BoxRec

What a laugh you are Elton, Terry Norris fought nobody in his entire career. The best guys he fought who were still in their prime were Simon Brown and JJ, and he was KO'd twice and then he won a decision on the rematch......... so he was 1-2 against good fighters in their prime from the same era.

He beat up a shot LW like Meldrick Taylor , and then he got his ass kicked by Dana Rosenblatt.He fought old over hill fighters who were still trying to hang on. Fighters who were years past their prime, like Sugar Ray, Donald Curry, Meldrick Taylor, and John Mugabi. Then the only guy he ever fought who was in his prime at the same time handed him his ass in 2 rounds, Julian Jackson.

Your faithfulness to Terry Norris is admirable, you two must have quite the relationship in bed.

Elton John wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Elton John wrote:
He sure taught leonard how to box. :P That was a boxing lesson from the student to the master. So the way it is isn't the way you'd like it to be nothing you can do to change that.

history has already been written and history says the fight went in favor of Mr. Norris and his fans. Blame it on your man because history shows that he was always been inept in the presence of youth and speed.

If he were half the fighter they say he was he would have had no trouble with Norris. If you can't prove me wrong then like my good friend Paul Stanley would say "lick it up" so stop using the excuse "If leonard were in his prime" or blaming it on a layoff. 1 year inactivity is nothing by boxing standards-fighters and champions alike do it all the time including leonard. If he beat Hagler after 3 years why can't he handle Norris after a couple months?

It was just his ineptitude that hurt him. Leonard had everything else in his favor-the opponent, location, ring size, fighting weight, glove size, rounds, experience, and still wound up embarrassed and hurt because he sucks! He was a piece of shit that's why he was always asking for concessions. He was just a very weak champion. A good amateur though

Can you be more specific? When did "history shows that he was always been inept in the presence of youth and speed"?

Well you really have is just Benitez and Hearns and to a lesser extent Larry Bonds. Leonard certainly did not resemble an all time great in any of those bouts which is why I don't understand why people keep repeating the phrase "Leonard in his prime". Leonard in his prime was inept and you can even ask Angelo Dundee. He said you're blowing it son. Tommy only lost the fight not because of anything Leonard did but because he wasn't strong late in a fight. Especially at 145.

Those same shots he took early in the fight without going down he couldn't take late in the fight but up until then he beat ray easy just by moving around. I told people Ray can't hit a moving target. Watch him, he'll probably retire after this fight and he did.

Then he picked a fight with Hagler who was totally used up. His fans actually believe this was a big upset but it really wasn't. Hagler shouldn't have been allowed to fight from the beatings he was taking in earlier fights.

Leonard made it close on account of Hagler's condition. Truthfully I thought Hagler performed poorly in the leonard fight but Leonard was truly the most inept, poorest excuse lame ass "champ" as they call him that I have ever seen. This was a continuation of the Hearns fight only Norris was stronger, better conditioned, better defensively carrying a higher guard, and best of all he didn't have a stamina problem. Is it any wonder why it was so uncompetitive??

Looking back I can see why he needed all these concessions and would absoultely refuse fights over the span of the early to mid 1980's. He truly did not have the experience to take on the Hagler's or Hearns' of his time just as he didn't have what it took to face off with the Micheal Nunn's or his time. Someone like leonard would much rather face the Don Lalonde's of the world (bad eye and all!) than a legitimate champion.

All he's good for is these high profile circus acts.

Okay, that's three - all good fighters and two - Hearns and Benitez - considered all-time greats. A fighter isn't great if he is in competitive fights with three good or great fighters, especially fighters of the caliber of Hearns and Benitez? (BTW, Leonard won all three.)

I think Leonard is overrated as a champion, and I thought Hagler outpointed him. I didn't like him, and I didn't like the way he fought. But I admit he was a excellent fighter, certain not a "poorest excuse lame ass champ."

You know I fail to see how any of you guys can say Hagler could box. Just watch his fights, any of them. Yes I was aware of Hagler before he "supposedly" boxed Vito to a draw. What rubbish, it only showed what a poor boxer Hagler was. Hagler was a banger, that is what he was. I do not take that from him, but his boxing skills, footwork, and grace left sooooooo much to be desired. He was constantly plodding and off balance after throwing shots, plus he was a southpaw.

