BoxRec

As people expected Leonard to get a hiding, I think they were blown away by his flurries, more than they should have been.

thepocketrocket wrote:As people expected Leonard to get a hiding, I think they were blown away by his flurries, more than they should have been.

Flurries are punches mate.

Anzi wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:As people expected Leonard to get a hiding, I think they were blown away by his flurries, more than they should have been.

Flurries are punches mate.

Wow, thanks

What i meant is quality of work, the fact he was landing gave his work more prominence, because people didn't expect him to land.

I had the fight close and can see an argument either way, but psychologically, this still happens today.

thepocketrocket wrote:

Anzi wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:As people expected Leonard to get a hiding, I think they were blown away by his flurries, more than they should have been.

Flurries are punches mate.

Wow, thanks

What i meant is quality of work, the fact he was landing gave his work more prominence, because people didn't expect him to land.

I had the fight close and can see an argument either way, but psychologically, this still happens today.

Leonard punches were eye catching, fast and explosive at times, Hagler's punches, slower, fewer and mostly arm punches, Hagler landed a good uppercut and a good right hand around the 8th or 9th round, Leonard landed more regular with blistering combo's. People did expect Leonard to land punches, they did not expect him to badly hurt Hagler or stop him, because everyone knew Hagler had the best chin in Boxing, they wanted to know what would happen when Hagler, the bigger, stronger man landed on Leonard and they found out, Leonard took them and came back at Hagler, that for me, that was the deciding part of the fight. Leonard deserved the victory, Hagler was never as complete a fighter as Leonard, what brought them closer was the difference in weight and size, but Hagler would have beaten Middleweights champions of today.

Anzi wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:

Anzi wrote: Flurries are punches mate.

Wow, thanks

What i meant is quality of work, the fact he was landing gave his work more prominence, because people didn't expect him to land.

I had the fight close and can see an argument either way, but psychologically, this still happens today.

Leonard punches were eye catching, fast and explosive at times, Hagler's punches, slower, fewer and mostly arm punches, Hagler landed a good uppercut and a good right hand around the 8th or 9th round, Leonard landed more regular with blistering combo's. People did expect Leonard to land punches, they did not expect him to badly hurt Hagler or stop him, because everyone knew Hagler had the best chin in Boxing, they wanted to know what would happen when Hagler, the bigger, stronger man landed on Leonard and they found out, Leonard took them and came back at Hagler, that for me, that was the deciding part of the fight. Leonard deserved the victory, Hagler was never as complete a fighter as Leonard, what brought them closer was the difference in weight and size, but Hagler would have beaten Middleweights champions of today.

Leonard's toughness has always been understated, he took big shots from Hearns, Duran and Leonard and was never badly hurt in any of those fights, or certainly, never showed he was. I despised leonard as a kid, Hagler and Duran were my two favourites, but over time I've come to appreciate what a special fighter Leonard was, especially considering he lost some of his prime years due to the retina problems.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Anzi wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:
Wow, thanks

What i meant is quality of work, the fact he was landing gave his work more prominence, because people didn't expect him to land.

I had the fight close and can see an argument either way, but psychologically, this still happens today.

Leonard punches were eye catching, fast and explosive at times, Hagler's punches, slower, fewer and mostly arm punches, Hagler landed a good uppercut and a good right hand around the 8th or 9th round, Leonard landed more regular with blistering combo's. People did expect Leonard to land punches, they did not expect him to badly hurt Hagler or stop him, because everyone knew Hagler had the best chin in Boxing, they wanted to know what would happen when Hagler, the bigger, stronger man landed on Leonard and they found out, Leonard took them and came back at Hagler, that for me, that was the deciding part of the fight. Leonard deserved the victory, Hagler was never as complete a fighter as Leonard, what brought them closer was the difference in weight and size, but Hagler would have beaten Middleweights champions of today.

Leonard's toughness has always been understated, he took big shots from Hearns, Duran and Leonard and was never badly hurt in any of those fights, or certainly, never showed he was. I despised leonard as a kid, Hagler and Duran were my two favourites, but over time I've come to appreciate what a special fighter Leonard was, especially considering he lost some of his prime years due to the retina problems.

Leonard used to say that other fighters under estimated his toughness, because of how he looked, because of the way he boxed. He got tired against Hagler in the later rounds, after 3 years out, but dug deep, when many others who had fought Hagler folded, that took some doing.

Ezzard wrote:All good points. But looking back a few things bother me.

Firstly, Leonard should never have been given the fight. He should have beaten a contender first. Hearns' devastating 1 round KO of Shuler earned him the rematch.

Then of course the awful shenanigans that Leonard pulled after the fight and his post-Hagler career.

Hagler was obsessed with a big payday for his entire career & Leonard was the only opponent who could give him that payday he craved.

