How did you score Leonard - Hearns II?

[Ezzard]

I don't recall Leonard say that, but maybe he was giving Duran credit.
Obviously, Leonard was capable of doing better, and he proved it in the 2nd fight.

Leonard wasn't "controlled" by Duran either in the first fight. Duran deserved the decison, but it was a competitive fight. Leonard won several rounds.

In the 2nd fight, Leonard fought more like he normally did and did much better. (Yes, I have heard all the BS excuses why Duran wasn't prepared in the 2nd fight and don't buy them.)

As for Leonard fighting a dumb fight the first fight, I mean that as a criticism of Leonard, not an excuse.

Alp

I'm going to steer clear of this Leonard-Duran debate as you and I have already discussed this. This was a great rivalry and we all have our own take on it.

The comments Tiger attributes to Ray are, I believe, correct. I don't see what's so wrong with Ray being upset though: after all, he'd just lost the title and was a very competitive and proud man. And whatever happened or didn't happen in the first fight was solved by Leonard in the second.

These are two greats who went 1-1 in their primes... I'd say that history has been kinder to Ray but Duran only has himself to blame for that.

[Ambling Alp]

I don't recall Leonard say that, but maybe he was giving Duran credit.
Obviously, Leonard was capable of doing better, and he proved it in the 2nd fight.

Leonard wasn't "controlled" by Duran either in the first fight. Duran deserved the decison, but it was a competitive fight. Leonard won several rounds.

In the 2nd fight, Leonard fought more like he normally did and did much better. (Yes, I have heard all the BS excuses why Duran wasn't prepared in the 2nd fight and don't buy them.)

As for Leonard fighting a dumb fight the first fight, I mean that as a criticism of Leonard, not an excuse.

Well you may not recall but I do, vividly. Almost crying like a baby as he told Cosell that he couldn't do what he wanted, that Duran controlled him. He wasn't giving Duran credit. He was saying what happened as he almost cried. While Leonard thought he was controlled by Duran, I wonder how you know more about the fight than he did?

As was often the case with Leonard, since he was the draw and controlled the purse strings, he demanded and got many concessions for the 2nd Duran fight as he did in others. He stacked the deck. He fought whomever he wanted, when he wanted. So, when it comes to frequent discussions on this board as to "how have x done against y, each at their best?". We will never know with Leonard since he made sure he didn't fight opponents at their best. This is how he destroyed his legacy, in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I think Sugar Ray Leonard was a great fighter. But, I also think he was an insincere manipulator who got victories because of his power (of the purse) and his manipulative abilities.

In contrast, it seems to me, Oscar de la hoya, is as powerful in terms of the purse. But, he seems to be more of a fighter in his heart than Leonard, who was more of a manipulator.

I don't expect you to agree since you have already "bought into" Leonard. But, why do you think someone of his great talent is disrespected by so many while others, de la Hoya for example, are greatly respected?

"Leonard was the draw, controlled the purse strings, he demanded and got many concessions for 2nd Duran fight as he did in others"

Specifically, what are the many concessions he got for the 2nd Duran fight?
Specifically, what other fights did he get many concessions for and what were they?

"He fought whomever he wanted, and whenever he wanted" Are you implying that he ducked someone? If so, who?

"Leonard made sure he didn't fight opponents at their best?" What exactly do you mean by this? Name every single opponent that "Leonard made sure weren't at their best" when they fought Leonard.

[TigerMoth]

I was saw an interview with someone from Leonard's camp regarding the Leonard - Duran II fight. It was a serious interview, an explanation of the strategy and negotiations for the fight.

I don't recall every single detial, it was a long time ago. But, I do recall that Leonard was able to get a ring size to his advantage, picked the gloves used and other factors not the least of which was the timing of the fight.

It was well known that in between major fights, Duran would to back to Panama and do a lot of partying, get out of shape, put on a lot of weight.

Leonard's camp was very calulating in taking these factors into account and the contract signed took all these factors into account and evey concession that Leonard wanted was accepted.

As for avoiding other fighters, Leonard would not give Hearns a rematch after the first fight, for one.

Do you really think Leonard didn't use his popularity to gain unfair advantage?