While I have nothing personally against Hagler, before you start respecting him as a person....wasn't he a wife beater? Ray Leonard was an adulterous......I say who cares. They were both men, and both decent fighters in the ring. I lost money betting against them both....

ringsider wrote:You know I fail to see how any of you guys can say Hagler could box. Just watch his fights, any of them. Yes I was aware of Hagler before he "supposedly" boxed Vito to a draw. What rubbish, it only showed what a poor boxer Hagler was. Hagler was a banger, that is what he was. I do not take that from him, but his boxing skills, footwork, and grace left sooooooo much to be desired. He was constantly plodding and off balance after throwing shots, plus he was a southpaw.

While I have nothing personally against Hagler, before you start respecting him as a person....wasn't he a wife beater? Ray Leonard was an adulterous......I say who cares. They were both men, and both decent fighters in the ring. I lost money betting against them both....

have you seen the vito fight? hagler outclassed him easily. if you seen the fight, you know it was NOT a draw....

Ringsider is to Hagler what Elton John is to Leonard.

They should really be taking one another on.

Terry D wrote:You clearly miss the point. I have stated to you more than once that your only experience of Hagler is his title reign. If it is not you are either closing your eyes to his decent movement or you are incapable or reading a fight/fighter.

The other point you completely miss is that Hagler brawled with Vito to that draw for a reason. As I said he was faded by that point. As you can see if you watch his earlier fights.

Even beyond that he still moved well enough to catch Vito wrong footed in the rematch, plus well enough to hammer Sibson. It is just that his movement was not as good as it used to be.

As for Hagler striking his wife. That is one strike against him, or her. Leonard's attitude in general was pretty terrible so we have Hagler 1-3 behind to Leonard in the personal stakes. On a personal level Ray did some pretty poor things during his boxing career. Plus as stated that is my take on Leonard based on his actions overall. Your take on Hagler is based on a very limited knowledge of his fighting career.

My limited knowledge of Hagler is seeing his title reign. It was tough to watch, as he wasn't a great MW. The biggest laugh is you say that Hagler didn't win the title until he was past his prime......hmmmm...let us see.....he held the title for roughly 7 years......and yet all of those years he was past his prime? Boy he surely must have been something in his prime when he was getting beat by guys like "Willie the Worm" Monroe and "Boogaloo" Watts. Gimme a break.

Hagler was no Sugar Ray Leonard in boxing ability by any stretch of the imagination, but he wasen't terrible either. He boxed beautifully against Hamsho in there first fight and against Tony Sibson. As for his first bout with Antuofermo, Vito probably gave him the two worst rounds of his career, but in the end, over 15 rds, Hagler won more than enough rds to deserve the decision.

ringsider wrote:

Terry D wrote:You clearly miss the point. I have stated to you more than once that your only experience of Hagler is his title reign. If it is not you are either closing your eyes to his decent movement or you are incapable or reading a fight/fighter.

The other point you completely miss is that Hagler brawled with Vito to that draw for a reason. As I said he was faded by that point. As you can see if you watch his earlier fights.

Even beyond that he still moved well enough to catch Vito wrong footed in the rematch, plus well enough to hammer Sibson. It is just that his movement was not as good as it used to be.

As for Hagler striking his wife. That is one strike against him, or her. Leonard's attitude in general was pretty terrible so we have Hagler 1-3 behind to Leonard in the personal stakes. On a personal level Ray did some pretty poor things during his boxing career. Plus as stated that is my take on Leonard based on his actions overall. Your take on Hagler is based on a very limited knowledge of his fighting career.

My limited knowledge of Hagler is seeing his title reign. It was tough to watch, as he wasn't a great MW. The biggest laugh is you say that Hagler didn't win the title until he was past his prime......hmmmm...let us see.....he held the title for roughly 7 years......and yet all of those years he was past his prime? Boy he surely must have been something in his prime when he was getting beat by guys like "Willie the Worm" Monroe and "Boogaloo" Watts. Gimme a break.

