BoxRec

During the build up, Leonard pulled every trick in the book to turn the fight in his favour. He got the ring size he wanted, the referee and the gloves. And he repeatedly banged on about how Hagler couldn't box, had no skills, no sweet science, was nothing but a clumsy brawler etc etc ad nauseum. Hagler took the bait and came out orthodox to try to prove to Ray and the world that he could match Leonard as a pugilist.

Very true....SRL won the ring size, gloves, and number of rounds. But what he said of Hagler's boxing abilities were right on the mark. Hagler was a stumbling no foot work or grace off balance southpaw who was a terrible boxer. Anyone could see this in watching his fights, if you knew boxing. The only thing Hagler could do was bang and he came to his fights in shape. Other than that he stunk.....Hearns would have beaten him if he had boxed. Had Duran been a true MW he would have beaten him too. Sugar Ray would have beaten him years earlier too because of Hagler's lack of boxing skills and plodding.

Hi Kym:

At this point, in my mind, the issue isn't whether Leonard held too much (he did in my judgment), the issue is Alp's assertion that a judge cannot consider excessive holding when deciding how to score a round. I think he can. I think it goes to ring generalmanship. Do you think a judge cannot take that into account, Kym?

ringsider wrote:
Very true....SRL won the ring size, gloves, and number of rounds. But what he said of Hagler's boxing abilities were right on the mark. Hagler was a stumbling no foot work or grace off balance southpaw who was a terrible boxer. Anyone could see this in watching his fights, if you knew boxing. The only thing Hagler could do was bang and he came to his fights in shape. Other than that he stunk.....Hearns would have beaten him if he had boxed. Had Duran been a true MW he would have beaten him too. Sugar Ray would have beaten him years earlier too because of Hagler's lack of boxing skills and plodding.

Who was stopping him from fighting Hagler years earlier? No one except Leonard himself.

Face it. Leonard was too fragile and just a boy in a man's sport. Terry Norris proved Leonard isn't really worth a shit.

Personally, I think all that Terry Norris showed was that Ray Leonard couldn't compete against top competition at age 35 and after a two-year layoff.

I doubt whether the Leonard who fought Norris would have made it past the 5th with Hagler.

And the Norris who beat Leonard, would have taken an ass kicking had he been fighting a Leonard in his prime. That is just the way it is......

Had a guy like Norris fought Hagler he would have really taken a beating, being stopped brutally because Norris was too stupid to box.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Jesus. Where is Elton John when you need him?

I think good footwork doesn't matter to a judge, either. Think about it, it's silly, isn't it? How would it work? If Fighter A moved his feet so many times, would you make a 10-9 round in his favour 10-8?

You know my point and are ducking it. You don't have a specific way of judging how much holding is too much and exactly how that would affect an individual round should be scored. You just know Leonard held too much.

I would hope that you would know that how much a fighter moves his feet isn't how to judge someones footwork.

However, if you are going to say that a fighter clinches too much, don't you have to count how many times that he clinched in each individual round? Or is this the Ray Leonard Rule, where he you can pull any excuse out of thin air as to why he doesn't deserve credit for a win (It also seems irrelevant that there have many other fights where a fighter holds more.)

Moreover, what guidelines are there for judges for how much holding in an individual round is too much?

Hearns held much more in in round 12 of the 2nd Leonard-Hearns fight than Leonard did in any round of the Hagler fight. Still haven't heard from anyone how round 12 of the 2nd Hearns-Leonard fight should be scored.

Ambling Alp wrote: . Still haven't heard from anyone how round 12 of the 2nd Hearns-Leonard fight should be scored.

I score the "draw" decision in that bout as horse----.

I score the decision in the Hagler bout as horse----.

I score the stoppage of Leonard's fight with Kevin Howard as horse----.

I score the stoppage of Leonard's fight with Benitez with SIX SECONDS left as horse----.

I score the fake Leonard-Duran second "fight" as horse----.

I score the ABC TV sales pitches for Ali and his replacement Leonard by clueless TV executives as horse----.

why was the second fight fake?

The fake Leonard-Duran second "fight" was a landmark.

The news media would not quote a single former champion's comments on that "fight."

For a century the most valuable part of any news report on boxing (if they included them) were the comments of fighters present at a fight.

For example, I have Fitzsimmons and Bob Armstrong's comments from news articles after the Johnson-Jeffries fight.