[thunderfromdownunder]

for all the people who say Sugar ray only fought for 30 seconds of the round, maybe you should take note of what he does in thoses 30 seconds

[Ambling Alp]

I was saw an interview with someone from Leonard's camp regarding the Leonard - Duran II fight. It was a serious interview, an explanation of the strategy and negotiations for the fight.

I don't recall every single detial, it was a long time ago. But, I do recall that Leonard was able to get a ring size to his advantage, picked the gloves used and other factors not the least of which was the timing of the fight.

It was well known that in between major fights, Duran would to back to Panama and do a lot of partying, get out of shape, put on a lot of weight.

Leonard's camp was very calulating in taking these factors into account and the contract signed took all these factors into account and evey concession that Leonard wanted was accepted.

As for avoiding other fighters, Leonard would not give Hearns a rematch after the first fight, for one.

Do you really think Leonard didn't use his popularity to gain unfair advantage?

Your post was about as weak as a Chris Byrd overhand right. :)
Leonard was able to get the ring size, gloves used were to his advantage?
And Duran had no say in this and that's why Duran lost? Come on.

As for Duran's partying, that's not Leonard's problem.

Wouldn't give Hearns a rematch? There is no truth to this whatsover.
Hearns moved up in weight and was fighting in in higher weight class less than 3 months after he lost to Leonard. He never fought at welterweight again. If Hearns wanted a immediate rematch so bad, he wouldn't have moved out of Leonard's weight class.
Also, after beating Hearns, Leonard only fought once more before retiring because of a detached retina.

[TigerMoth]

[quote="Ambling Alp"][quote="TigerMoth"]I was saw an interview with someone from Leonard's camp regarding the Leonard - Duran II fight. It was a serious interview, an explanation of the strategy and negotiations for the fight.

I don't recall every single detial, it was a long time ago. But, I do recall that Leonard was able to get a ring size to his advantage, picked the gloves used and other factors not the least of which was the timing of the fight.

It was well known that in between major fights, Duran would to back to Panama and do a lot of partying, get out of shape, put on a lot of weight.

Leonard's camp was very calulating in taking these factors into account and the contract signed took all these factors into account and evey concession that Leonard wanted was accepted.

As for avoiding other fighters, Leonard would not give Hearns a rematch after the first fight, for one.

Do you really think Leonard didn't use his popularity to gain unfair advantage?[/quote]

Your post was about as weak as a Chris Byrd overhand right. :)
Leonard was able to get the ring size, gloves used were to his advantage?
And Duran had no say in this and that's why Duran lost? Come on.

As for Duran's partying, that's not Leonard's problem.

Wouldn't give Hearns a rematch? There is no truth to this whatsover.
Hearns moved up in weight and was fighting in in higher weight class less than 3 months after he lost to Leonard. He never fought at welterweight again. If Hearns wanted a immediate rematch so bad, he wouldn't have moved out of Leonard's weight class.
Also, after beating Hearns, Leonard only fought once more before retiring because of a detached retina.[/quote]

I didn't say that Duran's camp should have agreed to the conditions set by Leonard's camp. I said Leonard used his drawing power in negotiations to ensure he had advantages - as a result, not Leonard at his best against opponent at his best. I also didn't say that Duran's habit of partying and putting on weight between fights wasn't his problem. It surely was. But, again, Leonard's camp scheuled the rematch to take advantage of this. So, Leonard ensuring he had advantages. Not fighter X at his best against fighter Y at his best.

Leonard was a great fighter and a smart guy. You have no argument from me here. It is simply my opinion that his drawing power enabled him to stack the deck and he did. And, this in my opinion diminished his legacy.

I think he could have been much more than he was and I don't respect him.

You are entitiled to have whatever opinion you want.

As for a Leonard:Hearns rematch, I saw an interview on television with both Leonard and Hearns after the first fight and it seemed clear to me that Leonard wanted to avoid it.

Again, you can have your opinion and I can have mine.

