Leonard's legacy if Hagler had gotten the decision

[Ezzard]

I have watched Leonard-Hearns so often because it's so great. Leonard takes some real heavy shots in that fight but doesn't budge. he must be hurting but he was a master of faking nonchalance (like Ali). Even in the 2nd fight Leonard is hurt but not wobbling. It's a great asset for a fighter.

I really think that Hearns wins at least 4, probably 5, of the first 5 rounds. Then Ray has a great 6th and then wins the next 2. After that though Hearns starts to steal the rounds with his jab and Ray begins to get pegged back again. On my card by the end of the 13th Ray is catching up again. Sorry for my lack of clarity I just meant to say that after this fight there was a call for more 10-8 rounds...

The excuses for Leonard's loss are that he fought the wrong kind of fight and that once he fought his own fight then he would always win. Ray boxed when he needed to but essentially in 90% of his fights he moved and then unloaded. He was very offensive, not a Pernell Whittaker (but he had the skill and ability to fight like that too).

I agree Leonard deserved the nod against Hagler. The first Duran fight is different. Leonard fought like a lion. He proved hismelf BUT although most rounds were competitive Duran was the boss of that fight. He paced himself and was in control. It's a contradiction but it was a close fight but Duran was a clear winner. I hope that makes sense. With the Hagler fight it was close, but in a way that brought people to different conclusions.

Hearns II was very close. I gave it to Hearns by 2 pts. I gave Ray one 10-8 round. I scored the final round 10-9 to Ray. IMO Hearns dominates the first minute. He looks to be heading for a stoppage victory or 10-8 himself. Then Ray dominates the final 2 mins. That's my rationale for scoring it 10-9. You may disagree. I agree though, the fight was not a robbery. I thought Hearns won but it was not a landslide. Truth is Leonard and hearns were so evenly matched that their fights would always be decided by contentious details.

When a guy makes so much money for the sport, promoters, governing bodies they become too important. Ali began to get some very smelly decisions later on (Young, Norton, Shavers). These did him no favours. Instead of him retiring earlier he fought on to fill the coffers of others. Ray Leonard's catchweight fight with LaLonde was not really fair on all the other guys who strived to win even alpha titles. He got special treatment from the governing bodies. White "Money making" HW's historically have had more opportunities than their non-white counterparts. All sports are uneven but boxing really shows up its inequalities.

[dr_devious]

Agree that Leonard's wins over Benitez and Kalule added to his legacy, but Donny Lalonde

[Ezzard]

Kalule was a good fighter and Ray was stepping up. Benitez was a very good win too. Lalonde was a bigger man and Ray was older by then, although the catchweight nonsense does temper the achievement a little. It's still a win if nothing else.

[Elton John]

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

that's what i've said all along. this is just another example of his characteristics. Let's not forget this wan't the first time he tried employing this tactic. The first time trying it on Hagler in the early 80's.

I told you he was a weak man.

Leonard always needed help in some way. that's why I would never group him with the likes of Griffith, Robinson, etc.

Where was he the previous five years when these matches really mattered when Hagler and Hearns were not only still good but the sport's top fighters?

He was nowhere to be found. This fact cannot be overlooked

He always kept silent except for the fight with Howard which to me proves he wanted to fight all along. he thought he was going to get easy prey in Howard the way he thought Norris was easy to knock out the way people including himself were looking at Terry's chin.

And that Lalonde farce was a total joke! That boy he was in there with looked like the actor from blue lagoon. people surely must have been thinking "who the hell is that?-Is he someone important?"

It was interesting because when asked about a rematch with Hagler he said "I don't think he really wants a rematch". And then he had another excuse ready when the subject came up about defending his newly acquired middleweight title saying, he "wasn't interested in his belt, he only wanted Hagler".

Does anyone actually take these excuses seriously? I find it hard to take his fans seriously every time they bring up "prime leonard"

If he wasn't intetested in any belts, what was he doing gunning for two belts at once against Donny Lalonde?