How is it a disgrace to lose to guys like Monroe and Watts? Have you ever seen Willie Monroe or Bobby Watts? Those guys were talented, double-tough middleweights in the mid-1970s, and could give anybody hell for ten rounds. Look at their records: Watts was 26-3-1 and Monroe was 32-3-1 when Hagler fought them. Hagler was an up-and-coming, and those guys were right in their primes when they met.

raylawpc wrote:

ringsider wrote:

Terry D wrote:You clearly miss the point. I have stated to you more than once that your only experience of Hagler is his title reign. If it is not you are either closing your eyes to his decent movement or you are incapable or reading a fight/fighter.

The other point you completely miss is that Hagler brawled with Vito to that draw for a reason. As I said he was faded by that point. As you can see if you watch his earlier fights.

Even beyond that he still moved well enough to catch Vito wrong footed in the rematch, plus well enough to hammer Sibson. It is just that his movement was not as good as it used to be.

As for Hagler striking his wife. That is one strike against him, or her. Leonard's attitude in general was pretty terrible so we have Hagler 1-3 behind to Leonard in the personal stakes. On a personal level Ray did some pretty poor things during his boxing career. Plus as stated that is my take on Leonard based on his actions overall. Your take on Hagler is based on a very limited knowledge of his fighting career.

My limited knowledge of Hagler is seeing his title reign. It was tough to watch, as he wasn't a great MW. The biggest laugh is you say that Hagler didn't win the title until he was past his prime......hmmmm...let us see.....he held the title for roughly 7 years......and yet all of those years he was past his prime? Boy he surely must have been something in his prime when he was getting beat by guys like "Willie the Worm" Monroe and "Boogaloo" Watts. Gimme a break.

How is it a disgrace to lose to guys like Monroe and Watts? Have you ever seen Willie Monroe or Bobby Watts? Those guys were talented, double-tough middleweights in the mid-1970s, and could give anybody hell for ten rounds. Look at their records: Watts was 26-3-1 and Monroe was 32-3-1 when Hagler fought them. Hagler was an up-and-coming, and those guys were right in their primes when they met.

Ray, I totally agree with your points here.

I just wanted respond to some of the comments made (mostly by Goodnight Irene)

Why I defend Leonard so much - First of all,ask yourself this question, why do I have to so much? Why is he criticized on this Forum so much? Besides Ali and possibly Tyson he gets more criticism on this forum than than any other 5 fighters combined. How often do we see threads ripping, Hagler,Benitez,Duran or Hearns? Leonard gets more criticism than they do combined. Just go back in the archives for old posts and you will see that.
Vitually any thread that even mentions one of Leonard's opponents gets twisted into Leonard bashing.

He was one of the greatest fighters who ever lived. He had it all, spped,power, chin, defense heart, smarts. He bent over backwards to fight the best. He beat 9 Top 10 fighters before winning the title. How many guys have done that in the last 40 years?
He beat 4 great fighters, Duran,Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler. He came back from a detached retna, moved up in weight, and beat one of the greatest middleweight champions of all time in a fight that almost no one one thought he had a chance of winning. After a three year layoff. No one else has done this in over 100 years of boxing, so Leonard's detractors can't admit it so they have to have excuses.

Just becausde 10 criticisms that aremade about Leonard doesn't mean that thinking 5 are legitimate is being fair.
The worst legitimate criticism of Leonard that can be made is that he lost a tough fight to Roberto Duran. that's not exactly embarrassing.
All I ask is that he get judged by the same criteria as everyone else. That's clearly often nopt the case. He gets ripped for things that no one else in similar situations gets criticized for. He aslo doesn't get credit for things that others fight would.
How many excuse are pulled out of thin air about his big wins? Duran had a tummyache, Hearns had skinny legs, Hagler was washed up (though no one was saying that before the fight) and last but not least, the Benitez win is "tainted" becasue Benitez had a cut on his forehad, even though didn't affet his vision.

- The "held too much" in the Hagler fight. I have asked a simple question-How much holding in a round is too much? Is it 2 times, 3 times, 4 times, what? You should have an answer for this. Surely if Leonard held too much, there has to be a certain number that is too much. But of course there is no answer to this because it hasn't been though through.