Gans' comments after the Ketchel-Joe Thomas fight.

Jim Corbett's comments on the first Gans-Erne fight.

Benny Leonard's comments on the Dempsey-Willard fight.

etc etc

As of the Leonard-Duran II fake, the media wouldn't DARE quote a former champion's comments.

that is a good point but is there any other evidence?

The second Leonard/Duran fight was not fake, though it did suck compared to I. But, (and I said this before the fight back then, as I picked Duran to win the first one and I picked SRL in II) no matter what Duran did in number II he would have to KO Leonard or outright kill him as Duran would never be given a 2nd decision, because Leonard was the media darling.............True to form Leonard did not engage, Duran got pissed off and quit. It was only 4-2 and one even when Duran quit I believe. So it wasn't a blow out. It takes two guys to fight, if one doesn't want to fight, then you don't have a fight.

As far as what other fighters said about the fight........it matters not if they had anything to say. Who cares?

i hated the way leonard fought sometimes. people can say thatflashy hit and run shit is good boxing but i call it bein a puss and not going out of your way to win. its boring to watch, fans don't want to attend matches and the only win it can get you is some bullshit decision

I remember watching Hagler-Leonard in a theater and thinking Hagler won a close fight but that there was no way they were going to give it to him. I was shocked when they gave Duran the decision in the first Leonard fight, though I thought the scoring was closer than it should have been. On the other hand, I think you have to give Leonard some credit for beating a still very good Benitez (he would have won a clear decision if they hadn't stopped it), KOing an undefeated Kalule and knocking out Hearns the first time around.

Alp...

"You know my point and are ducking it. You don't have a specific way of judging how much holding is too much and exactly how that would affect an individual round should be scored. You just know Leonard held too much..."

Firstly, tell me which part of judging is exact, & has a specific science to it? Number of punches thrown? Ring generalship? Degree of cleanliness (in terms of landing) to a given punch? Alp, I expect a post like that to come from a novice to the sport --- &, to be clear, I expect significantly better from you. Secondly, I scored the fight for Leonard --- a fight many people have scored for Hagler, & contested the official result (reasonably, in my view) more than two decades after the fact. I guess any criticism of Leonard makes me biased against him, because the bald truth is, you can't bare to hear criticism of Ray Leonard.

"...However, if you are going to say that a fighter clinches too much, don't you have to count how many times that he clinched in each individual round? Or is this the Ray Leonard Rule, where he you can pull any excuse out of thin air as to why he doesn't deserve credit for a win (It also seems irrelevant that there have many other fights where a fighter holds more.)..."

We're not talking about other fights, so don't deflect from your boy when it suits you. If you are going to say a fighter landed enough punches to win a round, do you need to count the exact number of punches thrown? Do judges have compubox? If I didn't know better (& I do), I'd suspect you of trolling, Alp.

"...Moreover, what guidelines are there for judges for how much holding in an individual round is too much..."

It falls within the context of ring generalship, as Ray pointed out. Taking the example to its extreme, if a fighter held for two minutes of a round, & punched for one, & the ref permitted it, are you saying it is not the judges prerogative to score the round against the holding fighter? You are, as DempseyFire once alluded to, in dreamland if you think excessive holding doesn't hurt a fighter on the cards.

"...Hearns held much more in in round 12 of the 2nd Leonard-Hearns fight than Leonard did in any round of the Hagler fight. Still haven't heard from anyone how round 12 of the 2nd Hearns-Leonard fight should be scored..."

More deflection from the topic at hand. Start the thread, if you wish to discuss Leonard-Hearns II (I'm betting you don't, though, & we both know why).

Ray

I am not sure what judges are required to judge. I will be honest and say that when I watch a boxing match and score it for myself, I do rate effective clinching. I think ones ability to clinch, control the man and break the clinch at will is a pretty solid talent.

Though is this boxing...?

Yet in the 'good ole dayes' wrestling tactics we are told is a part of boxing and how effective the sport is. Today however or even in the last so many years of colour televised boxing, ones ability to clinch and 'hold' is seen as being cowardly or boring.

I am curious to know why in the past..say the Jeffries era wrestling and clinching was a key aspect of the sport ? Yet if a ray Leonard does it against a naturally bigger man, it is considered cowardice.

Personally as I said above. I like to see some good and effective clinching and inside work. But I am not in any way a boxing official.

