Hagler vs Leonard : How did you score the fight ?

[jonny]

At the time I thought Hagler won but watching it back over the years I keep coming up with a Sugar Ray win by 2 rounds. Two great fighters and a great era.

[Quixall]

When I was a kid I got caught up in the support for Sugar Ray's comeback and on whether could he do the impossible. When watching the fight at that time I just watched what Ray was doing and not Hagler. Amazed by the skill Ray still possessed I gave the fight to Leonard easily. As the years have gone by and I understood more about what I was watching I studied the fight again and saw a completely different fight. Yeah Ray fought a fight nobody at the time thought possible of him and this took something away from Hagler's performance. Hagler was supposed to steamroller him but with rewatching I observed Hagler landing the more hurtful single punches while Ray would flurry catching the eye. More flash than anything. A few times towards the end of the bout Ray pulled similar faces to those he would later pull when Terry Norris was putting a beatdown on him. Hagler was hurting him. The fight was close, Ray fought a great fight. Hagler did not fight to his best. I have now scored this fight a few times and always give it to Hagler by 2 rounds.

That's what i did Ketch.......

It's a good point mate, because there is sometimes a tendancy to watch a fight from the underdogs point of view. There is no doubt in my mind that Hagler would have stopped Leonard if it had been a 15 round fight.

How can you be so sure?

One thing SRL always had was amazing stamina.

Just when you thought he was wilting, he would come on strong.

Hagler was also blessed with great stamina, but by 1987, he looked so woefully slow & tired that I dread to think what he would have been like in rounds 13, 14 & 15.

I think Leonard looked more shop worn at the end of the 11th round. The fact he was going into the last round made a huge difference because he knew it was the last round. If it had been a 15 round fight, then you would have been looking at another 12 minutes and i think Hagler would have got to leonard or done enough to have got a decision win.

[Scrap]

Hagler never looked good against Movers.

[keithmoonhangover]

Honestly..... How many of you are taking into consideration Leonard's ability to make Hagler miss?

Probably the same amount who take into consideration the fact that Leonard missed the target himself with a few, some landed low or on the belt line also or bounced off Hagler's glove and were classed as clean shots.

What I'm trying to say Mr Geedorah is that Leonard defensive skills were on show for all to see. Hagler missed an awful lot of shots and that should be taken into acccount when scoring. Let's not forget Willie Pep won a round without throwing a single punch.

[keithmoonhangover]

Probably the same amount who take into consideration the fact that Leonard missed the target himself with a few, some landed low or on the belt line also or bounced off Hagler's glove and were classed as clean shots.

What I'm trying to say Mr Geedorah is that Leonard defensive skills were on show for all to see. Hagler missed an awful lot of shots and that should be taken into acccount when scoring. Let's not forget Willie Pep won a round without throwing a single punch.

Didn't Pep himself say that was a myth created by either himself or the press and that he jabbed during this famous round? With newspaper reports claiming that the round contained punches and that the myth was created decades later in order to add to Pep's mystique, not to mention generate interviews/hype/cash for a man who had money problems. Now people are questioning whether the fight in question, Graves, was even the fight in question.

Hagler blocked some shots also, but the commentators classed them as punches. It also depends on your perspective, my idea of a really good defence is one that is used within punching range, Ray veered into running once too often in the fight. Ray moved excessively in the final round, missed a few and was still given credit.

It goes back to the Pep thing, only this time with film, and is about perspective -- did Ray create a perfect blend of boxing and moving or did he move excessively and miss more often than people are prepared to admit.

My own take is that people wanted Ray to win, they wanted to see something amazing so they saw something amazing and that third card proves this as the judge in question scored the event rather than the fight, which has been going on ever since.

I scored the fight last year for the millionth time, this time I did it with the sound off and I had it SRL by 2 rounds - that had nothing to do with the event. And for the record, I'm a Hearns fan.

[keithmoonhangover]

Didn't Pep himself say that was a myth created by either himself or the press and that he jabbed during this famous round? With newspaper reports claiming that the round contained punches and that the myth was created decades later in order to add to Pep's mystique, not to mention generate interviews/hype/cash for a man who had money problems. Now people are questioning whether the fight in question, Graves, was even the fight in question.

Hagler blocked some shots also, but the commentators classed them as punches. It also depends on your perspective, my idea of a really good defence is one that is used within punching range, Ray veered into running once too often in the fight. Ray moved excessively in the final round, missed a few and was still given credit.

It goes back to the Pep thing, only this time with film, and is about perspective -- did Ray create a perfect blend of boxing and moving or did he move excessively and miss more often than people are prepared to admit.