[Les Darcy]

i had hearns up by 1 in this fight i am going off the top of my head but i scored the fight like this:

r1- Hearns 10-9
r2- Hearns 10-9
r3- Hearns 10-8 (knockdown)
r4- Leonard 10-9
r5- Leonard 10-9
r6- Hearns 10-9
r7- Leonard 10-9
r8- Hearns 10-9
r9- Leonard 10-9
r10- Leonard 10-9
r11- Hearns 10-8 (knockdown)
r12- Leonard 10-8

113-112 for Hearns

[Seamus]

Here's my scorecard after rewatching the fight this evening. I watched each round twice.

R1 10-9 Leonard
R2 10-10 20-19 Leonard
R3 10-8 Hearns 29-28 Hearns
R4 10-10 39-38 Hearns
R5 10-8 Leonard 48-47 Leonard
R6 10-10 58-57 Leonard
R7 10-9 Leonard 68-66 Leonard
R8 10-9 Hearns 77-76 Leonard
R9 10-9 Leonard 87-85 Leonard
R10 10-9 Leonard 97-94 Leonard
R11 10-8 Hearns 105-104 Leonard
R12 10-9 Leonard 115-113 Leonard

As for comments on this bout. 4 rounds were difficult to call, and the judges were pretty well split on them. On the first knockdown, the punch that did the damage was clean, but the one that put Leonard down, was definitely to the back of the head. Not to the ear as Gil Clancy, I believe, claimed. Apart of that, Tommy Hearns positively suffered more damage in this fight, and except for rounds 3-8-11 he did not look dominant. The fact that he stalked Leonard for a good portion of the fight obviously influenced the decision, but despite the two knockdowns, Leonard did a good job of slipping Hearns power shots.

[Ezzard]

Here's my scorecard after rewatching the fight this evening. I watched each round twice.

R1 10-9 Leonard
R2 10-10 20-19 Leonard
R3 10-8 Hearns 29-28 Hearns
R4 10-10 39-38 Hearns
R5 10-8 Leonard 48-47 Leonard
R6 10-10 58-57 Leonard
R7 10-9 Leonard 68-66 Leonard
R8 10-9 Hearns 77-76 Leonard
R9 10-9 Leonard 87-85 Leonard
R10 10-9 Leonard 97-94 Leonard
R11 10-8 Hearns 105-104 Leonard
R12 10-9 Leonard 115-113 Leonard

As for comments on this bout. 4 rounds were difficult to call, and the judges were pretty well split on them. On the first knockdown, the punch that did the damage was clean, but the one that put Leonard down, was definitely to the back of the head. Not to the ear as Gil Clancy, I believe, claimed. Apart of that, Tommy Hearns positively suffered more damage in this fight, and except for rounds 3-8-11 he did not look dominant. The fact that he stalked Leonard for a good portion of the fight obviously influenced the decision, but despite the two knockdowns, Leonard did a good job of slipping Hearns power shots.

Wow Seamus

I haven't seen this for a few months but I'm sure I have Hearns the first 3 rounds. I had Tommy winning by 1-2 points (and I gave Ray a 10-8). That's a four point differential to your score, quite a difference.

[Les Darcy]

hearns definately won the first 4 rounds

[Seamus]

OK for some of the disputed rounds, I went back and watched them again.

R1. Hearns stalks Leonard but it's still a cautious round from both fighters. Just about everything Hearns throws is blocked or short. Leonard lands a good right to the head at around the 2:15 mark, and it gets Hearns attention. I scored it 10-9 for Leonard as did Kaczmarek.

R2. Difficult round to score as both fighters land a couple shots, though nothing is significant. I scored it 10-10. Only Kaczmarek had it 10-9 for Leonard. Roth and Shirley gave it to Hearns.

R4. Hearns doesn't press the attack that hard after a big 10-8 previous round. Both men have there moments, though again it's nothing really significant that lands. I scored it 10-10, and this time it's Roth and Shirley giving it to Leonard, and Kaczmarek opting for Hearns.

R6. Both fighters landing shots, but Leonard is unable to build on his huge 5th round. My third and last even round. Kaczmarek scores it for Leonard, Shirley and Roth for Hearns.

