Leonard vs Hagler: 20th Anniversary

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 05 Apr 2007, 18:12

I saw today this fight once again, and in my mind should have been 5 years earlier.

This fight should have had more drama, but somehow they fought subpar of their abilities because they were not in their respective primes. The competiteveness was there, but it could have been better in 1982 or 1983. I saw Leonard win this fight in my scoring.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 05 Apr 2007, 18:53

20 years huh? Can't believe it

A fight 5 years earlier makes it around 1982. Couldn't see it having been even competitive due to the natural weight difference

billythekid · Post by **billythekid** » 06 Apr 2007, 03:02

This fight bothers me in so many ways. Especially the scoring of the one judge and the fact that it was fought on a basketball court and ray ran all night like a little bitch and did not land any meaningful punches.

TigerMoth · Post by **TigerMoth** » 06 Apr 2007, 03:38

I have never seen an explanation for why Hagler didn't start the fight as a southpaw. To add to this, I have never understood why he didn't come out with the same agression he did against Hearns.

I recently watched the fight on Youtube and I felt Leonard won the first 2 rounds. Actually, it seemed Hagler gave away the first 2 rounds. But, not only did he give away the first 2 rounds, but, according to Leonard, he gave Leonard the confidence that he could win.

Just read today Leonard's comments about how Manfredo and Calzaghe are a great parallet to Leonard:Hagler. Just another example of the type of insincere remarks made by Leonard that cause me to dislike him so much. Although I see the similarity of Calzaghe and Hagler, the distance between Manfredo and Leonard is beyond enormous. So, no parallel at all. Just more Leonard spin.

Still, no question about it, he won the first 2 rounds against Hagler and everything else aside, entirely Hagler's fault. Had Hagler won the first 2 rounds, I think it is beyond imagination that Leonard would have won the fight.

Anyone aware of why Hagler started the fight this way, gave away the first 2 rounds and gave Leonard a great deal of encouragement?

As an aside, still considering I greatly dislike Leonard, so he ran. Was there a rule that said that Hagler had to run after him? Couldn't Hagler more effectively just stood in the center of the ring and said, "come on".

Again, even if Hagler actually won a close decision and was robbed, he has no one to blame but himself.

I wish he had come out with the same agression he did against Hearns.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 06 Apr 2007, 05:11

I think Hagler got caught up in Leonard's mind games and ended up doing exactly what Leonard wanted him to do - box instead of coming out steaming like he did with Hearns

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 06 Apr 2007, 11:12

Cant believe its 20 years since the Hagler-Leonard fight. I scored the fight 2 rounds to Hagler. Hagler would have kayoed Leonard in his peak

Victor*KC · Post by **Victor*KC** » 06 Apr 2007, 11:49

I think Hagler thought with Leonard being away from the ring so long and being a natural Welterweight this was going to be an easy fight and showed to much respect in the early going I still think had Hagler attacked Leonard the way he attacked Hearn's he wouldn't of being standing at the end of the fight Does anyone think had Tommy picked to box from the first round he could of won?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 06 Apr 2007, 11:54

Victor*KC wrote:Does anyone think had Tommy picked to box from the first round he could of won?

No. However, he would have lasted a round or two longer.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 06 Apr 2007, 14:14

It is hard to believe it was 20 years a go. Almost no one gave Leonard much of a chance. I remember Randy gordon on the Tuesday Night Fights on the USA network picking Leonard. It seemed like everyone else thought it was a mismatch.
Leonard had not fought in 3 years, and only 1 fight in the last 5. He was fighting as a middleweight for the first time. His opponent was one of the greatest middleweight champions of all time.
He fought a great fight, a phenomenal one considering the circumstances. This is one of the greatest achievements in the history of boxing.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 06 Apr 2007, 15:53

It is hard to believe it was 20 years a go. Almost no one gave Leonard much of a chance. I remember Randy gordon on the Tuesday Night Fights on the USA network picking Leonard. It seemed like everyone else thought it was a mismatch.
Leonard had not fought in 3 years, and only 1 fight in the last 5. He was fighting as a middleweight for the first time. His opponent was one of the greatest middleweight champions of all time.....blah, blah, blah....

No had his opponent been one of the greatest MW of all time, he would have won. Leonard proved he was over rated, and not one of the great MW of all time.

Lets get it right or shut up.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 06 Apr 2007, 17:50

So by beating Hagler, he proved that Hagler wasn't one of the greatest middleweights of all time?
How can "fighter A" get a big win if the proof that their opponent wasn't great is that "fighter A" beat him?

So Ali beating beating Foreman isn't a big deal because after all, Foreman couldn't have been that great if he lost to Ali?

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 06 Apr 2007, 19:31

Ambling Alp wrote:So by beating Hagler, he proved that Hagler wasn't one of the greatest middleweights of all time?
How can "fighter A" get a big win if the proof that their opponent wasn't great is that "fighter A" beat him?

