by **ManonFire** » 27 Nov 2005, 15:48

I think sugar ray won this one it was a close fight but he definatly done enough to win by about 2 or 3 rounds

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Nov 2005, 16:11

I watched this again recently and Leonard won it pretty clearly. He not only landed more punches but he also seemed to shake Hagler up a few times. Hagler looked his age in this fight and looking back to the Mugubi bout you can see a decline, the speed and reflexes are not there... having said that though it was still a great performance from Leonard after 3 years out... shame he didn't quit for good there and then...

vagabundo55 · Post by **vagabundo55** » 27 Nov 2005, 18:06

Well, I finally found something I disagree with Silkov on. I saw Hagler winning the fight. Although I do respect Silkov's opinion. It's just one of those fights that people will never agree on. I understand why people would see Leonard winning, but I just don't see it. I guess i'm not impressed by 10 second bursts. However, Silkov is very knowledgeable and I respect his opinions and generally I agree. Just thought i'd give my two cents. Each time I see this fight I see Hagler winning.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 27 Nov 2005, 18:44

Silkov, you would'nt also be going by the name Vagubundo55?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Nov 2005, 19:08

vagabundo55 wrote:Well, I finally found something I disagree with Silkov on. I saw Hagler winning the fight. Although I do respect Silkov's opinion. It's just one of those fights that people will never agree on. I understand why people would see Leonard winning, but I just don't see it. I guess i'm not impressed by 10 second bursts. However, Silkov is very knowledgeable and I respect his opinions and generally I agree. Just thought i'd give my two cents. Each time I see this fight I see Hagler winning.

At the time of the fight I thought Hagler had done enough to win. Then afterwards when I watched it I thoght it was much closer and could have gone either way but after watching it the last few times I belive Leonard won by about two rounds. The thing is although Hagler is coming forward most of the time, most of his punches are being nulified by Leonard. In the early rounds Hagler was pretty well out-boxed by Ray and late on it is Ray who seems the fresher in the last round rather than Hagler.
I do think that if Hagler had got a rematch in 5 or 6 months he would have won it... I think he and the Petronellies totally underestimated Ray and he thought he would be able to ko Leonard, hence the agreement on the gloves, the ring and the 12 rounds.... Hagler also underestimated how much he had slipped himself....
I can still see why people believe Hagler won... its alot down to how you percieve a fight, ...it was a sad way really for Hagler to lose his title...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 Nov 2005, 19:09

kick asner wrote:Silkov, you would'nt also be going by the name Vagubundo55?

8) nope!... not that I'm aware of anyway!...

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 27 Nov 2005, 20:05

Hagler-Leonard was one of those fights where what you watch without a scorecard in your hand is different than what you see when you're really trying to score the fight. Like Silkov, the first couple times I rewatched the fight my visceral reaction was that Hagler had won it. But when I finally watched it to "score" what I was really seeing, it was evident that Hagler, though he was constantly pressing the action, was not scoring well with his punches. Leonard did indeed land the better shots more often. I don't like that he fought mostly in short bursts, but I don't think anyone who's watched the fight more than once can rightly argue that Hagler scored clean punches more often than Leonard did.

But I still think that 118-110 was ridiculous. That was one of those "Hey Judge, you're missing a good fight" scorecards.

vagabundo55 · Post by **vagabundo55** » 27 Nov 2005, 20:38

silkov wrote:
kick asner wrote:Silkov, you would'nt also be going by the name Vagubundo55?

8) nope!... not that I'm aware of anyway!...

Nah, we're not the same person. I just respect Silkov's opinion because generally I agree with him.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 27 Nov 2005, 21:19

118-110 for Leonard was a bit outrageous, but 115-113 for Hagler was pretty silly as well.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 27 Nov 2005, 21:44

I saw it as a genuine win for Sugar Ray. Close for sure but not close enough for doubt as to the winner.

cybox · Post by **cybox** » 27 Nov 2005, 23:04

this question ranks right up there with "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"[/b]

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 27 Nov 2005, 23:56

im sorry i just dont see the comparison..