I strongly suspect that people who say Leonard held too much are actaully looking closely how much he held in a particular round. You can't just give Hagler say round 9 because you think Leonard held a little too much in previous rounds. Each round has to be scored individually.

-I think Goodnight Irene is deflecting this by talking about compubox, which a completely sperate issue. Obviously a judge don't score a fight soley from the amount of punches landed. How hard and how clean the punches were have to be factored in as well.

-I bring up the Hearns fight not to deflect the holding issue in the Hagler fight, but to show the hypocrisy. If Leonard held too much against Hagler, didn't Hearns hold too much since he held much more than Leonard did against Hagler?
It's a simple question as well. That is doesn't get answered by Leonard's detractors because of the double standard. It's ok for an opponent to hold onto Leonard excessivley.

-I don't like fights where a fighter hold constantly. I couldn't stand John Ruiz because of it. However, I didn't give rounds to his opponent just because Ruiz held too much. If Ruiz landed better, I would give him the round. More importantly, it's obvious from some of the close decisons that went his way that the judges weren't factoring in his holding either.(Btw, if the judges were factoring in holding, how did Lennox Lewis ever win a decision?)
I have never heard holding in connection to ring generalmanship.
Have never seen it meantioned in any rule that a fighter's holding would be factored in against when scoring a fight.
Have never heard a referee mention it in instructions, except for to break cleanly. Which of course implies that some holding is expected to happen.
Leonard didn't hold nearly as much as John Ruiz. Not even close.
A referee can deduct a point if he thinks the holding is too excessive. This rarely happens. Even Ruiz was seldom penalized for it. Of course there a few examples of it happening, but it's very rare and Leonard didn't hold nearly that much.

As I have said before, most of this comes back to the "Petty Boy" image that Leonard has with many people. He wasn't bald, or look mean, and he could talk fairly intelligently. Many people are incapable of judging a fighter that they don't like as they would judge a fighter that they do like.
Leonard wasn't a perfect fighter and occasionally someone will say something legitimate. Far more often, it's the usual BS.
What I ask is that Leonard shouldn't be criticzed for something that others fighters aren't who were similar situations. He should also get credit where credit is due.

Terry D wrote:

Even beyond that he still moved well enough to catch Vito wrong footed in the rematch, . . .

As for Hagler striking his wife. That is one strike against him, or her. . . .

Hagler butted Vito as soon as their 2nd fight started.

Seconds into the fight Vito had a huge cut high on his forehead, where no punch can cause a cut---only a butt.
Hagler didn't want to go through another fight like their first one.

In Leonard's divorce his wife brought out that he beat her and took LOTS of drugs.

That is right on Alp.....and I can remember my old boxing coach and trainer (R.I.P.) standing behind the bar at his old establishment when the Hagler/Leonard fight was announced saying with a smile on his face......."Leonard will beat him." And then doing a little shadow box.

ringsider wrote:

Terry D wrote:You clearly miss the point. I have stated to you more than once that your only experience of Hagler is his title reign. If it is not you are either closing your eyes to his decent movement or you are incapable or reading a fight/fighter.

The other point you completely miss is that Hagler brawled with Vito to that draw for a reason. As I said he was faded by that point. As you can see if you watch his earlier fights.

Even beyond that he still moved well enough to catch Vito wrong footed in the rematch, plus well enough to hammer Sibson. It is just that his movement was not as good as it used to be.

As for Hagler striking his wife. That is one strike against him, or her. Leonard's attitude in general was pretty terrible so we have Hagler 1-3 behind to Leonard in the personal stakes. On a personal level Ray did some pretty poor things during his boxing career. Plus as stated that is my take on Leonard based on his actions overall. Your take on Hagler is based on a very limited knowledge of his fighting career.

My limited knowledge of Hagler is seeing his title reign. It was tough to watch, as he wasn't a great MW. The biggest laugh is you say that Hagler didn't win the title until he was past his prime......hmmmm...let us see.....he held the title for roughly 7 years......and yet all of those years he was past his prime? Boy he surely must have been something in his prime when he was getting beat by guys like "Willie the Worm" Monroe and "Boogaloo" Watts. Gimme a break.