So Ali beating beating Foreman isn't a big deal because after all, Foreman couldn't have been that great if he lost to Ali?

Isn't that one of Ali's 'wins' that Crankberry claims was fixed?

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 06 Apr 2007, 20:49

Well Ambling Alp, your logic or lack there of fails me?

Both Ali and Foreman were HW, the camparison has no merit. Leonard was a fat welter weight who moved up to fight Hagler. Sadly and very hard to swallow for Hagler fans is that all time great hall of fame MWs should not be getting beat by fat welter weights who haven't fought in 3 years.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 06 Apr 2007, 21:36

ringsider wrote:Well Ambling Alp, your logic or lack there of fails me? Both Ali and Foreman were HW, the camparison has no merit. Leonard was a fat welter weight who moved up to fight Hagler. Sadly and very hard to swallow for Hagler fans is that all time great hall of fame MWs should not be getting beat by fat welter weights who haven't fought in 3 years.

Leonard looked anything but fat that night. Are you really sure you saw the fight? Think deeply. Is it at all possible you imagined the whole thing? It happens. Just ask Crankberry; he's been in a dream world for 40+ years.

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 06 Apr 2007, 21:57

I think Hagler won Vs SRL .......It was a bad decision.....and a worse one considering SRL was the challenger....

As for Hearns Vs Hagler.....I think Tommy could have beat Hagler had he decided to box......I also think if Hagler wasn't given that delay (for the cut) things might (might) have been different.....Hagler was rocked just a few seconds prior to that stop by the Ref......It allowed him to clear his head some...

But all props to Hagler....He was an animal that night....(so was Hearns). Just a classic..... One of the very few just pure rage, fall on your shield type fights..... Both men deserve a ton of respect for that night....

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 07 Apr 2007, 10:10

ringsider wrote:Well Ambling Alp, your logic or lack there of fails me? Both Ali and Foreman were HW, the camparison has no merit. Leonard was a fat welter weight who moved up to fight Hagler. Sadly and very hard to swallow for Hagler fans is that all time great hall of fame MWs should not be getting beat by fat welter weights who haven't fought in 3 years.

Your logic escapes me. Leonard beats a great fighter (Hagler), that fighter isn't great because he lost to Leonard, so therefore Leonard didn't beat a great fighter? That makes no sense.

Hagler was the middleweight champion for 7 years. In almost all of his title defenses Hagler won easily. His competition wasn't great but was decent. He certainly didn't duck anyone. That Leonard could beat Hagler is quite an accomplishment.

I have no idea why you would refer to Leonard as fat.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 07 Apr 2007, 11:22

Your logic escapes me. Leonard beats a great fighter (Hagler), that fighter isn't great because he lost to Leonard, so therefore Leonard didn't beat a great fighter? That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense, if you understand the premise. Hagler was not great, Leonard proved that by beating Hagler. Leonard was great, Hagler was fair to partly cloudy.

Hagler was over rated, a plodder, a southpaw, and made a name for himself fighting guys who moved up in weight to challenge for the MW crown.

Hagler was the middleweight champion for 7 years. In almost all of his title defenses Hagler won easily. His competition wasn't great but was decent. He certainly didn't duck anyone.

Because you are the only man on a block fulled with girls and you beat them all up, that doesn't make you King.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 07 Apr 2007, 11:32

elmersalsa wrote:I saw today this fight once again, and in my mind should have been 5 years earlier.

This fight should have had more drama, but somehow they fought subpar of their abilities because they were not in their respective primes. The competiteveness was there, but it could have been better in 1982 or 1983. I saw Leonard win this fight in my scoring.

You are right, it should have been around about 1983ish.

In fact, SRL should have had some history making fights between 1982 & 1986.

It's a testimony to his talent, that after only a measly 40 fights, he is largely regarded amongst the greats of boxing.

Just imagine how much more of an impact he'd have made had he had about 60 odd fights, incorprorating victories over Hagler (83), Duran for a 3rd time (1981ish), a rematch with Hearns (1982ish), Aaron Pryor & Donald Curry, all of which he had enough ability to possibly beat?

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 07 Apr 2007, 11:34

meade95 wrote:I think Hagler won Vs SRL .......It was a bad decision.....and a worse one considering SRL was the challenger....

As for Hearns Vs Hagler.....I think Tommy could have beat Hagler had he decided to box......I also think if Hagler wasn't given that delay (for the cut) things might (might) have been different.....Hagler was rocked just a few seconds prior to that stop by the Ref......It allowed him to clear his head some...

But all props to Hagler....He was an animal that night....(so was Hearns). Just a classic..... One of the very few just pure rage, fall on your shield type fights..... Both men deserve a ton of respect for that night....

I don't think Hearns would have had the stamina to outbox Hagler.

Hagler would have exerted too much pressure throughout IMO.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 08 Apr 2007, 23:00

This was a terrible terrible fight between an overrated Welterweight and a shot middleweight. Only Leonard's cowardice prevented this fight from coming off when it should have.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 09 Apr 2007, 02:44

Only Leonard's cowardice prevented this fight from coming off when it should have.

