BoxRec

Elton John wrote:

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.

3 rambling nonsense posts in a row.

You need to get off the crack pipe.

Quite a few people back in 87 were saying Hagler by early KO.

As for Terry Norris, he was a very good boxer puncher with good handspeed and power, BUT as one boxing magazine pointed out in assessing his weaknesses "Your sister could give him a standing eight count". The Leonard that beat Kalule would have iced him inside of 5.

Seamus wrote:Quite a few people back in 87 were saying Hagler by early KO.

As for Terry Norris, he was a very good boxer puncher with good handspeed and power, BUT as one boxing magazine pointed out in assessing his weaknesses "Your sister could give him a standing eight count". The Leonard that beat Kalule would have iced him inside of 5.

At the end of the day Ray Leonard is a Welterweight.
Hagler is a Middleweight.

Both were past there best, when they met.

The Benitez cut tainted the bout. Benitez was capable of besting Leonard. I still would favour Leonard (not by much) in a rematch. Leonard wasn't interested in a return. Don't go telling half the story again about Benitez changing divisions, either --- the cut robbed Benitez of a legitimate chance to win (in spite of his lax training going into the bout).

If Benitez's cut from a severe headclash (high on the forehead, where such a cut is difficult to treat) is an excuse, "from thin air," I'll take Granberry off my Ignore List. I'm still eager to hear, as well, how many punches precisely constitutes a fighter winning a round, Alp? Is it ten? Thirty? Fifty? I guess if you can't quantify it in exact numbers, it means nothing

Seamus wrote:Quite a few people back in 87 were saying Hagler by early KO.

As for Terry Norris, he was a very good boxer puncher with good handspeed and power, BUT as one boxing magazine pointed out in assessing his weaknesses "Your sister could give him a standing eight count". The Leonard that beat Kalule would have iced him inside of 5.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda but didn't. Stop with the fairy tales already. Only observable 8 counts came with the ref counting to leonard. :P

All the leonard fans are sure taking their lumps today. No matter which way they argue it always backfires.

ringsider wrote:

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.

Okay, when did Frank or I say Hagler was "fading" when he fought Minter? Why do you think it necessary to lump Frank and me in with Terry?

So you dont like Leonard.

Good for you...you obviously have great taste in music.

Robinson wrote:At the end of the day Ray Leonard is a Welterweight.
Hagler is a Middleweight.

Both were past there best, when they met.

And Leonard beat him.......

I think he won. Im not a Leonard fan. Im not, well I hope not influenced by the hype and
hoopla. I was seven at the time and i first saw this fight when I was 17.

I just think Leonard won. I tried scoring it so that Hagler won it..and well I just was
more convinced of Leonards win.

Im sorry for that.

your arguments are so great that the wbc is talking about overturning the hagler-leonard decision

Robinson wrote:I think he won. Im not a Leonard fan. Im not, well I hope not influenced by the hype and
hoopla. I was seven at the time and i first saw this fight when I was 17.

I just think Leonard won. I tried scoring it so that Hagler won it..and well I just was
more convinced of Leonards win.

Im sorry for that.

same here. i had leonard winning 7-5 but i am a big fan of both fighters. if someone says they thought hagler won, i can't really argue. the fight was too close. the first three rounds were the difference imo.

We perhaps would not be having this discussion if Hagler had of beaten Leonard up from the opening bell.

I enjoy eating bowls of cereal at varying stages during the day.

I'm in agreement with ray and bjermaine

Basically a close fight liek this can be scored either way. Anyone arguing too vehemently for oen or the other is fooling themselves.

My recollection of the fight as a kid going to the cinema to watch it live was that just about everyone there wanted Leonard to win. I did too. leonard was an under dog and it seemed like an amazing feat for him to attempt.

Leonard was getting the early rounds but like with a lot of Hagler's challengers they would often unwind right about the time they were having their success.

Hagler then had the most dominant round in the 9th. Leonard took it all and managed to punch back. It seemed then like he really could win.

Ray leonard was out on his feet though and in those last 3 rounds it was a matter of can he stay standing. Hagler seems to have him again at the end of the 10th and 12th but he just can't land the telling blow and he just runs out of time.

