Page 2 of 12
Posted: 15 May 2008, 02:11
by ringsider
Hagler stunk.....and was exposed. Those who say he could box are fooling themselves. He was a bumbling southpaw who could punch and came in to fight in great shape. Hagler was no boxer or counter puncher in any sense. All you need to do is watch his terrible fights and the medicore MW opponents of the time.
Posted: 15 May 2008, 04:13
by Robinson
I had the fight 116-113 for Leonard.
My GF who hates SRL, disagrees but she did not keep score.
"He keeps show boating, I hate him. He isn't even fighting him. " to quote her amidst her frustrations at viewing the bout :P
Posted: 15 May 2008, 06:17
by Poncey
I thought I had Hagler winning by 2, but it's been a few years. I'll watch it tonight.
Posted: 15 May 2008, 11:03
by Smokin'Moe
havent read any comments so i might be redundant or you guys might disagree but Leonard Did Not win that fight
Posted: 15 May 2008, 11:04
by Smokin'Moe
i havent seen it in a year or so i think ill pull that one out tonight...
good fight though you gotta love the great ones with the controversial decisions. theyre the ones that keep us entertained and wondering what if..
Posted: 15 May 2008, 11:07
by Smokin'Moe
ringsider wrote:Hagler stunk.....and was exposed. Those who say he could box are fooling themselves. He was a bumbling southpaw who could punch and came in to fight in great shape. Hagler was no boxer or counter puncher in any sense. All you need to do is watch his terrible fights and the medicore MW opponents of the time.
you can say he was not the best boxer but the man didnt stink...he smelled quite well actually
but for real, he was very entertaining i love the punchers. You cant tell me you dont like the guy that tries for the knockout as much as he did. and its not his fault for the shitty competition. just look at todays mediocre mafia of middleweights.....
Posted: 15 May 2008, 13:02
by elmersalsa
That fight should have been made in 1982 or 1983, when BOTH of them were in their primes.
Posted: 15 May 2008, 17:55
by Awesom-O
Hagler usually was more of a boxer-puncher than an attacking brawler. The Hearns fight was the exception, not the norm.
As for the stance, I don't know. Hagler liked to use both stances anyway.
Posted: 15 May 2008, 19:33
by sweetsci
Going into the fight, I wouldn't be surprised if Hagler thought he could out do Leonard at anything and everything. Leonard looked TERRIBLE against Kevin Howard three years before. Most people, and probably Hagler himself, thought if Leonard looked that bad against a Kevin Howard after two years out, there's no way he's going to look any better against a great like Hagler after another three years of inactivity, no matter what kind of shape Leonard could work himself into. That's probably also why Hagler was willing to make so many concessions for more money.
At that point in boxing history, to my knowledge, no one had taken several years off and not slipped significantly. Ali's loss to Frazier and Louis's post-war difficulties help illustrate this point, and they'd only been off three years each. We hadn't yet seen a George Foreman (or Henry Maske) type comeback yet.
Posted: 15 May 2008, 22:54
by Ambling Alp
Not to mention that as great as Foreman's comeback was, he had several tuneups before he went for the title.
Henry Maske was fighting a 43 year old Virgil Hill.
Leonard came back after 3 years off, with no tuneups and beat a guy that almost everyone thought would destroy him.
Leonard was also was fighting as a middleweight for the first time in his career, something that is rountinely overlooked.
Leonard's win is one of the most impressive feats in the history of boxing.
In over 100 years of boxing, no one else has done anything like this.
It's too bad that since he could talk fairly intelligently and had a baby face, some people refuse to acknowledge his phenomenal accomplishment.
Posted: 16 May 2008, 06:23
by zojo
Ambling Alp wrote:Not to mention that as great as Foreman's comeback was, he had several tuneups before he went for the title.
Henry Maske was fighting a 43 year old Virgil Hill.
Leonard came back after 3 years off, with no tuneups and beat a guy that almost everyone thought would destroy him.
Leonard was also was fighting as a middleweight for the first time in his career, something that is rountinely overlooked.
Leonard's win is one of the most impressive feats in the history of boxing.
In over 100 years of boxing, no one else has done anything like this.
It's too bad that since he could talk fairly intelligently and had a baby face, some people refuse to acknowledge his phenomenal accomplishment.
It looks as if he really didn't take 3 years off: a quote from "bigzab" quoting someone from 2005 (all from boxrec posts):
To quote KOJOE from December 2005:
"Leonard had a very long training camp for the Hagler fight it came to light after the fight.