This continuation of his career throughout the late 80's did nothing for the sport as far as I'm concerned and wins like this are meaningless.

When you have to literally hide out for years and wait for other men to soften up your competition for you and then come out of the blue and announce your intentions to fight, it will only bring forth criticism.

This sort of thing really turns my stomach. I don't like this kind of man in or out of the ring and to me, he is dishonorable to operate in this manner.

If he were really as great as his fans all claim he was, he would not need all of this help.

[Ezzard]

Where was he the previous five years when these matches really mattered when Hagler and Hearns were not only still good but the sport's top fighters?

He was nowhere to be found. This fact cannot be overlooked

If he'd have stayed retired or re-retired after Hagler then fair enough... He didn't though and this is why you do have a point.

In defence of Leonard though I think there was more to it... I think he loved the limelight and once he'd revisited it he couldn't keep away for long. I do think though that all the re-retirements etc... helped Ray to hold all the cards. Whenever he retired the big bucks evaporated. This was a good bargaining tool.

He always kept silent except for the fight with Howard which to me proves he wanted to fight all along. he thought he was going to get easy prey in Howard the way he thought Norris was easy to knock out the way people including himself were looking at Terry's chin.

I believe (and have read the same elsewhere) that on seeing Duran's performance against Hagler he saw a blueprint for winning. Duran hadn't got youth or natural size to beat Hagler but he had showed how to do it. Ray fancied the job... He got tagged by Howard and it scared him off.

It was interesting because when asked about a rematch with Hagler he said "I don't think he really wants a rematch". And then he had another excuse ready when the subject came up about defending his newly acquired middleweight title saying, he "wasn't interested in his belt, he only wanted Hagler".

Does anyone actually take these excuses seriously? I find it hard to take his fans seriously every time they bring up "prime leonard"

If he wasn't intetested in any belts, what was he doing gunning for two belts at once against Donny Lalonde?

It's a fair point BUT Leonard may have been sincere in what he said regarding Hagler and then just had his head turned by the rewnewed fame and the open field that presented itself post-Hagler.

[I Feel Fine]

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.

I agree with a lot of that.

I think Hagler deserved the Leonard decision, but it could have gone either way. I think Leonard-Duran II was not as close as some people, and as the judges made it out to be. I thought Leonard-Hearns, on the other hand, was scored properly. When Leonard won a round he won it big, but Hearns still won more rounds. There were a lot of rounds where Tommy was out jabbing and out working Ray. I don't think too many people would deny that Leonard needed a knock out to win the fight by the time he got into the 13-14th rounds.

I agree that no one held a gun to Hagler's head when Leonard dictated the terms for the fight; 12 rounds, huge ring, etc. But I think a lot of people feel that Hagler would have won the fight clearly if it had gone 15, or if Leonard didn't have so much room... and that's going to burn Hagler fans, even if Hagler agreed to those terms. I'm sure a lot of people would say that the champion is the one who is supposed to dictate the terms, and would probably be annoyed that Leonard got to because of his popularity and bigger name. I suppose I'm on the fence on this one.

I think it is a bit unfair when people say Leonard didn't give rematches. Maybe he could have given Duran a rematch sooner. But he had his eye injury in 82 so he couldn't give Hearns an immediate rematch. When he did fight Hearns the second time, Hearns was still a top fighter and it was still a legit fight. I don't think it would be wrong to fault Leonard for not giving Hearns a rubber match, though. As for Duran III, Duran was probably done by the time he fought Leonard, but he was coming off his huge win over Barkley, so it was a legit fight for Leonard to take. I'm not 100% clear on what happened with Hagler... my understanding is that both guys retired right after the fight and neither was too interested... Leonard was just interested in beating Hagler and had no interest in fighting past that (until a couple of years later when he made another comeback), and Hagler was so annoyed at the decision that he didn't want to bother with fighting Leonard again, or with anyone else for that matter... though I could be wrong about that. So I'm not 100% sure if Leonard should be blamed for no Hagler rematch.