Now that is funny.........Leonard would have beaten him years early too. Leonard could box, Hagler could not.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 09 Apr 2007, 09:06

ringsider wrote:
Your logic escapes me. Leonard beats a great fighter (Hagler), that fighter isn't great because he lost to Leonard, so therefore Leonard didn't beat a great fighter? That makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense, if you understand the premise. Hagler was not great, Leonard proved that by beating Hagler. Leonard was great, Hagler was fair to partly cloudy.

Hagler was over rated, a plodder, a southpaw, and made a name for himself fighting guys who moved up in weight to challenge for the MW crown.

Hagler was the middleweight champion for 7 years. In almost all of his title defenses Hagler won easily. His competition wasn't great but was decent. He certainly didn't duck anyone.
Because you are the only man on a block fulled with girls and you beat them all up, that doesn't make you King.

You say that Hagler was overrated, I don't think he was but that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. You also keep saying that he was aplodder which I don't get. but answer this"
1. Why do you keep criticizing him for being a southpaw? Why can't a southpaw be a great fighter?

2. Haven't other great middleweights biggest wins been against guys who moved up in weight?
Monzon's biggest wins wins were over Benvenuti and Griffith. (who had moved up)
Greb's beat Walker (who had moved up)
Robinson beat Basilio and lost to him. (Basilio had moved up)
LaMotta lost to Robinson when Robinson was still a welterweight
Robinson himself moved up from welterweight.

3. If Hagler was just "fair to partly cloudy" who specifically were the middleweights in history better than him?

4. Do you really think that a "fair to partly cloudy" fighter could have been the middleweight champion for 7 years?

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 09 Apr 2007, 10:02

ringsider wrote:
Only Leonard's cowardice prevented this fight from coming off when it should have.
Now that is funny.........Leonard would have beaten him years early too. Leonard could box, Hagler could not.

then he should have tried proving it when it mattered-like 5 years earlier.
Oh I forgot, he had a detatched retina that would prevent him from fighting later on.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 09 Apr 2007, 10:28

ringsider wrote:
Your logic escapes me. Leonard beats a great fighter (Hagler), that fighter isn't great because he lost to Leonard, so therefore Leonard didn't beat a great fighter? That makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense, if you understand the premise. Hagler was not great, Leonard proved that by beating Hagler. Leonard was great, Hagler was fair to partly cloudy.

Hagler was over rated, a plodder, a southpaw, and made a name for himself fighting guys who moved up in weight to challenge for the MW crown.

Hagler was the middleweight champion for 7 years. In almost all of his title defenses Hagler won easily. His competition wasn't great but was decent. He certainly didn't duck anyone.
Because you are the only man on a block fulled with girls and you beat them all up, that doesn't make you King.

You mean a girl like Leonard.

Is that the great boxer you have in mind? The great boxer who in his crowning performance against Hearns, the one whose whose face kept colliding with Tommy's left hand?

The great boxer whose trainer told him to get his ass in gear or as he put it "you're blowing it son". The boxer who won a total of four rounds by the time the match was stopped in the 14th?

leonard was a farce that would never agree to a rematch as long as an opponent had an ounce of life in him.

Look on youtube and listen to the commentary from the Hearns-Geraldo match.

Just like a coward he was already making excuses why he couldn't give hitman a rematch.

It goes something like this: "What about it? Do you think you should give Tommy a rematch?"

The ever reluctant Ray Leonard: "i'll only give Tommy hearns a rematch when he admits he couldn't continue his fight with me in the 14th round"

the first time he began getting cold feet against a fighter was when he began shooting his mouth off how much he wanted to give Hagler a fight....until he demolished someone in front of him. After that, everything became rediculously conditional. Meet me at 154 or don't meet me at all.

The man was only a threat to someone who became a plodder by the time rat leonard finally mustered the courage to take a fight with him which was usually a few years past their prime.

is it any coincidence the incompetence that showed up during his fight with Norris, a man whose rspect he couldn't get within the first two rounds and as a result, fell apart quickly. You could see all his confidence leave him . Once he got slapped won by the terrible one, he felt his guts turn to jelly and the match evolved into a one sided mismatch.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 09 Apr 2007, 11:19

his fight with Norris, a man whose rspect he couldn't get within the first two rounds and as a result, fell apart quickly. You could see all his confidence leave him . Once he got slapped won by the terrible one, he felt his guts turn to jelly and the match evolved into a one sided mismatch.

So that is the best you have? Why didn't Norris fight him years earlier? I guess because Norris was a coward too?

Norris didn't belong in the same ring with Leonard, let alone spoken in the same breathe when they were in their respective primes.

Leonard vs Hagler: 20th Anniversary

Leonard vs Hagler: 20th Anniversary

Leonard vs Hagler

Re: Leonard vs Hagler: 20th Anniversary