BoxRec

Had to dig this up as I made it a point to see the fight and score it after reading some controversy about it.

116-112 for Leonard was my score.. and I could definitely see it a point or two wider... I'm just not sure how people can say Hagler won, or it was a draw.. or even very close.

I thought Leonard easily won 8 rounds.. with one or two others that were pretty much up for grabs.

jcs83md wrote:Had to dig this up as I made it a point to see the fight and score it after reading some controversy about it.

116-112 for Leonard was my score.. and I could definitely see it a point or two wider... I'm just not sure how people can say Hagler won, or it was a draw.. or even very close.

I thought Leonard easily won 8 rounds.. with one or two others that were pretty much up for grabs.

I agree. But the actual round by round scoring means little to the Anti-Leonard brigade. They never post their actual score they just say shit like "Showboating doesn't win fight" which actualy translates to "I didn't really see the fight but I don't like Leonard".

Pretty sure I saw Rays hand raised at the end.

BoxBuzz wrote:Pretty sure I saw Rays hand raised at the end.

We saw Louis' hand raised at the end of the first Walcott fight too, doesn't mean he won the fight.

you know....it really does mean just that doesn't it? Since that word is pretty much defined by the judges decision on that day. But I know what you mean, it remains a controversial call. Though in the Ray-Marvin case I happen to agree with the judges.

The truth is though that if you watch the fight you'll see that Leonard not only out boxed Hagler but he also landed the better punches... in the end Hagler was out-boxed and out-fought... Leonard started far better by winning the first 5 rounds pretty much and then finished better... close fight yes, but Leonard the clear winner...

Leonard won & everybody knows it.

It was close, but Hagler just plodded & looked woefully slow.

SRL was competitive when they engaged (ie round 9).

He fought the perfect fight against porbably the toughest man ever to step into a boxing ring.

Exactly Syntax and the reason it is still so controversial is many people are still under the ether of that moment. "When techno boxers turn fighter", I think most people are under the impression that if you take the time to hone your skills to their max, that perhaps it means you lack heart. Not that Marvin was lacking in that area but Leanord was a superlative example.

Ali, Leanord, Monzon, Robinson, prove that wrong. However today it does seem that there may some truth to the cliche. When I think of Byrd, Jones and some of the current crop. But I'm sure it's just a passing phase.

I think something that is often overlooked in this fight is that Hagler was far, far past his prime.

Go watch his earlier fights and compare... It's not because Leonard was any better than Hagler's earlier opponents, but because Hagler was much slower, less economical (check Hagler's hit/miss ratio in his prime), and his skill had deteriorated. Watch Hagler against Briscoe, Minter, Sibson, Scypion, Hamsho, Obelmejias, Lee, infact anyone between '77 and '83 - Hagler was physically much, much sharper back then.
I mean, can you imagine Mugabi going eleven rounds with the Hagler that dispatched Scypion (who was about the same as Mugabi)? I can't.

DoubleM wrote:I think something that is often overlooked in this fight is that Hagler was far, far past his prime.

Go watch his earlier fights and compare... It's not because Leonard was any better than Hagler's earlier opponents, but because Hagler was much slower, less economical (check Hagler's hit/miss ratio in his prime), and his skill had deteriorated. Watch Hagler against Briscoe, Minter, Sibson, Scypion, Hamsho, Obelmejias, Lee, infact anyone between '77 and '83 - Hagler was physically much, much sharper back then.
I mean, can you imagine Mugabi going eleven rounds with the Hagler that dispatched Scypion (who was about the same as Mugabi)? I can't.

Very true. Marvin was just a shadow of himself really and his decline can be marked back even to the Hearns fight. Certainly Hagler showed significant deterioration in his speed and reflexes against Mugubi and this convinced Leonard to finally comeback and fight Hagler. I'm pretty sure that the Hagler of '80 to '83 would have been too sharp and strong for Leonard and would probably have stopped him in about 8 or 9 rounds...

silkov wrote:

DoubleM wrote:I think something that is often overlooked in this fight is that Hagler was far, far past his prime.

