Onetimeonly wrote: ↑14 Jul 2019, 23:31
Why didn't a younger Leonard make your list Elmo?
Make that #16. The Leonard of '82 clearly beats that Marvelous of '87 version. Marvelous looked TOTALLY FLAT. Marvelous was slow of foot and hands. No pep in his punches. He looked like a guy going through the motions. Sure, he was making $20 million dollars.
Like Marvelous said once: "It's difficult to get up for a fight when you're in silk pajamas"
He missed his target so much that Leonard looked like Nicolino Locche or Pernell Whitaker. Unbelievable.
Beyond absurd. Not his most stunning though.
Not sure if my favorite is that there isn't enough footage of Walker or that Hagler would lose to Iran Barkley. Too many honorable mentions to mention.
Marvelous would have not beaten Iran Barkley that night that he fought Sugar Ray. It was Marvelous' most horrendous performance of his whole entire title reign and of all his 15 title fights. That's the truth.
I would have not been surprised if another middleweight of that time beats him. Marvelous look totally flat.
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑14 Jul 2019, 23:31
Why didn't a younger Leonard make your list Elmo?
Make that #16. The Leonard of '82 clearly beats that Marvelous of '87 version. Marvelous looked TOTALLY FLAT. Marvelous was slow of foot and hands. No pep in his punches. He looked like a guy going through the motions. Sure, he was making $20 million dollars.
Like Marvelous said once: "It's difficult to get up for a fight when you're in silk pajamas"
He missed his target so much that Leonard looked like Nicolino Locche or Pernell Whitaker. Unbelievable.
So 16 fighters ever, in their prime, beat hagler that night? And you wonder why people don't take you seriously?
I must admit, when you said you could name 10 guys who would have beaten that Hagler, I thought nyou meant 10 guys who were around in 1987.
I'm largely in agreement with most of your picks; I'd only query Iran Barkley, but that's just nitpicking.
All or most of those guys would probably would have beaten him that night and you could probably add Michael Nunn, James Toney and Gennady Golovkin to that list too, but you shouldn't decry what Leonard did.
People talk as if Leonard had all the advantages and Hagler had none, but that's not the case.
In fairness, the topic has been done to death and back, so I'm not going to argue anymore about it.
Back then in 1986 when Leonard announced to come back to fight Marvelous, I knew that he was going to win. I rooted for Sugar Ray and he won. What I did not like was the fight itself.
Fair play to you and a brave call that turned out to be correct.
I never thought for a second that Leonard stood a chance; in fact, I thought he was bonkers, even though I could see as far back as the Hearns fight that Hagler was losing speed.
His speed further diminished by the time he fought Mugabi and he looked painfully slow, but I didn't think it would matter against a ring rusty welterweight who hadn't fought in years.
Make that #16. The Leonard of '82 clearly beats that Marvelous of '87 version. Marvelous looked TOTALLY FLAT. Marvelous was slow of foot and hands. No pep in his punches. He looked like a guy going through the motions. Sure, he was making $20 million dollars.
Like Marvelous said once: "It's difficult to get up for a fight when you're in silk pajamas"
He missed his target so much that Leonard looked like Nicolino Locche or Pernell Whitaker. Unbelievable.
So 16 fighters ever, in their prime, beat hagler that night? And you wonder why people don't take you seriously?
It doesn't matter if you or the next man don't take me seriously. It doesn't bother me one bit. I know what I know. And I called it like I have seen it.
Back then in 1986 when Leonard announced to come back to fight Marvelous, I knew that he was going to win. I rooted for Sugar Ray and he won. What I did not like was the fight itself.
Fair play to you and a brave call that turned out to be correct.
I never thought for a second that Leonard stood a chance; in fact, I thought he was bonkers, even though I could see as far back as the Hearns fight that Hagler was losing speed.
His speed further diminished by the time he fought Mugabi and he looked painfully slow, but I didn't think it would matter against a ring rusty welterweight who hadn't fought in years.
It was better for Marvelous to lose to Sugar Ray and retire than to lose to any unknown middleweight his crown. Marvelous looked like a guy that was ready to be taken. It could have been Leonard, Iran Barkley, Juan Roldan, Michael Nunn, anybody. He was right out flat.
Marvelous would have not beaten Iran Barkley that night that he fought Sugar Ray. It was Marvelous' most horrendous performance of his whole entire title reign and of all his 15 title fights. That's the truth.
I would have not been surprised if another middleweight of that time beats him. Marvelous look totally flat.
When someone is in a particularly good mood, elmer is good for comic relief, even though he isn't trying to be funny.
Iran Barkley couldn't even beat Kalambay in 1987, and had other losses and close call calls to ordinary fighter before that. But sure, he would have beat Hagler.
How about Duran? Well he gave almost beat Robbie Sims in 1986. Why wouldn't he beat Hagler as well? Makes total sense.
Wonder how many of these guys would have beaten him had they had 1 fight in the previous 5 years? This ought to be good.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 10:48
When someone is in a particularly good mood, elmer is good for comic relief, even though he isn't trying to be funny.