I agree that Leonard was good for boxing, and that he should get more respect from certain people. I think some people dislike the accolades and popularity that Leonard got so much that they sometimes underrate him in response to some people overrating him.

As for LaLonde, I think it's a decent win considering LaLonde was a Light Heavyweight... I thought Leonard won basically every round, and wasn't too convinced when LaLonde knocked him down... I think Ray may have slipped. As for why Leonard wanted the fight, I think he and Hearns were competing to see who would be the first to win titles in 5 weight classes... and I think that's what Ray was gunning for. I don't think there's anything wrong with Leonard and LaLonde fighting at a catch weight, but I don't think it was right that they let them fight for two titles... that I think is a fair thing to complain about. I personally don't rate Leonard as a five division champion... you can't win a 175 belt in a 168 match. JMO.

[Elton John]

To be fair, leonard was no more than a two division champion.

[Glassjaw]

This is a silly argument, Sugar Ray was an all time great fighter. Gold medalist as an amatuer. He beat 6 different world champs (Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Hagler all time greats as well, Kahule and Lalonde good fighters in their own right). Also on his way up he was not in there soft, fighting veterans like Ranzany, Shields, Gant, Green, Price, Mayweather. Dominated them. On his way up, because of the attention he had as a gold medalist, he only fought two guys with upside down records.

Look at his losses, a tough loss in a great fight with Duran, loss to a 10 year younger, in prime Norris who beat 8 or so world champs during his career, and a loss at the age of 41 to Camacho. Ray had tremendous hand speed, footwork and a killer instinct in the ring. He could hit with power, he could take a great punch and was smarter than most of the fighters who got in the ring with him. He fought everyone, save Aaron Pryor, but Pryor couldn't keep his act together.

People forget that he gave up five years during his prime due to the eye injury, 26-31. Ali who we often say we missed during his best years was only out during three years. We may have never seen Ray's best, but what we saw was an all time great. Elton John, don't let the sun go down on you, give your futile argument a rest.

[TigerMoth]

[quote="Ambling Alp"]

Leonard never whined about the decision in the Duran fight.
[/quote]

Did you see the fight? Did you listen to the SRR interview by Howard Cosell after the fight?

Leonard whined like a baby, he was practically crying. However, his whinning wasn't the bullshit he said later. In the interview with Cosell, he said essentially that Duran was all over him and he couldn't fight his fight. By the next day, the bullshit began and he was saying that he wanted to beat Duran at his own game and chose not to fight his normal fight.

Leonard used his power of the purse to fix his own fights. The opponents who gave into his conditions had no choice unless they wanted to throw away a big payday.

The criticisms of Leonard are correct.

He was a great fighter who tainted his own legacy.

[TigerMoth]

[quote="TigerMoth"][quote="Ambling Alp"]

Leonard never whined about the decision in the Duran fight.
[/quote]

Did you see the fight? Did you listen to the SRR interview by Howard Cosell after the fight?

Leonard whined like a baby, he was practically crying. However, his whinning wasn't the bullshit he said later. In the interview with Cosell, he said essentially that Duran was all over him and he couldn't fight his fight. By the next day, the bullshit began and he was saying that he wanted to beat Duran at his own game and chose not to fight his normal fight.

Leonard used his power of the purse to fix his own fights. The opponents who gave into his conditions had no choice unless they wanted to throw away a big payday.

The criticisms of Leonard are correct.

He was a great fighter who tainted his own legacy.[/quote]

My apologies. Let me correct myself. You said Leonard didn't whine about the decision. That is correct.

In the interview with Cosell, he did whine. But, it wasn't about the correctness of the decision.