Just a guy who loves to watch the sport.

Kym

Hasn't it occurred to you that if Leonard fought in the open sun, in the middle of the day in (often) blistering conditions, over twenty-odd rounds, clinching would be considered more acceptable?

And those in door bouts from then ? How many where under the hot nevada sun
or under that oppressive Havana heat?

Or how about finishing your man quicker ? Oh thats right EVERYONE back then
was more talented.

The door well & truly swings both ways. Just as many (if not, more) people on this & other sites under-estimate past fighters & over-estimate their more contemporary counter-parts.

High-Definition television is enough to fool 90% of the morons who frequent Current Scene. I don't think there is more undue adulation going to past fighters than present or recent. Alp just doesn't respond well to criticism of Leonard. Hey, I don't respond well to criticism of De La Hoya. We all do it.

ringsider wrote:And the Norris who beat Leonard, would have taken an ass kicking had he been fighting a Leonard in his prime. That is just the way it is......

Had a guy like Norris fought Hagler he would have really taken a beating, being stopped brutally because Norris was too stupid to box.

He sure taught leonard how to box. :P That was a boxing lesson from the student to the master. So the way it is isn't the way you'd like it to be nothing you can do to change that.

history has already been written and history says the fight went in favor of Mr. Norris and his fans. Blame it on your man because history shows that he was always been inept in the presence of youth and speed.

If he were half the fighter they say he was he would have had no trouble with Norris. If you can't prove me wrong then like my good friend Paul Stanley would say "lick it up" so stop using the excuse "If leonard were in his prime" or blaming it on a layoff. 1 year inactivity is nothing by boxing standards-fighters and champions alike do it all the time including leonard. If he beat Hagler after 3 years why can't he handle Norris after a couple months?

It was just his ineptitude that hurt him. Leonard had everything else in his favor-the opponent, location, ring size, fighting weight, glove size, rounds, experience, and still wound up embarrassed and hurt because he sucks! He was a piece of shit that's why he was always asking for concessions. He was just a very weak champion. A good amateur though

Goodnight, Irene wrote:The door well & truly swings both ways. Just as many (if not, more) people on this & other sites under-estimate past fighters & over-estimate their more contemporary counter-parts.

High-Definition television is enough to fool 90% of the morons who frequent Current Scene. I don't think there is more undue adulation going to past fighters than present or recent. Alp just doesn't respond well to criticism of Leonard. Hey, I don't respond well to criticism of De La Hoya. We all do it.

Notice how leonard fans come out with the most excuses and worst ones at that.

"If leonard were in his prime"

On a related topic, you don't see it much, but I believe Guy Jutras took 2 pts from Eusebio Pedroza in his title bout with Juan LaPorte for excessive holding.

Seamus wrote:On a related topic, you don't see it much, but I believe Guy Jutras took 2 pts from Eusebio Pedroza in his title bout with Juan LaPorte for excessive holding.

Ferguson was disqualified against Tyson for it, too, if memory serves.

Elton John wrote:

ringsider wrote:And the Norris who beat Leonard, would have taken an ass kicking had he been fighting a Leonard in his prime. That is just the way it is......

Had a guy like Norris fought Hagler he would have really taken a beating, being stopped brutally because Norris was too stupid to box.

He sure taught leonard how to box. :P That was a boxing lesson from the student to the master. So the way it is isn't the way you'd like it to be nothing you can do to change that.

history has already been written and history says the fight went in favor of Mr. Norris and his fans. Blame it on your man because history shows that he was always been inept in the presence of youth and speed.

If he were half the fighter they say he was he would have had no trouble with Norris. If you can't prove me wrong then like my good friend Paul Stanley would say "lick it up" so stop using the excuse "If leonard were in his prime" or blaming it on a layoff. 1 year inactivity is nothing by boxing standards-fighters and champions alike do it all the time including leonard. If he beat Hagler after 3 years why can't he handle Norris after a couple months?

It was just his ineptitude that hurt him. Leonard had everything else in his favor-the opponent, location, ring size, fighting weight, glove size, rounds, experience, and still wound up embarrassed and hurt because he sucks! He was a piece of shit that's why he was always asking for concessions. He was just a very weak champion. A good amateur though

Can you be more specific? When did "history shows that he was always been inept in the presence of youth and speed"?