Iran Barkley couldn't even beat Kalambay in 1987, and had other losses and close call calls to ordinary fighter before that. But sure, he would have beat Hagler.
How about Duran? Well he gave almost beat Robbie Sims in 1986. Why wouldn't he beat Hagler as well? Makes total sense.
Wonder how many of these guys would have beaten him had they had 1 fight in the previous 5 years? This ought to be good.
We all know by 1987 Marvelous was totally flat. He was ready to be taken. That's why Leonard took "the risk".
This whole thread reminds me of a funny story. When Ted Williams (arguably the greatest hitter in baseball history) was asked how he'd do against today's (at the time) pitchers, he said "I'd hit around .285." When asked if that was because they were bigger and stronger and better he replied, "No, it's because I'm 63 years old."
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑14 Jul 2019, 23:31
Why didn't a younger Leonard make your list Elmo?
Make that #16. The Leonard of '82 clearly beats that Marvelous of '87 version. Marvelous looked TOTALLY FLAT. Marvelous was slow of foot and hands. No pep in his punches. He looked like a guy going through the motions. Sure, he was making $20 million dollars.
Like Marvelous said once: "It's difficult to get up for a fight when you're in silk pajamas"
He missed his target so much that Leonard looked like Nicolino Locche or Pernell Whitaker. Unbelievable.
No pep in his punches? Then what hurt and wobbled Leonard in the 8th or 9th round?....
And when people say totally flat well Leonard's style and antics that night wouldve made alot of fighters look off...
And the names listed on a previous post on who would've beat Hagler that night is complete and utter nonsense..as if any of them wouldve had the luxury to run and survive and get the decision...
oogiebe wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 15:13
This whole thread reminds me of a funny story. When Ted Williams (arguably the greatest hitter in baseball history) was asked how he'd do against today's (at the time) pitchers, he said "I'd hit around .285." When asked if that was because they were bigger and stronger and better he replied, "No, it's because I'm 63 years old."
oogiebe wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 15:13
This whole thread reminds me of a funny story. When Ted Williams (arguably the greatest hitter in baseball history) was asked how he'd do against today's (at the time) pitchers, he said "I'd hit around .285." When asked if that was because they were bigger and stronger and better he replied, "No, it's because I'm 63 years old."
Ty Cobb was the first to use that line
I may have confused the two, but it's still a funny story.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 10:48
When someone is in a particularly good mood, elmer is good for comic relief, even though he isn't trying to be funny.
Iran Barkley couldn't even beat Kalambay in 1987, and had other losses and close call calls to ordinary fighter before that. But sure, he would have beat Hagler.
How about Duran? Well he gave almost beat Robbie Sims in 1986. Why wouldn't he beat Hagler as well? Makes total sense.
Wonder how many of these guys would have beaten him had they had 1 fight in the previous 5 years? This ought to be good.
We all know by 1987 Marvelous was totally flat. He was ready to be taken. That's why Leonard took "the risk".
Stunned that you never answered my question. Just stunned.
Can you give some evidence of anyone saying that before the fight? All I hear was how Hagler was going to kill him. Never heard a word of him being slow.
Make that #16. The Leonard of '82 clearly beats that Marvelous of '87 version. Marvelous looked TOTALLY FLAT. Marvelous was slow of foot and hands. No pep in his punches. He looked like a guy going through the motions. Sure, he was making $20 million dollars.
Like Marvelous said once: "It's difficult to get up for a fight when you're in silk pajamas"
He missed his target so much that Leonard looked like Nicolino Locche or Pernell Whitaker. Unbelievable.
No pep in his punches? Then what hurt and wobbled Leonard in the 8th or 9th round?....
And when people say totally flat well Leonard's style and antics that night wouldve made alot of fighters look off...
And the names listed on a previous post on who would've beat Hagler that night is complete and utter nonsense..as if any of them wouldve had the luxury to run and survive and get the decision...
So you believe that this was one of Marvelous' most outstanding performances?
Do you believe that Sugar Ray would have beaten guys like Dick Tiger, Sugar Ray Robinson, Gene Fullmer, Carlos Monzon and Roy Jones, Jr for example at middleweight?
Hagler was on a roll during the early 80's and was a dominant Middleweight, he could box, punch, was well conditioned and had a cast iron chin to name but a few of his strong points.
Leonard was a smart quick boxer who could pose problems for everyone when he get's going, but at Middleweight during that period I don't think it would have been enough.
Hagler who would have been about 5 years younger and I think his relentless pressure and strength at the weight would have seen him through.
Evander wrote: ↑21 Jul 2019, 23:37
Hagler was on a roll during the early 80's and was a dominant Middleweight, he could box, punch, was well conditioned and had a cast iron chin to name but a few of his strong points.
Leonard was a smart quick boxer who could pose problems for everyone when he get's going, but at Middleweight during that period I don't think it would have been enough.
Hagler who would have been about 5 years younger and I think his relentless pressure and strength at the weight would have seen him through.
You got that right, man! The great big man always beats the great little man most of the time.