I'll admit that as a kid I got carried away and thought Leonard won clearly. I watched it on TV the next day and realised it was a very close fight that could be argued either way.

It all seemed set up for a rematch. Leonard had said he was only coming back for 1 fight but as he did so well I expected a rematch. When he didn't grant one Leonard diminished in my eyes, but I thought well he did say he'd only come back for 1 fight. When he then came back again and again when the timing was always just right for him I did feel like as a man he was a bit of a fraud.

Loved Bennie & The Jets by the way

Goodnight, Irene wrote:The Benitez cut tainted the bout. Benitez was capable of besting Leonard. I still would favour Leonard (not by much) in a rematch. Leonard wasn't interested in a return. Don't go telling half the story again about Benitez changing divisions, either --- the cut robbed Benitez of a legitimate chance to win (in spite of his lax training going into the bout).

If Benitez's cut from a severe headclash (high on the forehead, where such a cut is difficult to treat) is an excuse, "from thin air," I'll take Granberry off my Ignore List. I'm still eager to hear, as well, how many punches precisely constitutes a fighter winning a round, Alp? Is it ten? Thirty? Fifty? I guess if you can't quantify it in exact numbers, it means nothing

The Benitez fight wasn't tainted. That is ludicrous. The cut did not affect his vision. It might as well have been on his knee. They had no problem treating it all. The cut didn't "rob Benitez of a legitimate chance to win". The cut has absolutely no affect on the fight whatsoever. There was never any controversy about that. The fight happened 27 years ago and until you I have never even seen the cut being a factor mentioned by anyone else one time. This really shows how desperate you are to downgrade Leonard.

As for a rematch, yes the fact that Benitez left the divison is of course very important. Had he stayed a welterweight, obviously he would have gotton another title shot sooner or later. Why should Leonard have to move up in weight to fight the guy that he just beat for the title? Their fight was in late 1979. Leonard fought Duran twice in 1980 and Hearns in 1981. He certainly wasn't ducking Benitez. No one in his era fought tougher competition that Leonard. If this was anyone else but Leonard, no one would say something this.

Do you really not understand my point about how much holding is too much?
It's not the same thing as counting punches and saying the guy who landed the most automatically won the round.
Obviously there is more to judging a round than who landed more. There is other criteria. Obviously how clean the punches were and how hard the punches were have to considered as well.

However my point about counting how many clinches in a round is too much does make sense.
If you are saying that a fighter held too much in a round and are therefore giving the round to his opponent, well then you have to have some criteria of what is "too much".
What other possible criteria for "holding too much" can there be except for how many times that he held?
This isn't a trick question. How many times in a round can a fighter hold before it's too much?

I am in a state of disbelief that people could posibly judge leonard from his performance vs Norris. its like judging Tyson on the basis of the lewis fight IMO. and as for him never beating a decent fighter at thier peak? my god, someone must be under-rating hearns benitez and kalule big-time.

as for why did Hagler fight leonard the way he did?

he didn't have much choice, what with having lost 50% of his quickness and stamina. its not rocket science i don't think?

I've always thought that holding had a psychological effect on the judges. So in a close round the fighter not holding would get looked upon a little bit more favourably, whether this is enough to get the round or not depends on way too many other things, but it obviously is a factor. I had no idea that it really was a part of the judging criteria.

Leonard did a lot of skating around, not engaging and then flurrying and holding. He was landing clean shots. He was not constantly engaging though, but moving away, throwing a bunch of punches, some would get through, others would be blocked, then he'd try and close down the exchange by holding. I never really thoguht about it this way before. The controversy on this one will never end...

Ambling Alp wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:The Benitez cut tainted the bout. Benitez was capable of besting Leonard. I still would favour Leonard (not by much) in a rematch. Leonard wasn't interested in a return. Don't go telling half the story again about Benitez changing divisions, either --- the cut robbed Benitez of a legitimate chance to win (in spite of his lax training going into the bout).

