Leonard's legacy if Hagler had gotten the decision

TigerMoth · Post by **TigerMoth** » 11 Apr 2007, 01:23

First of all, I will be upfront and say I dislike SRR.

OK, given I dislike SRR, here is my opinion:

There were 3 fighters during SRR's era that are top notch hall of famers: Duran, Hearns and Hagler. SRR is considered an all-time great by many because of hs record against these 3.

SRR fought Duran 3 times. I have never seen the 3rd fight but have read it was a boring affair between 2 fighters beyond their prime. In the first fight, I give a great deal of credit to Duran. At the time he was 72 - 1 and fighting at a weight class above his best. While I was and am a big Duran fan, I have watched the fight many times. And, I have been more impressed with SRR on that night, each time. Duran was superior that night. But, Leonard hung in there and fought touth and nails. Duran get the credit but, SRR gets props as well. The 2nd fight was a disgrace for Duran and a big win for Leonard.

SRR fought Hearns 2 times. The first time, it was a wonderful fight and SRR deserves a great deal of credit for responding to Angelo Dundee's, ÿou're blowing it kid"and coming and getting the job done. The 2nd fight, seems very questionable. After having been knocked down 2 times, I don't understand how SRR got a draw. And, I don't think many boxing fans give SRR much credit for the draw.

So, at this point, in my opinion, the legacy for SRR was entirely dependant on his fight with Hagler. Had he lost, he would have a mixed record against the other great fighters around his weight class. Again, in my opinion, Hagler gave the fight away. Coming out in the conventional stance and being non-agressive in the first 2 rounds. is to me beyond understanding. He was in against a guy who had fought 1 times in 5?years. He took the best Hearns (a much bigger puncher than SRR) had to offer but was cautious against SRR. I have never understood why. Still, deserving the decision or not, SRR won.l

Thus, he had gotten the better of his 3 great contemporaries and is considered an all-time great.

Had Hagler won, Leonard would have a "losing" record against his 3 great contemporaries and would have much lower all-time great status.

What is your opinion? Did Hagler's inexplicable 1st 2 rounds against SRR, establish SRR's credentials as an all-time great?

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 11 Apr 2007, 01:28

Sugar Ray was a great fighter, and let's face it the 80's was the 'Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Benetiz, Duran' era (outside of HW Mike Tyson). I do think the Hagler fight was in Ray's favor from the get-go (bigger gloves, 12 rounds rather than 15, Las Vegas, etc).

And I do think the win made him bigger than what he was. In my opinion, I think the Hearns fight was Sugar Ray at his best, and even then that fight was extremely close.

I voted yes. But make no mistake, he was a great great fighter.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 11 Apr 2007, 09:43

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 11 Apr 2007, 09:44

to me leonard should never be considered great because he was never much of a champion. All he did was call out fighters that were worn having no life left. note that Hearns and Hagler were coming off their worst performances when he did call for them?

hearns against Kinchen and marvin against Mugabi. His true prowess lit up like flares when he went up with Norris.

Look how incompetent he was. What a sucker he was when he tried to mix it up with Terry during the second round. I screamed at my set "don't make it too easy for him Ray!"

I've never seen a fighter make so many mistakes in a fight. You can go to just about any of the rounds for evidence. In the 5th, he stupidly drops his guard trying to measure Terry who he "thinks" has him trapped in a corner when SLAP!! a left hook to the face.

Well, that was a mistake. But in the 7th, he tries it again. Unbelievable.

Terry just baits him dangling his left while leonard helplessly follows him around the ring. You'd think a legend would display a more intelligent approach.

Anyways, that was the best part of the enitre fight I thought. Leonard continues following him around until Terry's back touches the ropes.

"Aha!" leonard thinks, "now I have him!" he begins to measure Terry for the big punch that'll turn the fight his way. Just as he's about to let his right hand go, terry cuts loose with his own right hand beating him to the punch by a few milliseconds and drops him to the floor.

I can go on with more highlights but there are so many I fear I would be here for another hour.

Off of his performance with Norris, I don't see how this fight can be ignored. I don't believe it was an aberration either. I just think Ray was successful feasting on too many old men and that the Norris fight brought him back down to earth-down to reality.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 11 Apr 2007, 10:33

Bullshit. I dont like Leonard particularly, and he only called out fighters past their best during his latter years.
Were Benitez, Duran and Hearns past their best in 1979-1981? Leonard, like him or not, is definitely an all time great. His second career didnt hold a light to the first however.
Leonard was well past his sell-by date when he fought Terry Norris.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 11 Apr 2007, 10:54

dr_devious wrote:Bullshit. I dont like Leonard particularly, and he only called out fighters past their best during his latter years.
Were Benitez, Duran and Hearns past their best in 1979-1981? Leonard, like him or not, is definitely an all time great. His second career didnt hold a light to the first however.
Leonard was well past his sell-by date when he fought Terry Norris.