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 28 Nov 2005, 00:03

By some peoples reckoning, Leonard was the chicken. And the times I've watched the fight, I've had the chicken winning by either 116-113 or 117-112.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 28 Nov 2005, 00:05

i had it 116-113 last time i watched. def. think leonard deserved the win

Trent · Post by **Trent** » 28 Nov 2005, 03:22

First time i seen the fight, i thought hagler won, i agree with when you watch it with a pen and paper you will find SRL won, it was a boring fight, and most could say that SRL didnt go there to mix it up with hagler, i wouldnt say it was a great win for SRL, cose he did just run and punch in bursts.

I dont understand that many boxing books say it was an outragous decision, and i think Hagler retired becasue of the decision. I think that is going a bit far. The scoring was fine, even though it was a shit tactic and boring tactic by SRL.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Nov 2005, 04:38

MY SCORECARD - judged it 4 times

115-114 leonard
115-113 leonard
115-114 hagler
115-114 leonard

so basically i have it 115-114 leonard

Gordon · Post by **Gordon** » 28 Nov 2005, 06:38

First time I watched the fight I thought Hagler by a round.

Second time no change

Since then I've watched the fight about 4 more times and each time I have SRL ahead by about 3 rounds.

After a few viewings you tend to watch it through impartial eyes and can see the big picture.

So eventually Leonard 116-113

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 28 Nov 2005, 07:05

On the night I thought Leonard won by 4-5 rounds but since then I think maybe by 2 rounds but I can see the argument for Marvin.

There should have been a rematch but that's typical of Ray's career. He was quick to rematch Duran after he beat Barkley because it was so obvious that Duran had no chance. He was also happy to go in again with Tommy after it looked like he was shot. And how did Ray get this shot at hagler after fighting 1 fight in about 5 years???

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 28 Nov 2005, 07:26

Yeah Ray was a great boxer but he lost a lot of shine because of his maniplutive ways outside the ring... I think Hagler, Hearns and Duran are all held in a higher esteem by the fans than Leonard and in a way thats a shame for Ray, because behind it all he was a great boxer but too much of a buisnessman too...

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 28 Nov 2005, 10:50

I think it shows a lack of belief... That's a strange thing to say when we're talking about Leonard but what other reason can there be?

Ray could have waited another 12 months and rematched an even older and slower Hagler.

i read that ray wanted to quit after the first Duran fight. A 3rd fight soon after no mas would have been a great spectacle and why not a rematch with Hearns at Jr Mid?

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 28 Nov 2005, 12:44

I don't know what Hagler could possibly have done in a rematch. Leonard had better hand, head and footspeed, and there was no way he was going to overcome that. I think Hagler also underestimated Leonard's ability to take a punch. If they fought again, I really couldn't see that different of a result. If anything I think SRL would win by a wider margin.

wolverine1 · Post by **wolverine1** » 28 Nov 2005, 14:24

I had Hagler winning that fight then, now and still will. Lots of fans are/were overly-impressed by Ray's shoeshine punches. It's interesting that Ray can run the whole fight, and in some judges' eyes, win. DLH tried the same tactic with Trinidad and lost. The difference is, DLH was landing more telling shots than Ray was.
And I had DLH losing that fight too.

cybox · Post by **cybox** » 28 Nov 2005, 15:44

Hagler needed to do more the first 4 rounds to secure a win, but it was close either way.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 02 Dec 2005, 14:21

Seamus wrote:118-110 for Leonard was a bit outrageous, but 115-113 for Hagler was pretty silly as well.

I agree with that. It was fairly close, but Leonard defintely won. Hagler gave away the first four rounds. That means to win, he would have had to won 7 out of the last 8 rounds. (Assuming no rounds are scored even or 10-8). He didn't do that. There is no way that Hagler won more than 5 rounds. 115-113 for Leonard is as close as this could fairly scored.

The real reason for this controversy is the anti-Leonard bias that many people have. There certainly have been closer fights than this with far less controversy.