Elton John wrote:

ringsider wrote:And the Norris who beat Leonard, would have taken an ass kicking had he been fighting a Leonard in his prime. That is just the way it is......

Had a guy like Norris fought Hagler he would have really taken a beating, being stopped brutally because Norris was too stupid to box.

He sure taught leonard how to box. :P That was a boxing lesson from the student to the master. So the way it is isn't the way you'd like it to be nothing you can do to change that.

history has already been written and history says the fight went in favor of Mr. Norris and his fans. Blame it on your man because history shows that he was always been inept in the presence of youth and speed.

If he were half the fighter they say he was he would have had no trouble with Norris. If you can't prove me wrong then like my good friend Paul Stanley would say "lick it up" so stop using the excuse "If leonard were in his prime" or blaming it on a layoff. 1 year inactivity is nothing by boxing standards-fighters and champions alike do it all the time including leonard. If he beat Hagler after 3 years why can't he handle Norris after a couple months?

It was just his ineptitude that hurt him. Leonard had everything else in his favor-the opponent, location, ring size, fighting weight, glove size, rounds, experience, and still wound up embarrassed and hurt because he sucks! He was a piece of shit that's why he was always asking for concessions. He was just a very weak champion. A good amateur though

I don't give a shit that Norris beat Leonard. The young vs the old.......but to say or think Norris was on the caliber of Ray, when Ray was at the same age is just ridiculous.

raylawpc wrote:

Elton John wrote:

ringsider wrote:And the Norris who beat Leonard, would have taken an ass kicking had he been fighting a Leonard in his prime. That is just the way it is......

Had a guy like Norris fought Hagler he would have really taken a beating, being stopped brutally because Norris was too stupid to box.

He sure taught leonard how to box. :P That was a boxing lesson from the student to the master. So the way it is isn't the way you'd like it to be nothing you can do to change that.

history has already been written and history says the fight went in favor of Mr. Norris and his fans. Blame it on your man because history shows that he was always been inept in the presence of youth and speed.

If he were half the fighter they say he was he would have had no trouble with Norris. If you can't prove me wrong then like my good friend Paul Stanley would say "lick it up" so stop using the excuse "If leonard were in his prime" or blaming it on a layoff. 1 year inactivity is nothing by boxing standards-fighters and champions alike do it all the time including leonard. If he beat Hagler after 3 years why can't he handle Norris after a couple months?

It was just his ineptitude that hurt him. Leonard had everything else in his favor-the opponent, location, ring size, fighting weight, glove size, rounds, experience, and still wound up embarrassed and hurt because he sucks! He was a piece of shit that's why he was always asking for concessions. He was just a very weak champion. A good amateur though

Can you be more specific? When did "history shows that he was always been inept in the presence of youth and speed"?

Well you really have is just Benitez and Hearns and to a lesser extent Larry Bonds. Leonard certainly did not resemble an all time great in any of those bouts which is why I don't understand why people keep repeating the phrase "Leonard in his prime". Leonard in his prime was inept and you can even ask Angelo Dundee. He said you're blowing it son. Tommy only lost the fight not because of anything Leonard did but because he wasn't strong late in a fight. Especially at 145.

Those same shots he took early in the fight without going down he couldn't take late in the fight but up until then he beat ray easy just by moving around. I told people Ray can't hit a moving target. Watch him, he'll probably retire after this fight and he did.

Then he picked a fight with Hagler who was totally used up. His fans actually believe this was a big upset but it really wasn't. Hagler shouldn't have been allowed to fight from the beatings he was taking in earlier fights.

Leonard made it close on account of Hagler's condition. Truthfully I thought Hagler performed poorly in the leonard fight but Leonard was truly the most inept, poorest excuse lame ass "champ" as they call him that I have ever seen. This was a continuation of the Hearns fight only Norris was stronger, better conditioned, better defensively carrying a higher guard, and best of all he didn't have a stamina problem. Is it any wonder why it was so uncompetitive??

Looking back I can see why he needed all these concessions and would absoultely refuse fights over the span of the early to mid 1980's. He truly did not have the experience to take on the Hagler's or Hearns' of his time just as he didn't have what it took to face off with the Micheal Nunn's or his time. Someone like leonard would much rather face the Don Lalonde's of the world (bad eye and all!) than a legitimate champion.

All he's good for is these high profile circus acts.