Hagler was not yet in his prime when he lost to Monroe and Watts.

Ambling Alp wrote:[/b]The "held too much" in the Hagler fight. I have asked a simple question-How much holding in a round is too much? Is it 2 times, 3 times, 4 times, what? You should have an answer for this. Surely if Leonard held too much, there has to be a certain number that is too much. But of course there is no answer to this because it hasn't been though through.[/b]

Personally, I liken "too much holding" to Justice Potter Stewart's view of pornography: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be [pornography] . . . ut I know it when I see it . . ." Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964).

I know too much holding when I see it. I don't think you can identify "too much holding" with mathematical certainty. Like many aspects of judging a boxing match, it's subjective.

I do not fault you for your opinion of Leonard. I, too, agree he was a great fighter. But, in my judgment, he held too much and ran too much against Hagler, it cost him points on my scorecard, and he lost by two rounds on my card. I freely admit that two of the judges thought otherwise (although the 10-2 in rounds by one of the judges continues to mystify me), as do people I respect on this board. I also admit that I saw the fight on TV - which isn't the same as sitting ringside live.

I do think this is an issue over which reasonable minds can differ. I don't think that any person who thinks Leonard won "needs glasses." It was a close fight. Saying Leonard lost to Hagler does not diminish my respect for him. I think he lost, but I still think his performance was remarkable given his long layoff.

kikibalt said:Hagler was not yet in his prime when he lost to Monroe and Watts.

But he was post prime when he held the title.

Terry D says:The other point you completely miss is that Hagler brawled with Vito to that draw for a reason. As I said he was faded by that point. As you can see if you watch his earlier fights.

Even beyond that he still moved well enough to catch Vito wrong footed in the rematch, plus well enough to hammer Sibson. It is just that his movement was not as good as it used to be.

So Hagler's prime was from 12-21-76 through 6-30-79 roughly, since he was past his prime when he fought Vito for the first time. So Marvelous Marvin Hagler held the MW title for 7 years being a past his prime fighter.......man he sure must been something in his prime. And if this is the case then the MW division must have really been poor at that time in history for a past his prime fighter to hold the title for so long. Just like I have always said.

You guys are delusional......

ringsider wrote:

kikibalt said:Hagler was not yet in his prime when he lost to Monroe and Watts.

But he was post prime when he held the title.

Terry D says:The other point you completely miss is that Hagler brawled with Vito to that draw for a reason. As I said he was faded by that point. As you can see if you watch his earlier fights.

Even beyond that he still moved well enough to catch Vito wrong footed in the rematch, plus well enough to hammer Sibson. It is just that his movement was not as good as it used to be.

So Hagler's prime was from 12-21-76 through 6-30-79, since he was past his prime when he fought Vito for the first time. So Marvelous Marvin Hagler held the MW title for 7 years being a past his prime fighter.......man he sure must been something in his prime.

You guys are delusional......

Excuse me, but when did Frank say that Hagler was past his prime when he won the title? In my judgment, Frank is right that Hagler wasn't in his prime when he lost to Monroe and Watts. But those fights helped mature him pretty quickly and, as another poster put it, were part of the learning curve for Hagler.

Terry D said talking about Vito I: .....As I said he was faded by that point. As you can see if you watch his earlier fights.......

And since he hadn't reached his prime for the Monroe and Watts fights he lost (the learning curve thing)....then by deduction, Hagler's prime fell somewhere in between those fights. Figure it out....it isn't that tough.

ringsider wrote:

Terry D said: .....As I said he was faded by that point. As you can see if you watch his earlier fights.......

Talking about Vito I.

And since he hadn't reached his prime for the Monroe and Watts fights he lost (the learning curve thing)....then by deduction, Hagler's prime fell somewhere in between those fights. Figure it out....it isn't that tough.

Ok grandbarry...

kikibalt wrote:

ringsider wrote:

Terry D said: .....As I said he was faded by that point. As you can see if you watch his earlier fights.......

Talking about Vito I.

And since he hadn't reached his prime for the Monroe and Watts fights he lost (the learning curve thing)....then by deduction, Hagler's prime fell somewhere in between those fights. Figure it out....it isn't that tough.