You keep telling yourself that.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 11 Apr 2007, 11:05

I used to be a huge fan of Leonard as a kid but his 2nd career really soured my admiration for him. He was a great fighter though... What bothers me is that looking back on old fights the bias towards him shown by commentators and the media is astounding.

I still think he's one of the greatest fighters of the past 30 years and believe he is an all-time great. He had great skill and great heart.

If he'd have taken his game to 154 in the mid 80s and rematched Hearns and Duran earlier, taken on McCallum, Jackson, Mugabi and then stepped up to Hagler...wow!

It's a shame he retired in the mid 80s only to reappear and fight sub-par opponents instead of just sticking with it. Still, he's a top 5 Welterweight (most have him #2) in anyone's books, and would have been a top Jr MW too if he'd have stuck around. At 160 he was beatable but only by the top tiers of the division.

As for the decision in the Hagler fight I thought Leonard squeezed past him. If it had gone the other way then fine but it wouldn't have hurt Leonard. Whatever Hagler fans may think of the verdict Leonard going the distance with him was a very good achievement in itself. In the last 2-3 rounds Ray looks close to collapsing. He dug in and saw himself through to the end.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 11 Apr 2007, 11:08

Sugar Ray Leonard was an exceptional and gifted figther and an all time great. Overrated in some areas, but underrated as well. He was one of my favorite fighters. I love watching his fights from the Olympics in 1976 to 1982. From 1983 and on, he was not the same.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 11 Apr 2007, 11:56

Elton John wrote:
dr_devious wrote:Bullshit. I dont like Leonard particularly, and he only called out fighters past their best during his latter years.
Were Benitez, Duran and Hearns past their best in 1979-1981? Leonard, like him or not, is definitely an all time great. His second career didnt hold a light to the first however.
Leonard was well past his sell-by date when he fought Terry Norris.
You keep telling yourself that.

What about 98% of the other people on the forum?

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 11 Apr 2007, 12:33

Ezzard wrote:I used to be a huge fan of Leonard as a kid but his 2nd career really soured my admiration for him. He was a great fighter though... What bothers me is that looking back on old fights the bias towards him shown by commentators and the media is astounding.

I still think he's one of the greatest fighters of the past 30 years and believe he is an all-time great. He had great skill and great heart.

If he'd have taken his game to 154 in the mid 80s and rematched Hearns and Duran earlier, taken on McCallum, Jackson, Mugabi and then stepped up to Hagler...wow!

It's a shame he retired in the mid 80s only to reappear and fight sub-par opponents instead of just sticking with it. Still, he's a top 5 Welterweight (most have him #2) in anyone's books, and would have been a top Jr MW too if he'd have stuck around. At 160 he was beatable but only by the top tiers of the division.

As for the decision in the Hagler fight I thought Leonard squeezed past him. If it had gone the other way then fine but it wouldn't have hurt Leonard. Whatever Hagler fans may think of the verdict Leonard going the distance with him was a very good achievement in itself. In the last 2-3 rounds Ray looks close to collapsing. He dug in and saw himself through to the end.

Well, "digging in" against an old man isn't really saying so much and your point is actually absorbed. If you want to prove something you don't do it against someone that should be put out to pasture. That's just the way it is.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 11 Apr 2007, 12:37

dr_devious wrote:
Elton John wrote:
dr_devious wrote:Bullshit. I dont like Leonard particularly, and he only called out fighters past their best during his latter years.
Were Benitez, Duran and Hearns past their best in 1979-1981? Leonard, like him or not, is definitely an all time great. His second career didnt hold a light to the first however.
Leonard was well past his sell-by date when he fought Terry Norris.
You keep telling yourself that.
What about 98% of the other people on the forum?

You sure it's 98%? If these 98% were forced to be more honest instead of just feeling obliged to defend him (I don't know why), no one would make that absurd statement. He just wasn't man enough to take Norris.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 11 Apr 2007, 13:58

Not sure if you're kidding or not, but it's SRL, not SRR!