Some other observations. After freeze framing large portions of each round I was amazed by Leonard's ability to slip punches and avoid being hit cleanly, though Hearns certainly had his big moments. And to Hearns credit, after intensely watching both fights in the Leonard v Hearns saga again, I have to disagree in the strongest terms possible, with the claims by some, that Tommy Hearns has a questionable chin. He managed to remain stationary through 12 rounds of both fights despite taking numerous wicked headshots from Leonard. In fact I'd love to see a punch count for the second bout, because the number of power punches landed by Leonard would help substantiate my claim that Sugar Ray won the fight.

Perhaps the biggest irony of the Leonard v Hearns saga is how in a supposed boxer v puncher matchup, Hearns the slugger, consistently outboxed Leonard, and Leonard the boxer, consistently outslugged Hearns.

[Ezzard]

Perhaps the biggest irony of the Leonard v Hearns saga is how in a supposed boxer v puncher matchup, Hearns the slugger, consistently outboxed Leonard, and Leonard the boxer, consistently outslugged Hearns.

Totally agree about this. They swapped roles in their bouts.

I just watched first two rounds and it seems to me that Hearns' jab is the most significant scoring punch.

[Les Darcy]

OK for some of the disputed rounds, I went back and watched them again.

R1. Hearns stalks Leonard but it's still a cautious round from both fighters. Just about everything Hearns throws is blocked or short. Leonard lands a good right to the head at around the 2:15 mark, and it gets Hearns attention. I scored it 10-9 for Leonard as did Kaczmarek.

R2. Difficult round to score as both fighters land a couple shots, though nothing is significant. I scored it 10-10. Only Kaczmarek had it 10-9 for Leonard. Roth and Shirley gave it to Hearns.

R4. Hearns doesn't press the attack that hard after a big 10-8 previous round. Both men have there moments, though again it's nothing really significant that lands. I scored it 10-10, and this time it's Roth and Shirley giving it to Leonard, and Kaczmarek opting for Hearns.

R6. Both fighters landing shots, but Leonard is unable to build on his huge 5th round. My third and last even round. Kaczmarek scores it for Leonard, Shirley and Roth for Hearns.

Some other observations. After freeze framing large portions of each round I was amazed by Leonard's ability to slip punches and avoid being hit cleanly, though Hearns certainly had his big moments. And to Hearns credit, after intensely watching both fights in the Leonard v Hearns saga again, I have to disagree in the strongest terms possible, with the claims by some, that Tommy Hearns has a questionable chin. He managed to remain stationary through 12 rounds of both fights despite taking numerous wicked headshots from Leonard. In fact I'd love to see a punch count for the second bout, because the number of power punches landed by Leonard would help substantiate my claim that Sugar Ray won the fight.

Perhaps the biggest irony of the Leonard v Hearns saga is how in a supposed boxer v puncher matchup, Hearns the slugger, consistently outboxed Leonard, and Leonard the boxer, consistently outslugged Hearns.

three even rounds? your arse must be sore from all the blisters on that fence

[ringsider]

Not only did Tommy win the fight, Sugar Ray said Tommy won the fight. SRL ought to know, he was in the fight.

My opinion, and I watched it live, was Hearns easily won. But once gain the Sugar Ray love came through.......on the score cards.

[Ezzard]

Not only did Tommy win the fight, Sugar Ray said Tommy won the fight. SRL ought to know, he was in the fight.

My opinion, and I watched it live, was Hearns easily won. But once gain the Sugar Ray love came through.......on the score cards.

You were at the event, ringsider?

What was the feeling in the crowd pre-fight and post fight?

[Seamus]

When a guy goes on about how overrated Leonard, Hagler and Whitaker are, and insists Southpaws should be banned from fighting. Well, then I'd personally rather hear Ray Charles' analysis of a fight.

[ringsider]

Well Seamus, looking at your score card of the fight, you might just be Ray Charles.

[Ambling Alp]

Not only did Tommy win the fight, Sugar Ray said Tommy won the fight. SRL ought to know, he was in the fight.

My opinion, and I watched it live, was Hearns easily won. But once gain the Sugar Ray love came through.......on the score cards.

Just want to point again that Leonard had 5 title fights in his career in which fights went the distance. His record was 2-2-1 when the fight was settled by the judges.