While I am at it, let me add one thing. I recently saw an interview of Leonard and he was bragging about how in the Hagler fight he had instructed his corner men to yell out to him when there were 30 seconds left in the round. The strategy was to flurry and influence the judges. The key word here in my opinion is influence. Leonards concern wasn't to be the better fighter, it was to win the fight. And, if he had to set up conditions in his favor through the power of the purse and showboat, shoe shine, flurry to make it appear he was doing better than he really was - that was fine by him. His legacy would be much better if his concern was being the better fighter.

[TigerMoth]

[quote="Decagon"][quote="TigerMoth"]While I am at it, let me add one thing. I recently saw an interview of Leonard and he was bragging about how in the Hagler fight he had instructed his corner men to yell out to him when there were 30 seconds left in the round. The strategy was to flurry and influence the judges. The key word here in my opinion is influence. Leonards concern wasn't to be the better fighter, it was to win the fight. And, if he had to set up conditions in his favor through the power of the purse and showboat, shoe shine, flurry to make it appear he was doing better than he really was - that was fine by him. His legacy would be much better if his concern was being the better fighter.[/quote]Hate to break this to you, but most fighters would rather win the fight than be the better fighter.[/quote]
Hate to break this to you, but, winning and being the better fighter are not mutually exclusive. In fact, that is what the fighters that are the most respected do - they fight the fight and win because they are better. Sadly, this is not what Leonard did when he stooped to manipulating the conditions for the fight and the intention of manipulating judges.

[bollox]

I wonder what Leonard would think if he logged on to this thread and had a good read about what a lot of people think of his shenanigans (probably nothing )

[Elton John]

This is a silly argument, Sugar Ray was an all time great fighter. Gold medalist as an amatuer. He beat 6 different world champs (Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Hagler all time greats as well, Kahule and Lalonde good fighters in their own right). Also on his way up he was not in there soft, fighting veterans like Ranzany, Shields, Gant, Green, Price, Mayweather. Dominated them. On his way up, because of the attention he had as a gold medalist, he only fought two guys with upside down records.

Look at his losses, a tough loss in a great fight with Duran, loss to a 10 year younger, in prime Norris who beat 8 or so world champs during his career, and a loss at the age of 41 to Camacho. Ray had tremendous hand speed, footwork and a killer instinct in the ring. He could hit with power, he could take a great punch and was smarter than most of the fighters who got in the ring with him. He fought everyone, save Aaron Pryor, but Pryor couldn't keep his act together.

People forget that he gave up five years during his prime due to the eye injury, 26-31. Ali who we often say we missed during his best years was only out during three years. We may have never seen Ray's best, but what we saw was an all time great. Elton John, don't let the sun go down on you, give your futile argument a rest.

nothing futile about it. sitting out 5 years, waiting for top ranked fighters to soften up the best fighter of your era is the single most cowardly act i have ever beheld. I detest the man for it.

comparing his layoff to Ali, another parallel between them i suppose, is a bad joke. We all know leonard's layoff was merely voluntary. Ali's was not.

Surely you must know this-his title taken away, his license stripped. Ali would never voluntarily duck another fighter the way Leonard did. Muhammud was simply a legend whose courage never faltered even as his mouth could never stop running.

Was leonard ever kept from fighting? No. Only his courage kept him from accepting a rematch with thomas Hearns or Hagler at a time when it actually mattered.

Leonard simply chose the better part of valor and took the discretionary route. he thought he was ready in 84 but his courage failed him.

The rest of those fellows you mentioned ranazany, gant, green, - they were nobodies so they don't matter.

"Lalonde was a good fighter in his own right". Please, you're killing me with your jokes.

[TigerMoth]

[quote="Decagon"]But doesn't that apply to anyone who's thrown a forearm or a low blow?[/quote]

Is this the 2 wrongs make a right argument?

If a fighter won becasuse of an intentional low blow not seen by the referee, that would be a tainted victory.

Similarly, having manipulated the conditions under which he fought and attempting to manipulate judges (so rounds would incorrectly be judged in his favor), Leonard tainted his legacy.