Leonard was always going to get a crack whenever he decided he wanted it, because he was the golden goose fighter of the 80s & every mo-fo & their cat wanted to fight him.

thepocketrocket wrote:As people expected Leonard to get a hiding, I think they were blown away by his flurries, more than they should have been.

Or maybe they just thought that Leonard won the fight objectively?

Why is it that some people cannot accept a different opinion without trying to browbeat others?

I've never said that people who scored it for Hagler were just in awe of him & think that the challenger had to completely blow him away to get a verdict.

The fight was extremely close & could have gone either way, depending on what style you favour, but I think we all need to credit others with a bit more objectivity & not say things like they were dazzled by Leonard's flurries etc.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Ezzard wrote:All good points. But looking back a few things bother me.

Firstly, Leonard should never have been given the fight. He should have beaten a contender first. Hearns' devastating 1 round KO of Shuler earned him the rematch.

Then of course the awful shenanigans that Leonard pulled after the fight and his post-Hagler career.

It's all about the fight. At the end of the day, Marvin wanted the money. Only reason it happened.

You're right, of course. But I like to toil under the illusion that it's a sport.

Marvin was fighting once a year by that point. He always preferred opponents to bring it to him. When they didn't he always struggled. Had Duran been 3 years younger and/or a natural welterweight he would have beaten him. Then again, Duran was something else.

Anzi wrote:

stujones wrote:It is amazing though when you look at Hagler's Middleweight reign that at the time no one (apart from Leonard) saw how much slower Hagler was vs Mugabi. In hindsight he had visibly slowed considerably. Yes, some called it a bit sloppy and maybe he was lacking motivation - but actually his handspeed slowed and that's something that is an age thing.

Leonard was past his best as well, he was terrible in sparring before the fight, even got dropped, his lay off also affected him, but he was a showman, when he got in front of the crowd he performed, styles make fights and Leonard's style was all wrong for Hagler, Haglers best performances was against fighters who came for him, that's why Errol Bomber Graham wanted to fight him.

Graham lost every big fight he contested & Hagler would have been the biggest test of his life.

He probably would have frustrated a slowed down Hagler greatly & it would have been a dull fight, but Marv would have either TKOd him late or won a dull decision.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Matt W wrote:I've always scored it for Leonard, Hagler didn't do enough in the early rounds; I think he was so confident of beating Leonard he didn't show enough urgency until it was too late. Leonard made him fight his fight and thoroughly deserved the decision. He should have granted Hagler a rematch though.

Yeah, I hated Leonard for not giving him a rematch. He really humiliated hagler over it, said he'd give Hagler a rematch if he admitted that Leonard had won, knowing full well he would never concede. Leonard outsmarted Hagler before the fight, during it, and afterward. Hagler's stubbornness was his undoing in so many ways.

He wanted to prove he could concede advantages to Leonard, and still well, even trying to outbox him, allowing it to be 12 rounds, agreeing to the ring size and gloves. He was very foolish.

This is spot on.

Leonard tied Hagler up in knots in every aspect of this bout.

Leonard is a very smart man because he knew that if he allowed Hagler to have the lion's share of the purse, he'd get the really important things in his favour, because Marvin was obsessed with the payday.

Hagler had dimmed between Hears and Mugabi fights. Dimmed further up to the Leonard fight.

Could anyone else have taken him that night?

Say if Hearns boxed in a disciplined manner? Or Graham? McCallum?

Ezzard wrote:Hagler had dimmed between Hears and Mugabi fights. Dimmed further up to the Leonard fight.

Could anyone else have taken him that night?

Say if Hearns boxed in a disciplined manner? Or Graham? McCallum?

McCallum would have been a good shout. Technically adept, absolute iron chin, every punch in the book and very smart. McCallum could be beaten by people with the speed to make him pay, Marvin sure wasn't that by that stage.

The Hearns who fought Shuler vs the Hagler that fought Mugabi or Leonard, is a very interesting argument IMO

Syntax Error wrote:

Anzi wrote:

stujones wrote:It is amazing though when you look at Hagler's Middleweight reign that at the time no one (apart from Leonard) saw how much slower Hagler was vs Mugabi. In hindsight he had visibly slowed considerably. Yes, some called it a bit sloppy and maybe he was lacking motivation - but actually his handspeed slowed and that's something that is an age thing.

Leonard was past his best as well, he was terrible in sparring before the fight, even got dropped, his lay off also affected him, but he was a showman, when he got in front of the crowd he performed, styles make fights and Leonard's style was all wrong for Hagler, Haglers best performances was against fighters who came for him, that's why Errol Bomber Graham wanted to fight him.

Graham lost every big fight he contested & Hagler would have been the biggest test of his life.