Anyway, yes, Leonard would still be an all time great with or without the Hagler win... he was an all time great going into the fight. He knocked out Benitez in a tough fight, Benitez being one of the more underrated fighters in boxing history. He fought Duran's fight the first time and lost, but made it close and showed heart. He used his own style the second time to beat Duran in a big win. Then he had an even bigger win with Hearns, after having won a belt at 154. He should have lost the rematch, but he showed will in that fight. If Leonard-Hearns I had been a 12 round fight Hearns probably would have won that, and if Leonard-Hearns II had been a 15 round fight Leonard probably would have won that... that was basically the difference in both fights.

As for Hagler... Leonard was coming off a long layoff, it was his first fight at Middleweight, and he was only the second guy to go the distance with Hagler in a Hagler defense, he made it closer than any of Hagler's other defenses, and some people did think he deserved the decision. I thought he lost, but I give him credit just for making it such a close fight against one of the best, though aging, Middleweights of all time. That's not easy to do, even if Leonard had those advantages going into the fight.

Leonard's an all time great either way, the decision did not make his career, though it obviously helped him a great deal and is his biggest achievement. But regardless, he would be an all time great with or without that decision. I thought he lost but his performance still elevates him. He's one of the best, regardless of the revisionist history about him that sometimes arises.

Leonard in his prime would knock Norris out. He was a shot fighter.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 11 Apr 2007, 14:10

1) If Hagler would have gotten the decision everyone would have cried "robbery" and rightly so. SRL clearly outsocred and outworked Hagler in this fight. Thus, a paper loss wouldn't have dented SRL's reputation at all, only added to his legend.

2) SRL's was long made before he beat Hagler, of course, wiht his epic wins over Hearns, Duran, and Benitez.

3) Writing "SRR" when you mean "SRL" confuses me....

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 11 Apr 2007, 14:14

pundit wrote:1) If Hagler would have gotten the decision everyone would have cried "robbery"....

Well not everyone would have cried robbery. Just the half who have seen the fight and think that SRL won.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 11 Apr 2007, 15:04

First of all congratulations to the Great John L for joining the elite "3000" club.
Yes Leonard would have still been considered an ATG great even if he wouldn't have got the decison over Hagler.
He did beat Benitez,Duran, and Hearns. All 3 of them were great fighters themselves. All were still in their 20's. Almost everyone realizes that Leonard was well past his best when he fought Norris. He was almost 35 and hadn't been very active. His speed and reflexes had declined considerably. Even so, he took a beating from a pretty good fighter and didn't quit, nor was he stopped.
It is unfortunate that some people who don't like Leonard for whatever reason will say ridiculaus things to try to tear him down.
Fortunately, there does seem to be some people who even if they don't like him will at least grudingly admit that he was one of the best ever.

Another thing that is seldom mentioned is that though Leonard is often accused of having every made for him, he did beat 9 ranked contenders before he got a title shot.

The win over Hagler was really icing on the cake.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 12 Apr 2007, 02:12

Why and how anyone can think that Terry Norris was a great WW because he beat SRL 10 years past his prime....it just is beyond me.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 12 Apr 2007, 05:35

Elton John wrote:
dr_devious wrote:
Elton John wrote: You keep telling yourself that.
What about 98% of the other people on the forum?
You sure it's 98%? If these 98% were forced to be more honest instead of just feeling obliged to defend him (I don't know why), no one would make that absurd statement. He just wasn't man enough to take Norris.

Leonard was too old and past it to beat Norris

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 12 Apr 2007, 05:44

Leonard had already made his name by the time he fought Hagler. There's no questioning that he was rightly being proclaimed as a ring great. But after the initial hysteria of his ahem achievement against Hagler died down, people started to seriously question the way he'd gone about the entire thing

A couple of his subsequent fights cemented the thinking that he was starting to erode what he'd previously achieved, particularly the LaLonde fight for me ("if you want to defend your 168 pound title and fight me for the 175 pound title you MUST weigh no more than 164? pounds" wtf

) These days just as many people as not are of the opinion that he infact tainted his legacy from just before the Hagler fight

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 12 Apr 2007, 06:02

bollox wrote:Leonard had already made his name by the time he fought Hagler. There's no questioning that he was rightly being proclaimed as a ring great. But after the initial hysteria of his ahem achievement against Hagler died down, people started to seriously question the way he'd gone about the entire thing

A couple of his subsequent fights cemented the thinking that he was starting to erode what he'd previously achieved, particularly the LaLonde fight for me ("if you want to defend your 168 pound title and fight me for the 175 pound title you MUST weigh no more than 164? pounds" wtf ) These days just as many people as not are of the opinion that he infact tainted his legacy from just before the Hagler fight

I agree that the catchweight thing was a joke, just designed to win him as many titles as he could on the same night.