After the Hagler fight it was also revealed that Leonard had had a number of full 12 round fights behind closed doors. These were officially sparring sessions, but with a few major differences. There were no headgaurds used, small gloves and the sparring partners were told to try there best to win over the full 12 rounds. They were basically REAL fights.
Two of the sparring were Quincy Taylor and Anthony Fletcher (who was a southpaw). I heard thet Taylor floored leonard during one of these 'fights'.""
Posted: 16 May 2008, 06:46
by Ezzard
zojo, wrote:Ambling Alp wrote:Not to mention that as great as Foreman's comeback was, he had several tuneups before he went for the title.
Henry Maske was fighting a 43 year old Virgil Hill.
Leonard came back after 3 years off, with no tuneups and beat a guy that almost everyone thought would destroy him.
Leonard was also was fighting as a middleweight for the first time in his career, something that is rountinely overlooked.
Leonard's win is one of the most impressive feats in the history of boxing.
In over 100 years of boxing, no one else has done anything like this.
It's too bad that since he could talk fairly intelligently and had a baby face, some people refuse to acknowledge his phenomenal accomplishment.
It looks as if he really didn't take 3 years off: a quote from "bigzab" quoting someone from 2005 (all from boxrec posts):
To quote KOJOE from December 2005:
"Leonard had a very long training camp for the Hagler fight it came to light after the fight.
After the Hagler fight it was also revealed that Leonard had had a number of full 12 round fights behind closed doors. These were officially sparring sessions, but with a few major differences. There were no headgaurds used, small gloves and the sparring partners were told to try there best to win over the full 12 rounds. They were basically REAL fights.
Two of the sparring were Quincy Taylor and Anthony Fletcher (who was a southpaw). I heard thet Taylor floored leonard during one of these 'fights'.""
I heard this too... It's been talked about at length but even so it's not quite the same thing.
I think whether you believe Leonard won or lost it was still an excellent performance and sometimes this gets lost in the who won debate.
Posted: 16 May 2008, 07:31
by Ezzard
Unfortunately, Terry, the board has become a bit polarised... Nobody listens to such viewpoints these days, instead there's a lot of black and white thinking.
It's possible to be the greatest fighter, artist, writer ever and still be overrated... These days though it's trench warfare...
IMO Ray shared the spoils with Duran and Hearns... Won a close one against Hagler... Beat Benitez and the underrated Kalule and dominated anyone below the absolute cream of world class level (except for Kevin Howard, but I wouldn't hold that against him for a second).
A truly great set of accomplishments.
Has there been a fighter since Leonard you'd rate above him in p4p terms?
Whittaker? Chavez? Holyfield? Jones? Mayweather?
Posted: 16 May 2008, 09:32
by Ambling Alp
zojo, wrote:Ambling Alp wrote:Not to mention that as great as Foreman's comeback was, he had several tuneups before he went for the title.
Henry Maske was fighting a 43 year old Virgil Hill.
Leonard came back after 3 years off, with no tuneups and beat a guy that almost everyone thought would destroy him.
Leonard was also was fighting as a middleweight for the first time in his career, something that is rountinely overlooked.
Leonard's win is one of the most impressive feats in the history of boxing.
In over 100 years of boxing, no one else has done anything like this.
It's too bad that since he could talk fairly intelligently and had a baby face, some people refuse to acknowledge his phenomenal accomplishment.
It looks as if he really didn't take 3 years off: a quote from "bigzab" quoting someone from 2005 (all from boxrec posts):
To quote KOJOE from December 2005:
"Leonard had a very long training camp for the Hagler fight it came to light after the fight.
After the Hagler fight it was also revealed that Leonard had had a number of full 12 round fights behind closed doors. These were officially sparring sessions, but with a few major differences. There were no headgaurds used, small gloves and the sparring partners were told to try there best to win over the full 12 rounds. They were basically REAL fights.
Two of the sparring were Quincy Taylor and Anthony Fletcher (who was a southpaw). I heard thet Taylor floored leonard during one of these 'fights'.""
If this really happened, it doesn't matter. They weren't real fights. Training helps, but it's not quite the same as stepping into the ring in front of 18,000 people and fighting fights that count. All this proves is that Leonard wisely trained hard for the fight. That doesn't completely make up for 3 years of inactivity.