Go watch his earlier fights and compare... It's not because Leonard was any better than Hagler's earlier opponents, but because Hagler was much slower, less economical (check Hagler's hit/miss ratio in his prime), and his skill had deteriorated. Watch Hagler against Briscoe, Minter, Sibson, Scypion, Hamsho, Obelmejias, Lee, infact anyone between '77 and '83 - Hagler was physically much, much sharper back then.
I mean, can you imagine Mugabi going eleven rounds with the Hagler that dispatched Scypion (who was about the same as Mugabi)? I can't.

Very true. Marvin was just a shadow of himself really and his decline can be marked back even to the Hearns fight. Certainly Hagler showed significant deterioration in his speed and reflexes against Mugubi and this convinced Leonard to finally comeback and fight Hagler. I'm pretty sure that the Hagler of '80 to '83 would have been too sharp and strong for Leonard and would probably have stopped him in about 8 or 9 rounds...

My thoughts exactly.

I hate the way Hagler is often thought of as an attritional, stalking fighter based on his three most famous fights - with Hearns, Mugabi and Leonard. Hagler infact was a versatile fighting machine with sound technical skills, fast hands and impeccable footwork. He could be a boxer one day and a swarmer the next. Unfortunately, fights like the Briscoe, Sibson and Hamsho (I) ones are not as common as his later fights.

A lot could have been attributed to game plans and executions of such. I'll go along with Marvin being off his game by that time, he was pretty much a perfectionist and I guess he knew best that it was time to call it a career by that time. I like Marvin very much one of if not the most durable fighter ever.

Interesting that for a while following the Mugabi-Hagler fight it was considered a great fight. The conventional wisdom was that Mugabi fought a great fight but came up a little short against a great champion.

Then after Hagler lost to Leonard, you started hearing all the comments about how Hagler showed his age in the Mugabi fight, and that Leonard only beat a way past his prime Hagler (and that he didn't really beat him, it was gift from the judges).

Hagler looked better in the Mugasbi fight than he did in many of earlier ones ( Briscoe, Geraldo, first Anterfermo, etc.)

The fact is that Hagler wasn't even 33 when he fought Leonard. Leonard was the one who had to overcome a long layoff ( 1 fight in the previous 5 years). Leonard was the one who was fighting as a middleweight for the very first time.

Hagler was the one who had the major advantages but Leonard still won. Hagler was a great fighter, and this shows how great of an achievement it was for Leonard.
It's good to know that there are some people out there who don't hold resentment toward Leonard and can judge the fight on what actually happened.

Ambling Alp wrote:Hagler looked better in the Mugasbi fight than he did in many of earlier ones ( Briscoe, Geraldo, first Anterfermo, etc.)

This is ridiculous. Hagler looked better in all three, especially the Briscoe fight. That was one of his best! In the Mugabi fight, Hagler often looked painfully slow, powerless and sometimes defenseless. It was his chin, strength, conditioning and right jab which got him through the Mugabi fight.

Watch the Lee and Hamsho fights and tell me Hagler's power hadn't gone. Watch the Monroe and Scypion fights and tell me his speed and defense were still there.

Wilford Scypion was as good as, if not better than John Mugabi. Watch that fight. In terms of balance, poise, defense and style, that is Hagler at his best, and Scypion didn't last four rounds. Can you see Mugabi lasting eleven rounds against the Hagler of '83? Be honest now.

Ambling Alp wrote:Interesting that for a while following the Mugabi-Hagler fight it was considered a great fight. The conventional wisdom was that Mugabi fought a great fight but came up a little short against a great champion.

Then after Hagler lost to Leonard, you started hearing all the comments about how Hagler showed his age in the Mugabi fight, and that Leonard only beat a way past his prime Hagler (and that he didn't really beat him, it was gift from the judges).

Hagler looked better in the Mugasbi fight than he did in many of earlier ones ( Briscoe, Geraldo, first Anterfermo, etc.)

The fact is that Hagler wasn't even 33 when he fought Leonard. Leonard was the one who had to overcome a long layoff ( 1 fight in the previous 5 years). Leonard was the one who was fighting as a middleweight for the very first time.

Hagler was the one who had the major advantages but Leonard still won. Hagler was a great fighter, and this shows how great of an achievement it was for Leonard.
It's good to know that there are some people out there who don't hold resentment toward Leonard and can judge the fight on what actually happened.