Ok grandbarry...

Well that is you guys and your reasoning.....not mine. I have merely followed the logic you guys try to present.

ringsider wrote:

kikibalt wrote:

ringsider wrote:
Talking about Vito I.

And since he hadn't reached his prime for the Monroe and Watts fights he lost (the learning curve thing)....then by deduction, Hagler's prime fell somewhere in between those fights. Figure it out....it isn't that tough.

Ok grandbarry...

Well that is you guys and your reasoning.....not mine. I have merely followed the logic you guys try to present.

Again, neither Frank nor I said that Hagler was past his prime when he won the title. Personally, I don't think he was past his prime. Please don't paint all of us with the same brush.

kikibalt wrote:

ringsider wrote:

Terry D said: .....As I said he was faded by that point. As you can see if you watch his earlier fights.......

Talking about Vito I.

And since he hadn't reached his prime for the Monroe and Watts fights he lost (the learning curve thing)....then by deduction, Hagler's prime fell somewhere in between those fights. Figure it out....it isn't that tough.

Ok grandbarry...

Looks like poor Frank is confused.

Again.

LOL

rawlawpc said:Excuse me, but when did Frank say that Hagler was past his prime when he won the title?

Terry D said:The other point you completely miss is that Hagler brawled with Vito to that draw for a reason. As I said he was faded by that point. As you can see if you watch his earlier fights.

If you are faded, then you are not at your peak or prime.

Fade: to lose freshness, strength, or vitality

And since Hagler did not win the title until he fought Minter, then he was even more faded.

He must really be something fighting in your dreams every night.

ringsider wrote:What a laugh you are Elton, Terry Norris fought nobody in his entire career. The best guys he fought who were still in their prime were Simon Brown and JJ, and he was KO'd twice and then he won a decision on the rematch......... so he was 1-2 against good fighters in their prime from the same era.

He beat up a shot LW like Meldrick Taylor , and then he got his ass kicked by Dana Rosenblatt.He fought old over hill fighters who were still trying to hang on. Fighters who were years past their prime, like Sugar Ray, Donald Curry, Meldrick Taylor, and John Mugabi. Then the only guy he ever fought who was in his prime at the same time handed him his ass in 2 rounds, Julian Jackson.

Your faithfulness to Terry Norris is admirable, you two must have quite the relationship in bed.

Please don't be a poor sport. Seeing is believing and the sad truth is Leonard was a heavy favorite in the fight. Norris wasn't expected to compete because like you said "Norris hasn't fought no one"

Too bad!

Terry embarrassed Leonard. He beat him up in front of Ray jr then retired him. That's superiority.

So at least my admiration for his ass kicking abilities is justifiable, your admiration for leonard is not. He's never won a contest over a name fighter clear cut yet people like you go apeshit just for a split decision.

Let's please stop bringing leonard's name in the same sentence as Hagler, Norris, Roy Jones. He was clearly coddled until the Norris fight. Then he got himself hurt and had to retire again.

What legend gets knocked out by Hector Camacho? Hagler was never knocked out and Leonard was. Every time he fought he was tasting canvas. This is clearly a man who was wise to pick his fights with great care.

Seamus wrote:Hagler was no Sugar Ray Leonard in boxing ability by any stretch of the imagination, but he wasen't terrible either. He boxed beautifully against Hamsho in there first fight and against Tony Sibson. As for his first bout with Antuofermo, Vito probably gave him the two worst rounds of his career, but in the end, over 15 rds, Hagler won more than enough rds to deserve the decision.

What are you talking about? Hagler was way better than Ray as a boxer!! Didn't you see the Norris fight?? Leonard was a piece of shit!!

As for the great Hagler who happened to do everything right, Hagler's prime ended in the Hearns fight. This is why leonard wouldn't take the fight with him any sooner. Notice how he came out in a fight with Howard but wouldn't go further? But leonard fans don't mind waiting for him. They'd settle for anything he gave to them, even a Don lalonde fight. They'd gladly sit thru Uno mas or Leonard-Benitez..... just to watch him get a decision.

Had Marvin been anything close to his prime he would have punched holes in that big head of Ray's. No contest-Hagler by kayo early.