Btw, gym stories are a dime a dozen. They mean absolutley nothing. Why is it that gym stories always have a surprise knockdown or surprising domination by one fighter? Why don't they never involve several boring rounds, which is what sparring usually is. These kind of stuff is less important than exhibition NFL games, and who knows howmany of them really happened anyway.
These are are the lengths that people go to try to diminish Leonard's accomplishment. "Pretty Boy" Leonard who never fought as a middleweight before, beat one of the greatest middleweights of all time after a 3 year layoff. Deal with it.
Posted: 16 May 2008, 10:09
by Elton John
Ambling Alp wrote:Not to mention that as great as Foreman's comeback was, he had several tuneups before he went for the title.
Henry Maske was fighting a 43 year old Virgil Hill.
Leonard came back after 3 years off, with no tuneups and beat a guy that almost everyone thought would destroy him.
Leonard was also was fighting as a middleweight for the first time in his career, something that is rountinely overlooked.
Leonard's win is one of the most impressive feats in the history of boxing.
In over 100 years of boxing, no one else has done anything like this.
It's too bad that since he could talk fairly intelligently and had a baby face, some people refuse to acknowledge his phenomenal accomplishment.
Too bad he couldn't do the same to that nobody Terry Norris (3-1 underdog) despite being active at the time and having fought previously at the weight. He got his ass kicked!! :P
Hagler never got his ass kicked. At least not like that
Posted: 16 May 2008, 10:13
by Elton John
zojo, wrote:Ambling Alp wrote:Not to mention that as great as Foreman's comeback was, he had several tuneups before he went for the title.
Henry Maske was fighting a 43 year old Virgil Hill.
Leonard came back after 3 years off, with no tuneups and beat a guy that almost everyone thought would destroy him.
Leonard was also was fighting as a middleweight for the first time in his career, something that is rountinely overlooked.
Leonard's win is one of the most impressive feats in the history of boxing.
In over 100 years of boxing, no one else has done anything like this.
It's too bad that since he could talk fairly intelligently and had a baby face, some people refuse to acknowledge his phenomenal accomplishment.
It looks as if he really didn't take 3 years off: a quote from "bigzab" quoting someone from 2005 (all from boxrec posts):
To quote KOJOE from December 2005:
"Leonard had a very long training camp for the Hagler fight it came to light after the fight.
After the Hagler fight it was also revealed that Leonard had had a number of full 12 round fights behind closed doors. These were officially sparring sessions, but with a few major differences. There were no headgaurds used, small gloves and the sparring partners were told to try there best to win over the full 12 rounds. They were basically REAL fights.
Two of the sparring were Quincy Taylor and Anthony Fletcher (who was a southpaw). I heard thet Taylor floored leonard during one of these 'fights'.""
This appears to be closest to the truth. Leonard knew he was basically going to be facing shell without speed and that he didnt have to worry about being hurt so all he had to work on building his stamina and sharpening his reflexes. Because of this no actual bouts were required.
Posted: 16 May 2008, 10:45
by raylawpc
Ezzard wrote:Unfortunately, Terry, the board has become a bit polarised... Nobody listens to such viewpoints these days, instead there's a lot of black and white thinking.
It's possible to be the greatest fighter, artist, writer ever and still be overrated... These days though it's trench warfare...
IMO Ray shared the spoils with Duran and Hearns... Won a close one against Hagler... Beat Benitez and the underrated Kalule and dominated anyone below the absolute cream of world class level (except for Kevin Howard, but I wouldn't hold that against him for a second).
A truly great set of accomplishments.
Has there been a fighter since Leonard you'd rate above him in p4p terms?
Whittaker? Chavez? Holyfield? Jones? Mayweather?
I commend Leonard for his great performance against Hagler - but I still think he lost. Had Hagler got the decision, I will would have praised Leonard for his great effort. Considering his layoff, it was a great performance.
Believing Leonard was a great fighter and believing he lost to Hagler are not inconsistent.
I believe Ali lost all three to Norton, but I continue to believe Ali was a great heavyweight.
Posted: 16 May 2008, 12:08
by Ezzard
raylawpc wrote:Ezzard wrote:Unfortunately, Terry, the board has become a bit polarised... Nobody listens to such viewpoints these days, instead there's a lot of black and white thinking.
It's possible to be the greatest fighter, artist, writer ever and still be overrated... These days though it's trench warfare...
IMO Ray shared the spoils with Duran and Hearns... Won a close one against Hagler... Beat Benitez and the underrated Kalule and dominated anyone below the absolute cream of world class level (except for Kevin Howard, but I wouldn't hold that against him for a second).