[Collins2000]

This is a silly argument, Sugar Ray was an all time great fighter. Gold medalist as an amatuer. He beat 6 different world champs (Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Hagler all time greats as well, Kahule and Lalonde good fighters in their own right). Also on his way up he was not in there soft, fighting veterans like Ranzany, Shields, Gant, Green, Price, Mayweather. Dominated them. On his way up, because of the attention he had as a gold medalist, he only fought two guys with upside down records.

Look at his losses, a tough loss in a great fight with Duran, loss to a 10 year younger, in prime Norris who beat 8 or so world champs during his career, and a loss at the age of 41 to Camacho. Ray had tremendous hand speed, footwork and a killer instinct in the ring. He could hit with power, he could take a great punch and was smarter than most of the fighters who got in the ring with him. He fought everyone, save Aaron Pryor, but Pryor couldn't keep his act together.

People forget that he gave up five years during his prime due to the eye injury, 26-31. Ali who we often say we missed during his best years was only out during three years. We may have never seen Ray's best, but what we saw was an all time great. Elton John, don't let the sun go down on you, give your futile argument a rest.

nothing futile about it. sitting out 5 years, waiting for top ranked fighters to soften up the best fighter of your era is the single most cowardly act i have ever beheld. I detest the man for it.

Don't worry. As you grow up you'll probably get over it.

[Ezzard]

But doesn't that apply to anyone who's thrown a forearm or a low blow?

Is this the 2 wrongs make a right argument?

If a fighter won becasuse of an intentional low blow not seen by the referee, that would be a tainted victory.

Similarly, having manipulated the conditions under which he fought and attempting to manipulate judges (so rounds would incorrectly be judged in his favor), Leonard tainted his legacy.

EVERY fighter tries to manipulate the fight. Mike Tyson threw forearms in every fight he had; it was a major part of his offense. Clinching was a major part of Pernell Whitaker's defense. Evander Holyfield used his head just as often as he used his fists. Is what Leonard did any worse than what they did?

It's a good point, Dec. There is a difference though. It is up to the ref to punish those acts. If the ref does his job then the advantage of those strategies should be nullified by point losses and disqualification.

[TigerMoth]

[quote="Ezzard"][quote="Decagon"][quote="TigerMoth"][quote="Decagon"]But doesn't that apply to anyone who's thrown a forearm or a low blow?[/quote]

Is this the 2 wrongs make a right argument?

If a fighter won becasuse of an intentional low blow not seen by the referee, that would be a tainted victory.

Similarly, having manipulated the conditions under which he fought and attempting to manipulate judges (so rounds would incorrectly be judged in his favor), Leonard tainted his legacy.[/quote]EVERY fighter tries to manipulate the fight. Mike Tyson threw forearms in every fight he had; it was a major part of his offense. Clinching was a major part of Pernell Whitaker's defense. Evander Holyfield used his head just as often as he used his fists. Is what Leonard did any worse than what they did?[/quote]

It's a good point, Dec. There is a difference though. It is up to the ref to punish those acts. If the ref does his job then the advantage of those strategies should be nullified by point losses and disqualification.[/quote]

Exactly.

As a matter of fact, I have often wanted to construct a post about referring but haven't been able to figure out how to word it. So many times I have seen a fighter breaking the rules and getting warned time and again but the referee does not take points away or disqualify the fighter. So, the fighter just continues doing what he was doing. I suppose excessive clinching is the one that bothers me the most. How many times have we seen a "defensive" fighter who can not stand up to the onslaught of an agressive fighter, resort to excessive clinching. The "clincher" gets warned and warned again and again but not penalized. So, the advantage of the more agressive fighter is negated because the ref doesn't enforce the rules. Same with low blows (although points are taken away more often than with clinching). We hear the ref say "keep em up" over and over again. I don't understand why points are not taken away if the action occurs again after the first warning.