My own take is that people wanted Ray to win, they wanted to see something amazing so they saw something amazing and that third card proves this as the judge in question scored the event rather than the fight, which has been going on ever since.

I scored the fight last year for the millionth time, this time I did it with the sound off and I had it SRL by 2 rounds - that had nothing to do with the event. And for the record, I'm a Hearns fan.

I've no problem with people scoring it for Ray. I just didn't understand how the dodgy Pep myth dovetailed into the scoring of this fight.

It's clear to me that you either misunderstood what I said or just ignored it. Leonard's defence was superb for a lot of the fight and when scoring the fight, anyone worth their salt would take that into consideration. And I'm not just talking about Ray running away, I'm talking about him slipping and blocking punches.

[Yorkshiresuperstar]

Just to add a different angle.

At the time judges scored on 4 criterias: punches landed, affective agression, defence and ring generalship. Leonard's shots though with lesser power, were cleaner all the way through. Hagler's agression wasn't effective, but he did force the action. Defence was clearly with Ray, and he controlled the pace of the fight, the action and really had Marvin doing what he wanted. He was the ring general, no doubt. So using the criteria, which comes into play in close rounds - which many were, Leonard was the winner. I had him up by 2 also.

Great fight, Marvin aged that night, but lets not forget the brilliance of SRL - 1 fight in 5 years, moving up TWO divisions to beat the P4P king? Awesome fighter.

[nobby_nobbins]

It's clear to me that you either misunderstood what I said or just ignored it. Leonard's defence was superb for a lot of the fight and when scoring the fight, anyone worth their salt would take that into consideration. And I'm not just talking about Ray running away, I'm talking about him slipping and blocking punches.

By mentioning the Pep story, you tried to support your argument by referring to something that never happened.

Leonard should definitely have been given credit for his ring generalship, but people like me who thought Hagler won the fight, think Leonard was also rewarded for showmanship. Leonard's performance was hugely entertaining for the viewers but it should not have been taken into account by the judges.

[Ezzard]

Seriously, this was the dream fight of my youth.

And in the lad up few gave Leonard a chance. Hagler was bigger and probably the best athlete in the world at that time. But he had slowed up. That was true, but surely not enough to lose to a guy who hadn’t fought in years and who in his last fight got dropped by Kevin Howard.

Now some here might laugh but a relative of mine got two tickets at £25 each to watch the fight at Birmingham Odeon on CCTV. I felt like I was walking on air because I was watching it at the cinema! A big deal back then.

I thought Leonard won easily.

Everyone cheered everything he did on screen and in the cinema. He looked spent going into the 10th and the only question was will he unravel at the end or not. He didn’t and he got the decision. The 118-110 seemed fine, maybe a little over stated.

The fight was shown on BBC the next day. I watched at home. It was like a different experience. I scored again and had it far, far closer.

I had it Leonard by 1 point.

I too had got caught up in the event.

As I remember Hagler very much wanted a rematch but Leonard retired…again… Hagler left the offer on the table for 12 months and then retired for good. Leonard then came back out of retirement.

Yuk!

Ray used the sport. Stunk it out. Looking back he should never have got the fight with Hagler. He should have been made to fight the winner of Hagler-Hearns II. But the money-makers always get preferential treatment.

When Leonard finally re-matched Hearns I lost all respect for him. He had waited for Tommy to lose all punch resistance and he was seemingly a faded former super-power. It was also poor form that he didn’t rematch Hagler but instead hand-picked Lalonde.

These days I just try to remember the good times with Ray because he was an amazing fighter.

[Syntax Error]

I must admit that I am tired of reading & hearing folk accuse those of thought Leonard won of scoring the event & not the fight.

Whilst I am in full agreement that 118-110 is laughable, there is no doubt in my mind that the fight was close & it doesn't surprise me that it might have gone either way.

It cannot be a shock to anybody that some people thought that Leonard won this fight.

Leonard did all the clever & cute things brilliantly; he controlled the pace of the fight & was competitive during the times they both traded shots.

Hagler just didn't do enough (possibly because he just couldn't physically do it anymore) to win that fight IMO.

Maybe the fight should have been draw, then Marvin could have bowed out with his title (because he was clearly finished) & Leonard could have had a moral victory or something!!!

[orbtastic]

The Pep thing - The question is whether it's won a round without a punch being thrown or landed. There IS a difference.

[Ezzard]

I must admit that I am tired of reading & hearing folk accuse those of thought Leonard won of scoring the event & not the fight.

Whilst I am in full agreement that 118-110 is laughable, there is no doubt in my mind that the fight was close & it doesn't surprise me that it might have gone either way.

It cannot be a shock to anybody that some people thought that Leonard won this fight.

Leonard did all the clever & cute things brilliantly; he controlled the pace of the fight & was competitive during the times they both traded shots.