Hagler vs Mugubi was a great fight but anyone who watches that fight and then looks at any of Haglers '80 to 83 fights will see that his speed and reflexes have slipped considerably. Leonard has himself admitted that he saw a decline in Hagler in that fight and that it was one of the reasons why he decided to comeback and fight Hagler. I've got no resentment to Leonard but its pretty clear to anyone who knows boxing that the Hagler of '87 was only about 60% of the fighter he was in 80 to 82... if that.

To Collins and Ambling, I hve no resentment toward Ray Leonard, just the judges who, like alot of fans, were overly impressed by Ray's shoeshine punches, and punches off Hagler's arms and shoulders.
As for scoring, I had Hagler by 2 rounds; I did then when it was live, do now, and always will.

Don't let logic or sensibility persuede you Wolver....stick to your guns.

Moretti had it just right as I recall. There was one judge who was a little too excited about Ray as I recall.

You may not have likes Leonards hit and move tactics but the fact of boxing is that at its heart it is about being able to hit and not get hit in return. Watch the fight and tell me who is hit in the face the most in this fight, Hagler or Leonard?... the answer is Hagler, he also got hit with the sharper punches. Going forward all the time doesn't win fights if you are taking your opponents punches while missing most of yours.....

With all due respect, you guys have your scores, I have mine.

I'll see your due respect and raise you a civil discourse.

silkov wrote:You may not have likes Leonards hit and move tactics but the fact of boxing is that at its heart it is about being able to hit and not get hit in return. Watch the fight and tell me who is hit in the face the most in this fight, Hagler or Leonard?... the answer is Hagler, he also got hit with the sharper punches. Going forward all the time doesn't win fights if you are taking your opponents punches while missing most of yours.....

Leonard was exhausted by the final bell, and hurt. Hagler looked bewildered at times by Leonard's speed, but he was certainly never hurt or wobbled - Leonard was hurt several times.

And actually, the official punch stats reveal Leonard only landed thirteen more punches than Hagler in the whole fight. Don't let Leonard's pitter-patter flurries fool you - a lot of Hagler's punches went unnoticed by the untrained eye because they were to the body. Some casual observers think only head punches count.

...and who might these casual observers be? Let me guess the folks who thought Ray won including two of the judges that called it for Ray?

wolverine1 wrote:To Collins and Ambling, I hve no resentment toward Ray Leonard, just the judges who, like alot of fans, were overly impressed by Ray's shoeshine punches, and punches off Hagler's arms and shoulders.
As for scoring, I had Hagler by 2 rounds; I did then when it was live, do now, and always will.

Exactly which rounds did you score for Hagler?

BoxBuzz wrote:...and who might these casual observers be? Let me guess the folks who thought Ray won including two of the judges that called it for Ray?

Well the judge who scored it 118-110 for Leonard certainly didn't know what he was doing. Either that or he had a gun pointed in his back.

Did you know? Hagler replaced one of the original judges. One judge named Gibbs was from England, and Marvin replaced him - he thought the Brits had something against him following the Minter fiasco. The guy was changed for a new judge, and this new judge scored the fight for Leonard. Gibbs watched the fight and scored it for Hagler. So had it not been for that, Hagler would have retained his crown.

DoubleM wrote:

silkov wrote:You may not have likes Leonards hit and move tactics but the fact of boxing is that at its heart it is about being able to hit and not get hit in return. Watch the fight and tell me who is hit in the face the most in this fight, Hagler or Leonard?... the answer is Hagler, he also got hit with the sharper punches. Going forward all the time doesn't win fights if you are taking your opponents punches while missing most of yours.....

Leonard was exhausted by the final bell, and hurt. Hagler looked bewildered at times by Leonard's speed, but he was certainly never hurt or wobbled - Leonard was hurt several times.

Leonard was hurt several times? Which rounds did that happen in?

And actually, the official punch stats reveal Leonard only landed thirteen more punches than Hagler in the whole fight. Don't let Leonard's pitter-patter flurries fool you - a lot of Hagler's punches went unnoticed by the untrained eye because they were to the body. Some casual observers think only head punches count.

Leonard hit Hagler with a lot more clean punches than Hagler hit him with.