A truly great set of accomplishments.
Has there been a fighter since Leonard you'd rate above him in p4p terms?
Whittaker? Chavez? Holyfield? Jones? Mayweather?
I commend Leonard for his great performance against Hagler - but I still think he lost. Had Hagler got the decision, I will would have praised Leonard for his great effort. Considering his layoff, it was a great performance.
Believing Leonard was a great fighter and believing he lost to Hagler are not inconsistent.
I believe Ali lost all three to Norton, but I continue to believe Ali was a great heavyweight.
Ray, I am totally in agreement with your sentiment.
Posted: 16 May 2008, 12:59
by Ambling Alp
If only someone could find those 7 rounds that Hagler won. They seem to be as difficult to find as the WMDs in Iraq.
Posted: 16 May 2008, 13:48
by raylawpc
Ambling Alp wrote:If only someone could find those 7 rounds that Hagler won. They seem to be as difficult to find as the WMDs in Iraq.
Probably hiding in the same place as my vote for Sully on the HOF thread, right, Alp?
But you're in luck; I found them on my scorecard. Try rounds 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12.
Posted: 16 May 2008, 21:58
by Robinson
Correction just checked my lil scoring book.
I had it 115-114
Had for Hagler.
Rounds 4, 5, 7, 9, 12
Round 10 I had even.
Im going to re-score it I think. What I do recall thinking is that hagler missed alot of shots, and the flurries of Leonard did eat away at getting him the points. Atleast in my opinion.
Posted: 16 May 2008, 23:05
by Elton John
round 1 even
round 2 leonard
round 3 even
round 4 Leonard
round 5 Hagler
round 6 leonard
round 7 even
rounds 8,9,10,11 Hagler
round 12 Leonard
Close fight that goes to Hagler. Hagler won the fight however close.
Re: Why did Hagler figtht Leonard the way he did?
Posted: 17 May 2008, 09:34
by Syntax Error
TigerMoth wrote:I mentioned this in a post I did previously, asking if the victory over Hagler "made" Leonard's career - I have never seen an explanation of why Hagler started the fight in the orthodox stance and was not agressive. Thus giving away the first 2 or 3 rounds and giving Leonard confidence.
Yesterday, I am sure from a link here on Boxrec.com, I read an interview with Gil Clancy. He called the Hagler corner work the worst he had ever seen and said Hagler would have won if he didn't give away the first 3 rounds by boxing orthodox.
Anyway, does anyone know why this happened? Was this a strategy? I agree with Gil Clancy in the conclusion that Hagler essentially gave away the fight and would have won if he had not come out orthodox.
But, I still have never seen an explanation of why he did.
As I have said in other posts, I really dislike SRL and I liked Hagler. I realy dislike that SRL won (even putting aside that he dictated ring size, etc). But, I also think that Hagler has no one to blame but himself.
Does anyone know how this happened - that Hagler came out orthodox and not sufficiently agressive?
Hagler let his ego & love of money get in the way of a good solid game plan.
Firstly, he was more interested in getting more money than Sugar Ray & secondly, during the fight itself, he seemed more intent on cursing Sugar Ray & proving that he was THE man, rather than getting on & trying to put some hurt on the ring rusty welterweight before him.
Saying that, Hagler was so woefully slow in this fight; he may have noticed how his speed had gone & was maybe trying something different to confuse SRL as Sugar Ray would have prepared dilligently for a southpaw; maybe that's the reason.
Posted: 17 May 2008, 09:35
by Ambling Alp
raylawpc wrote:Ambling Alp wrote:If only someone could find those 7 rounds that Hagler won. They seem to be as difficult to find as the WMDs in Iraq.
Probably hiding in the same place as my vote for Sully on the HOF thread, right, Alp?
But you're in luck; I found them on my scorecard. Try rounds 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12.
Is Marvin a relative by any chance?
Posted: 17 May 2008, 10:26
by raylawpc
Ambling Alp wrote:raylawpc wrote:Ambling Alp wrote:If only someone could find those 7 rounds that Hagler won. They seem to be as difficult to find as the WMDs in Iraq.
Probably hiding in the same place as my vote for Sully on the HOF thread, right, Alp?
But you're in luck; I found them on my scorecard. Try rounds 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12.
Is Marvin a relative by any chance?
No. Did Sully whip one of your ancestors by any chance?