Hagler just didn't do enough (possibly because he just couldn't physically do it anymore) to win that fight IMO.

Maybe the fight should have been draw, then Marvin could have bowed out with his title (because he was clearly finished) & Leonard could have had a moral victory or something!!!

No one deny's Leonard the win, but there's only a few explanations for the 118-110, and the fact people got caught up in the event is one of them and is added to by Ezzard's first hand account of his experience of watching it live.

That’s it, exactly. You can say what you like but I was caught up in the event. 100% I was. I wanted Leonard to win (interestingly that was the last time I wanted Leonard to win a fight until about 60 seconds into the Norris slaughter when it was obvious it was all over for him).

When I heard “split decision” (against Marvin) I thought they’ve robbed Ray. Next day at home watching without the adrenaline running I saw it totally differently.

I think Hagler was treated poorly by just about everyone.

[tommo100]

Ray used the sport. Stunk it out. Looking back he should never have got the fight with Hagler. He should have been made to fight the winner of Hagler-Hearns II. But the money-makers always get preferential treatment.

When Leonard finally re-matched Hearns I lost all respect for him. He had waited for Tommy to lose all punch resistance and he was seemingly a faded former super-power. It was also poor form that he didn’t rematch Hagler but instead hand-picked Lalonde.

backfired on him when he did re match hearns though quite how he came out with a draw is as much a farce as that 118-110 score in the hagler bout,even sugar ray himself admitted he`d lost
i never thought leonard relished taking any kind of punishment in the ring tbh,after duran 1 and hearns 1 i think he kind of thought,iv`e suffered enough here i don`t want anymore and a bout with hagler in 83/84 was the last thing he would have wished for

[nobby_nobbins]

I just did a search for the DVD of the fight and found it for sale for 60 dollars

In the title it describes Hagler as "primary contributor" and Leonard as "actor". That about sums it up for me D D

http://www.amazon.com/Superfight-Hagler ... B000CBRSK2

[stujones]

You'll pick it up on ebay far cheaper than that.

[Roars Like Me]

Leonard by 2 rounds. If you think Hagler won, you need a change of meds.

Watch the two fighters at the bell (4:10).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSVj9XHn_l8

Hagler motions to Leonard with his right hand. Leonard raises his hands. Only one winner.

What the fook was Hagler doing at 4.38 ish? Well out of character

[Syntax Error]

Ray used the sport. Stunk it out. Looking back he should never have got the fight with Hagler. He should have been made to fight the winner of Hagler-Hearns II. But the money-makers always get preferential treatment.

When Leonard finally re-matched Hearns I lost all respect for him. He had waited for Tommy to lose all punch resistance and he was seemingly a faded former super-power. It was also poor form that he didn’t rematch Hagler but instead hand-picked Lalonde.

backfired on him when he did re match hearns though quite how he came out with a draw is as much a farce as that 118-110 score in the hagler bout,even sugar ray himself admitted he`d lost
i never thought leonard relished taking any kind of punishment in the ring tbh,after duran 1 and hearns 1 i think he kind of thought,iv`e suffered enough here i don`t want anymore and a bout with hagler in 83/84 was the last thing he would have wished for

Tend to agree with this.

His 1989 bouts were a total farce.

It was as if he was taking the pee out of the sport.

What was the point in having a rematch with Hearns or a rubber match with Duran so long after the original bouts?

He needn't have bothered IMO.

Thankfully, Hearns retained enough to make SRL pay for using him, although, TBF to Ray, he has always admitted that he lost that fight.

PS: Was there ever going to be a Hagler -v- Hearns 2?

[Ezzard]

Hagler was supposed to meet the winner of Hearns-Shuler on the Hagler-Mugabi undercard. Hearns dispatched a top challenger in 1 round and Ray jumped in.

[stujones]

Ray used the sport. Stunk it out. Looking back he should never have got the fight with Hagler. He should have been made to fight the winner of Hagler-Hearns II. But the money-makers always get preferential treatment.

When Leonard finally re-matched Hearns I lost all respect for him. He had waited for Tommy to lose all punch resistance and he was seemingly a faded former super-power. It was also poor form that he didn’t rematch Hagler but instead hand-picked Lalonde.

backfired on him when he did re match hearns though quite how he came out with a draw is as much a farce as that 118-110 score in the hagler bout,even sugar ray himself admitted he`d lost
i never thought leonard relished taking any kind of punishment in the ring tbh,after duran 1 and hearns 1 i think he kind of thought,iv`e suffered enough here i don`t want anymore and a bout with hagler in 83/84 was the last thing he would have wished for

Tend to agree with this.

His 1989 bouts were a total farce.