He probably would have frustrated a slowed down Hagler greatly & it would have been a dull fight, but Marv would have either TKOd him late or won a dull decision.

Never said that Graham would beat Hagler, Hagler would have been too strong, but he felt that a very good boxer could beat Hagler and Leonard proved it.

Counter-puncher wrote:The Hearns who fought Shuler vs the Hagler that fought Mugabi or Leonard, is a very interesting argument IMO

Hearns had no legs against Hagler, after he had a massage before the fight, it affected his legs, his legs were gone, that's why he went for the knockout, because he would not of done the rounds, but Hearns never had the best chin, if you was tough enough to take his shots, you could get to him, as Barclay did.

Anzi wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:The Hearns who fought Shuler vs the Hagler that fought Mugabi or Leonard, is a very interesting argument IMO

Hearns had no legs against Hagler, after he had a massage before the fight, it affected his legs, his legs were gone, that's why he went for the knockout, because he would not of done the rounds, but Hearns never had the best chin, if you was tough enough to take his shots, you could get to him, as Barclay did.

Either he never had legs in that fight or the first round took the legs out of him

I believe he could certainly have been more mobile and been much more of a threat in a renatxh

Anzi wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:The Hearns who fought Shuler vs the Hagler that fought Mugabi or Leonard, is a very interesting argument IMO

Hearns had no legs against Hagler, after he had a massage before the fight, it affected his legs, his legs were gone, that's why he went for the knockout, because he would not of done the rounds, but Hearns never had the best chin, if you was tough enough to take his shots, you could get to him, as Barclay did.

Don't use that 'someone massaged Tommy's legs' line.

It embarrasses The Hitman & he'd never use such an excuse.

Give Hagler some credit for forcing Hearns into streetfight & taking his legs away.

Tommy threw his kitchen sink at Hagler; Marvin caught it & smashed Tommy into the ground with it.

It's nothing to do with massaging of legs.

Syntax Error wrote:

Anzi wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:The Hearns who fought Shuler vs the Hagler that fought Mugabi or Leonard, is a very interesting argument IMO

Hearns had no legs against Hagler, after he had a massage before the fight, it affected his legs, his legs were gone, that's why he went for the knockout, because he would not of done the rounds, but Hearns never had the best chin, if you was tough enough to take his shots, you could get to him, as Barclay did.

Don't use that 'someone massaged Tommy's legs' line.

It embarrasses The Hitman & he'd never use such an excuse.

Give Hagler some credit for forcing Hearns into streetfight & taking his legs away.

Tommy threw his kitchen sink at Hagler; Marvin caught it & smashed Tommy into the ground with it.

It's nothing to do with massaging of legs.

That old chestnut, Steward always has an excuse when his fighters lose.

Tommy just couldn't stop hagler walking through his shots, even when he was detonating bombs on it.

Hearns breaking his hand was a big reason why Hagler could walk through him. By the end of the first round Hearns best punch was his left hook...at that point it was already over.

But it was Hagler's head that did the damage.

I remember Alan Minter being interviewed on World Of Sport or Grandstand. They were talking about the possibility of Hearns fighting Hagler after another great Tommy performance. Minter basically said it's a very different thing moving up in weight to fight a naturally bigger man.

I am sure the interview is still on YouTube.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:

Anzi wrote:Hearns had no legs against Hagler, after he had a massage before the fight, it affected his legs, his legs were gone, that's why he went for the knockout, because he would not of done the rounds, but Hearns never had the best chin, if you was tough enough to take his shots, you could get to him, as Barclay did.

Don't use that 'someone massaged Tommy's legs' line.

It embarrasses The Hitman & he'd never use such an excuse.

Give Hagler some credit for forcing Hearns into streetfight & taking his legs away.

Tommy threw his kitchen sink at Hagler; Marvin caught it & smashed Tommy into the ground with it.

It's nothing to do with massaging of legs.

That old chestnut, Steward always has an excuse when his fighters lose.

Tommy just couldn't stop hagler walking through his shots, even when he was detonating bombs on it.

I watched on interiew with Manny & in it, he had a ready made excuse for every one of Tommy's defeats during his 'living' years.

Not once did he give credit to the victor for being the better man on the night.

I bet Tommy would have cringed watching that because he was pure class & didn't make pathetic & laughable excuses for his defeats.

All he wanted to do was to get that man in the ring to avenge that defeat & that's how it should be.

Syntax Error wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Matt W wrote:I've always scored it for Leonard, Hagler didn't do enough in the early rounds; I think he was so confident of beating Leonard he didn't show enough urgency until it was too late. Leonard made him fight his fight and thoroughly deserved the decision. He should have granted Hagler a rematch though.