The rematch with Duran was a joke fight. It was never going to be anything other than an easy win BUT Leonard decided not to engage. He could have stopped Duran fairly easily that night had he stepped up.

Then he finally gave Hearns a rematch once it looked like Hearns was gone. Tommy had more left than Ray, or I, thought he had.

Maybe Ray's ego got the better of him during this period? Maybe he wanted to make up for all of those years out of the sport? Maybe there was something of a mid-life crisis going on for him? Even so, it soured my opinion of him but not my rating of him as a great fighter.

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 12 Apr 2007, 06:16

Fair points raised. Although I still reckon the Benitez stoppage was BS. He was winning the fight no doubt. He didn't need the ref's help

Leonard's later fights didn't taint his earlier achievements as a fighter but it certainly tainted him as far as "was he a fair competitor?" was concerned. His self centredness also sped up the decline of the sport as far as I'm concerned - division hopping, coming out of retirement and going straight into titlefights, dictating terms which may affect the outcome of the fight (type of gloves, ring size, number of rounds) etc

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 12 Apr 2007, 07:05

bollox wrote:Fair points raised. Although I still reckon the Benitez stoppage was BS. He was winning the fight no doubt. He didn't need the ref's help

Leonard's later fights didn't taint his earlier achievements as a fighter but it certainly tainted him as far as "was he a fair competitor?" was concerned. His self centredness also sped up the decline of the sport as far as I'm concerned - division hopping, coming out of retirement and going straight into titlefights, dictating terms which may affect the outcome of the fight (type of gloves, ring size, number of rounds) etc

My guess is that this sort of thing has always gone on to some extent. Leonard and Mike Trainer just seemed to take it to a whole new level.

I can live with the Benitez stoppage as Ray was ahead. In the first Hearns fight he waved the ref over to stop it. Many people still see that as a premature ending. Leonard got the close decisions but he was the draw more often than not.

The division hopping, used to avoid fighters in more recent times, and the straight to title fights is a blight on the sport.

Leonard was such a talent though in the ring and in promoting himself. Still wonder about those missing years and the fights he might have been involved in.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 12 Apr 2007, 09:30

some people don't like Leonard and seem to think that he got all the breaks. I would like to make a few points:

-Leonard got the close decisons? Exactly which fights are we talking about? His record in title fights that went the distance is 2-2-1. One of them is the 3rd Duran fight which wasn't close at all.

In fact Leonard didn't get any favors from the judges in a couple of other fights that didn't go the distance. In the 2nd Duran fight, the judges had it closer than it was. In the first Hearns fight, it is now routinely said that Leonard was completely outboxed until he stopped Hearns. Watch the fight. There are several rounds that Leonard hurt Hearns. Hearns didn't hurt Leonard one time in the entire fight. Yet Leonard was so far behind on the judges scorecards that he could have won the 14th round and the 15th round and he still would have lost. In fact one judges scorecard he could have gotten 10-8 round in the 14th and 15th round and he still would have won.

His dictating terms for the Hagler fight? First of all, that is standard negotiations for a big fight. If Hagler didn't like it, he shouldn't have agreed to it. Could you imagine if Leonard would have whined about these kinds of things after he lost to Duran?

Beating LaLonde is no big deal, but when do people point this is out as a big accomplishment? for some reason when it's brought up, it's usually by anti-Leonard people.

I agree that the Benitez fight didn't need to be stopped. Is it really that big of a deal though? Leonard would have won the decision anyway.

As for the 1st Hearns fight, I do think it should have stopped; in fact it could have been stopped earlier. there is no way that the referee was biased. In the previous round, he didn't even count the knockdown that Leonard scored, somehow ruling it a push.

Leonard didn't give rematches? Once again look at the facts. Both Duran and Hearns left the welterweight division after they lost to Leonard and never returned. They both had to know that if they stuck around they eventually would have gotten another chance against Leonard. If anything, you can argue that they ran from Leonard.
As for Hagler, it's not said that Hagler desperately wanted a rematch. Was that really so? I saw several interviews with Hagler and sometimes he seemed to be leaning toward fighting again and sometimes not. He certainly wasn't screaming for a rematch.

When Leonard lost to Duran he didn't make any excuses. When Duran and Hagler lost to Leonard all you hear is excuses. Yet Leonard is the one people don't like.