If Benitez's cut from a severe headclash (high on the forehead, where such a cut is difficult to treat) is an excuse, "from thin air," I'll take Granberry off my Ignore List. I'm still eager to hear, as well, how many punches precisely constitutes a fighter winning a round, Alp? Is it ten? Thirty? Fifty? I guess if you can't quantify it in exact numbers, it means nothing

The Benitez fight wasn't tainted. That is ludicrous. The cut did not affect his vision. It might as well have been on his knee. They had no problem treating it all. The cut didn't "rob Benitez of a legitimate chance to win". The cut has absolutely no affect on the fight whatsoever. There was never any controversy about that. The fight happened 27 years ago and until you I have never even seen the cut being a factor mentioned by anyone else one time. This really shows how desperate you are to downgrade Leonard.

As for a rematch, yes the fact that Benitez left the divison is of course very important. Had he stayed a welterweight, obviously he would have gotton another title shot sooner or later. Why should Leonard have to move up in weight to fight the guy that he just beat for the title? Their fight was in late 1979. Leonard fought Duran twice in 1980 and Hearns in 1981. He certainly wasn't ducking Benitez. No one in his era fought tougher competition that Leonard. If this was anyone else but Leonard, no one would say something this.

Do you really not understand my point about how much holding is too much?
It's not the same thing as counting punches and saying the guy who landed the most automatically won the round.
Obviously there is more to judging a round than who landed more. There is other criteria. Obviously how clean the punches were and how hard the punches were have to considered as well.

However my point about counting how many clinches in a round is too much does make sense.
If you are saying that a fighter held too much in a round and are therefore giving the round to his opponent, well then you have to have some criteria of what is "too much".
What other possible criteria for "holding too much" can there be except for how many times that he held?
This isn't a trick question. How many times in a round can a fighter hold before it's too much?

You tell us, Alp. You're the one who thinks there is a mathematical formula by which one can determine whether a fighter is holding too much. So what do you think it is?

I don't think holding should be a factor in scoring a round unless the referee deducts a point and then of course it would be mandatory. Which btw, is the way that is.
Therefore I don't have a set amount for a judge to start factoring it in.
You howeve,r should if you are saying that a judge should consider "too much holding" when scoring an individual round.

I would think my reason for asking the mathematical amount would be obvious.
I want to know how you come to the conclusion that Leonard held too much so that he doesn't deserve a particular round that you otherwise would have given him. Surely, you would have a set amount so that you would know Leonard did it too much.

However, I don't think you do. It appears that you think Leonard actually did have the edge in the fight, but it seems that Leonard held too much so you think Hagler gets the decision. That certainly isn't a good way to score a fight, even if you do think that "too much holding" into consideration.

Each round has to be scored individually by a judge.
If you are saying that "too much holding" should affect the scoring of a round (even if the referree doesn't deduct any points), than you have to have a set amount that is too much for one round. Starting 5 Clinches, 6 clinches, something. That is simply common sense.

This shouldn't be a gray area. If it's going to be factor for a judge, (even if the referee doesn't deduct any points) than either a guy holds too much or he doesn't.

Ezzard wrote:I'm in agreement with ray and bjermaine

Basically a close fight liek this can be scored either way. Anyone arguing too vehemently for oen or the other is fooling themselves.

My recollection of the fight as a kid going to the cinema to watch it live was that just about everyone there wanted Leonard to win. I did too. leonard was an under dog and it seemed like an amazing feat for him to attempt.

Leonard was getting the early rounds but like with a lot of Hagler's challengers they would often unwind right about the time they were having their success.

Hagler then had the most dominant round in the 9th. Leonard took it all and managed to punch back. It seemed then like he really could win.

Ray leonard was out on his feet though and in those last 3 rounds it was a matter of can he stay standing. Hagler seems to have him again at the end of the 10th and 12th but he just can't land the telling blow and he just runs out of time.

I'll admit that as a kid I got carried away and thought Leonard won clearly. I watched it on TV the next day and realised it was a very close fight that could be argued either way.

It all seemed set up for a rematch. Leonard had said he was only coming back for 1 fight but as he did so well I expected a rematch. When he didn't grant one Leonard diminished in my eyes, but I thought well he did say he'd only come back for 1 fight. When he then came back again and again when the timing was always just right for him I did feel like as a man he was a bit of a fraud.