Yeah, I hated Leonard for not giving him a rematch. He really humiliated hagler over it, said he'd give Hagler a rematch if he admitted that Leonard had won, knowing full well he would never concede. Leonard outsmarted Hagler before the fight, during it, and afterward. Hagler's stubbornness was his undoing in so many ways.

He wanted to prove he could concede advantages to Leonard, and still well, even trying to outbox him, allowing it to be 12 rounds, agreeing to the ring size and gloves. He was very foolish.

This is spot on.

Leonard tied Hagler up in knots in every aspect of this bout.

Leonard is a very smart man because he knew that if he allowed Hagler to have the lion's share of the purse, he'd get the really important things in his favour, because Marvin was obsessed with the payday.

Leonard's book is class when he talks about his gameplan for the fight.

Everyone should read it if they haven't already

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:

Anzi wrote:Hearns had no legs against Hagler, after he had a massage before the fight, it affected his legs, his legs were gone, that's why he went for the knockout, because he would not of done the rounds, but Hearns never had the best chin, if you was tough enough to take his shots, you could get to him, as Barclay did.

Don't use that 'someone massaged Tommy's legs' line.

It embarrasses The Hitman & he'd never use such an excuse.

Give Hagler some credit for forcing Hearns into streetfight & taking his legs away.

Tommy threw his kitchen sink at Hagler; Marvin caught it & smashed Tommy into the ground with it.

It's nothing to do with massaging of legs.

That old chestnut, Steward always has an excuse when his fighters lose.

Tommy just couldn't stop hagler walking through his shots, even when he was detonating bombs on it.

I saw an interview with Manny where he claimed that Hearns broke his right hand in the first round of the Hagler fight and I was quite surprised as I didn't remember anyone mentioning this in the aftermath of the actual fight. I've got Hearns' autoboigraphy somewhere but I'm not sure if it was mentioned in that either. Being a sentimental old fool I simply believed everything that Manny ever said but looking back at the fight now it seems Tommy didn't quite throw the right with as much venom in rounds 2 and 3. He was clearly tired though after putting so much into that legendary 1st round and nobody was stopping Hagler at middleweight back then, I remember thinking at the time "why isn't he keeping him on the end of the jab and moving, using the ring with Hagler badly cut?" but easy for me to say!

Jackson328 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:
Don't use that 'someone massaged Tommy's legs' line.

It embarrasses The Hitman & he'd never use such an excuse.

Give Hagler some credit for forcing Hearns into streetfight & taking his legs away.

Tommy threw his kitchen sink at Hagler; Marvin caught it & smashed Tommy into the ground with it.

It's nothing to do with massaging of legs.

That old chestnut, Steward always has an excuse when his fighters lose.

Tommy just couldn't stop hagler walking through his shots, even when he was detonating bombs on it.

I saw an interview with Manny where he claimed that Hearns broke his right hand in the first round of the Hagler fight and I was quite surprised as I didn't remember anyone mentioning this in the aftermath of the actual fight. I've got Hearns' autoboigraphy somewhere but I'm not sure if it was mentioned in that either. Being a sentimental old fool I simply believed everything that Manny ever said but looking back at the fight now it seems Tommy didn't quite throw the right with as much venom in rounds 2 and 3. He was clearly tired though after putting so much into that legendary 1st round and nobody was stopping Hagler at middleweight back then, I remember thinking at the time "why isn't he keeping him on the end of the jab and moving, using the ring with Hagler badly cut?" but easy for me to say!

Strangely, I'd never heard until today about the broken hand, buggered if I know how I managed not to come across that nugget, but hearns mentions it in a recent interview.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Jackson328 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
That old chestnut, Steward always has an excuse when his fighters lose.

Tommy just couldn't stop hagler walking through his shots, even when he was detonating bombs on it.

I saw an interview with Manny where he claimed that Hearns broke his right hand in the first round of the Hagler fight and I was quite surprised as I didn't remember anyone mentioning this in the aftermath of the actual fight. I've got Hearns' autoboigraphy somewhere but I'm not sure if it was mentioned in that either. Being a sentimental old fool I simply believed everything that Manny ever said but looking back at the fight now it seems Tommy didn't quite throw the right with as much venom in rounds 2 and 3. He was clearly tired though after putting so much into that legendary 1st round and nobody was stopping Hagler at middleweight back then, I remember thinking at the time "why isn't he keeping him on the end of the jab and moving, using the ring with Hagler badly cut?" but easy for me to say!

Strangely, I'd never heard until today about the broken hand, buggered if I know how I managed not to come across that nugget, but hearns mentions it in a recent interview.

Not sure how old the Manny interview was but it was certainly in his latter years, will have to dig out the 'Hitman' book and see if its mentioned in there, I have a funny feeling now that it was.