Leonard was very good for boxing. Love him or hate him, he created interest. Duran, Hearns and Hagler would have gotten nearly the exposure or the financial rewards if there was no Ray Leonard. When Leonard was out of action (except for 1 fight) for 5 years interest the sport declined. This is when the major networks started to not televise fights on TV. when he came back against Hagler there was a lot of buzz for awhile. Then the interest in the sport declined again when he retired.

Pick another fighter, and you can nitpick him to death just as Leonard is constantly.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 12 Apr 2007, 10:15

As I see it Leonard was in 2 close decisions: Hagler and Hearns II.

I had him beating Hagler and losing to Hearns. Leonard got a win and a draw. These are fights which are often argued over. Ray got the better of the decisions IMO.

In the first Hearns fight Ray was shut out for long periods. IMO he was outboxed but when he had good rounds he had very good rounds. Hearns was rightfully ahead on the scorecards. I gave Ray two 10-8 rounds.

The KD in the previous round wasn't counted but the one that was counted in the final round was more of a shove and shouldn't have counted.

After the fight there was a lot of talk in the boxing press of judges being more generous with 10-8 rounds. Whilst I agree with the sentiment it took a Leonard situation to prompt talk of a change. Had it not have been of benefit to the great Olympian then I don't think such a fuss would have been made.

Your rematches point is wrong. Everyone wanted a rematch because the money for fighting Ray and the prestige for beating him was huge. After Hearns I there were no more fights (real tests) on the horizon for Leonard other than Hagler or rematches.

After the Hagler fight Marvin wanted a rematch but Ray had always said it was only about 1 fight. This seemed fair enough, but then to come back again after the 12 month limit...

Neither Leonard or Duran made excuses that I know of. Both sets of fans made the excuses for them. Hagler didn't make any excuses because he thought he won the fight.

I do agree he was great for boxing, but when a fighter is so valuable the 'sport' becomes compromised. When I watch the old fights and commentaries this is patently obvious.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 12 Apr 2007, 10:26

ringsider wrote:Why and how anyone can think that Terry Norris was a great WW because he beat SRL 10 years past his prime....it just is beyond me.

Still hurting from it are you?

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 12 Apr 2007, 11:25

Ezzard,
When were the long periods that Leonard was "shut out" in the first fight with Hearns? The first 5 rounds were close, after that Leonard began to take over. Hearns never had a huge round in the whole fight, Leonard had several. You would have to give Hearns every close round to have the scores that the judges had.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying about 10-8 rounds in the 1st Leonard-Hearns fight? Leonard certainly didn't get the benefit of them in this fight. There were a few rounds when he battered Hearns around the ring and wasn't given a 10-8 round.

What excuses do Leonard's fans make for his loss to Duran? I hear plenty of excuse for Durans loss and also from Hagler -ring was too small, fight was only 12 rounds, thumbless gloves etc.

Leonard never whined about the decision in the Duran fight. It was just as close as the Leonard-Hagler fight.
The real reason the Leonard-Hagler is argued so much is the hatred of Leonard. Hagler did next to nothing in the first 4 rounds. If you just score the fight round by round there is no way that an unbiased knowledgable person can give Hagler more than 5 rounds.

I agree that Hearns could have been given the decison in the second fight. However, there were 2 rounds when Leonard did batter Hearns all over the ring that could be scored 10-8 rounds. If you do that (Which I do when scoring a fight) than the fight would be a draw. This was a very close fight. It's another myth that this fight wasn't close. Leonard certainly landed more solid punches in this fight.

I wish that people would stop listening to the myths and just score each round of these fights.

I don't understand why you say I am wrong about the rematches. I understand your point that it would make sense for a fighter to fight Leonard because of the prestige of beating him and for the money.
However look at the facts. After Duran lost to Leonard, his next fight was at Jr Middleweight and he never fought at welterweight again. Hearns also moved up to Jr Middleweight in his next fight after losing to Leonard and never fought at welterweight again.
Both of these guys had to know that they would eventually have gotten another shot at Leonard if they would have stuck around at welterweight.
Why is the guy that stayed at welterweight (Leonard) accused of ducking the guys that left the division (Duran and Hearns)?

Would you elaborate on your point about a sport being compromised because one fighter (Leonard) was so valuable?

Leonard's legacy if Hagler had gotten the decision

Did the victory against Hagler make Leonard's career?

Leonard's legacy if Hagler had gotten the decision