Leonard was never "out on his feet" in the entire fight. It wasn't just a matter if Leonard could keep standing in the 10th,11th and 12 rounds.
Even Elton John has the 12 round even.
Even Robinson has the 10th round even.

However what really irks me is you calling Leonard a fraud. He obviously meant to stay retired after the Hagler fight. Fighters retire and than change their mind comeback all of the time. It's more the rule than the exception. It's not like he took another fight right after Hagler. It was another 19 months before Leonard fought again.

A fraud doesn't fight all those tough fights and not quit.
A fraud doesn't fight 9 Top 10 opponents before fighting for a title.
A fraud doesn't beat Benitez,Duran, Hearns, and Hagler.
A fraud doesn't have more mega fights than anyone else in his era (Of Leonard,Duran,Hearns,Hagler, and Benitez, it was Leonard who had the most fights among them) despite being out of action for almost almost 5 years.
A fraud doesn't comeback to boxing after a detached retina and multiple eye surgeries.
After Leonard got the detached retina, he didn't owe boxing anything. Yet he came back (past his best) and fought some exciting fights that gave the fans some excitement and got his opponents big paydays.

Ambling Alp wrote:I don't think holding should be a factor in scoring a round unless the referee deducts a point and then of course it would be mandatory. Which btw, is the way that is.
Therefore I don't have a set amount for a judge to start factoring it in.
You howeve,r should if you are saying that a judge should consider "too much holding" when scoring an individual round.

I would think my reason for asking the mathematical amount would be obvious.
I want to know how you come to the conclusion that Leonard held too much so that he doesn't deserve a particular round that you otherwise would have given him. Surely, you would have a set amount so that you would know Leonard did it too much.

However, I don't think you do. It appears that you think Leonard actually did have the edge in the fight, but it seems that Leonard held too much so you think Hagler gets the decision. That certainly isn't a good way to score a fight, even if you do think that "too much holding" into consideration.

Each round has to be scored individually by a judge.
If you are saying that "too much holding" should affect the scoring of a round (even if the referree doesn't deduct any points), than you have to have a set amount that is too much for one round. Starting 5 Clinches, 6 clinches, something. That is simply common sense.

This shouldn't be a gray area. If it's going to be factor for a judge, (even if the referee doesn't deduct any points) than either a guy holds too much or he doesn't.

The whole idea of "ring generalmanship" and "effective defense" - the two factors in judging to which holding would apply - are judgment calls. Most judging in boxing is subjective. Why should this be any different?

In my judgment, "good defense" is not holding or running. A fighter who uses "holding" - as opposed selective punching and movement - to control the action is not showing good ring generalmanship, either. Holding should be a last resort to use when hurt, or used occasionally to regroup oneself. It should not be the defense or strategy of choice in a fight, and if it is, I think the judge should take that into account in scoring the round.

But what's "too much?" Like many other things in boxing, that's a judgment call for the judge.

You are right that ring generalmanship and good defense are judgement calls. Sometimes it's easy to see which fighter is better, sometimes it's not. It's subjective.

However, too much holding shouldn't be subjective. You should be able to say if any fighter holds X amount of times in around, that's too much. This isn't an opinion. Either the guy held too much in a round or he didn't based on how many clinches he started. There is no legitimate reason why you can't do that.

Here is the real reason that people that think that "too much holding" should be a factor in scoring a round but won't say how much is too much:

If you leave it vague, then you pick and choose when you are going to apply it.
Don't like Ray Leonard? (or someone else for that matter) You can just say that he held too much in a fight therefore he doesn't deserve the decision.

However, if you say a certain amount is too much, then you leave yourself open. First you have pick the specific rounds that Leonard held too much that you otherwise would have gave to him. More importanlty, people can point out that Hearns held more in the 2nd Leonard-Hearns fight. People can also pick out other fights where one your favorite fighters held too much and shouldn't be given certain rounds and therefore the fight.

There is no legitimate reason why you can't put a number on this. It's not a gray area like some other things. It's black and white. That way you can be consistent in saying so and so held too much.