It was as if he was taking the pee out of the sport.

What was the point in having a rematch with Hearns or a rubber match with Duran so long after the original bouts?

He needn't have bothered IMO.

Thankfully, Hearns retained enough to make SRL pay for using him, although, TBF to Ray, he has always admitted that he lost that fight.

PS: Was there ever going to be a Hagler -v- Hearns 2?

Using them? Not sure what people mean by that - it sounds as if Ray blackmailed Duran and Hearns to fight them. They had millions of reasons to fight Ray also. Duran was also coming off an excellent win and display against Barkley.

Leonard hasn't always admitted he lost the Hearns fight, but does now.

Nope, that decision, whilst I think Hearns won the fight, wasn't as rediculous as the 118-110 card for Leonard vs Hagler. Three experiences judges all had the fight very close.... indeed, for once, I think Kazmarek had it right (not always agree with his scoring of fights).

Hearns did very little between the 6th and the 10th round - some close rounds open to interpretation. The 5th round was surely a 10-8 Leonard round and the 12th has been argued by some (including Dalby Shearly) should have been a 10-8 Leonard round (for me it aint).

[Bricks]

As you say Stu, the 5th round for SRl V Hearns 2 did in no way constitute 10-8 and the 12th, Hearns had a dominant first minute and 30 seconds!!!

As for Hagler-Leonard like the intelligent posters here said, I was as swayed by the fervour surrounding SRL coming back and looking so good and the flurries rather than looking at what Hagler was doing......which is winning the fight with harder single shots and work to the body... I score it for hagler by a round or 2 but wouldnt have argued with a draw...a win for leonard though was a travesty and tragedy for hagler.

[Syntax Error]

Hagler was supposed to meet the winner of Hearns-Shuler on the Hagler-Mugabi undercard. Hearns dispatched a top challenger in 1 round and Ray jumped in.

Thanks for that.

I never realised that Hagler -v- Hearns 2 was seriously mooted.

I thought it was lost due to Hearns penchant for weight hopping around that time.

It's interesting to think what might have happened had Hagler & Hearns squared off again in 1987.

Would Hearns have been stupid enough again to try & KO Hagler?

Would Hearns have had enough stamina to last 12 in demanding contest against such a tough opponent?

Would Hagler's lack of speed (he was slowing up in 1985; he was like an arthritic snail in 1987) play into Hearns hands?

[stujones]

Would the fight have happened in 1987 or 1986 - I think the ring rust that Hagler also had in the Leonard fight (ontop of some rumoured sparring which didn't help reduce it) played a factor in the Leonard fight - and might have had a factor in a Hearns rematch.

However, I think the Hagler who beat Mugabi - beats Hearns everyday of the week. It will undoubtedly go down as one of the great fights - but a rematch never appealed to me, for me - Hagler always looked the winner for me.

[orbtastic]

Hagler was supposed to meet the winner of Hearns-Shuler on the Hagler-Mugabi undercard. Hearns dispatched a top challenger in 1 round and Ray jumped in.

Thanks for that.

I never realised that Hagler -v- Hearns 2 was seriously mooted.

I thought it was lost due to Hearns penchant for weight hopping around that time.

It's interesting to think what might have happened had Hagler & Hearns squared off again in 1987.

Would Hearns have been stupid enough again to try & KO Hagler?

Would Hearns have had enough stamina to last 12 in demanding contest against such a tough opponent?

Would Hagler's lack of speed (he was slowing up in 1985; he was like an arthrtic snail in 1987) play into Hearns hands?

It would have been interesting had the two fights on that card happened the way they should have i.e. Hagler/Schuler & Hearns/Mugabi, things could have been totally different.

[Bricks]

Leonard by 2 rounds. If you think Hagler won, you need a change of meds.

Yeah, we need to get off those meds that make us think that it is fair to say that if you have it for two for either guy then you're one close one away from a draw and two away from a flip.

Anyway, mugabi has spoken

Are you on drugs Geedorah? Im nothing to do with Keithmoon.Have argued with him in past and been accused of being harsh with him but because that troll Saadoffthedeck said it a few people repeat it. Mods do an IP check to confirm one way or the other.

[keithmoonhangover]

Leonard by 2 rounds. If you think Hagler won, you need a change of meds.

Yeah, we need to get off those meds that make us think that it is fair to say that if you have it for two for either guy then you're one close one away from a draw and two away from a flip.

Anyway, mugabi has spoken

Are you on drugs Geedorah? Im nothing to do with Keithmoon.Have argued with him in past and been accused of being harsh with him but because that troll Saadoffthedeck said it a few people repeat it. Mods do an IP check to confirm one way or the other.

I could have a split personality. Half me, half Mugabi.