BoxRec

I often hear people say that Hearns-Leonard II was not a significant bout. That Hearns always lost the big ones.

And yet Leonard-Hagler is an important result.

In both fights the ages of the fighters were roughly the same.

So why is one a career defining fight and the other not?

i think SRL-hagler is considered a career defining fight because of teh hype surrounding it and how long it took for the fight to materialise

Adamj1987 wrote:i think SRL-hagler is considered a career defining fight because of teh hype surrounding it and how long it took for the fight to materialise

But you don't think it has any more boxing significance than Leonard-Hearns II?

Ezzard wrote:I often hear people say that Hearns-Leonard II was not a significant bout. That Hearns always lost the big ones

Didn't most people think Hearns beat SRL in their rematch? I certainly thought he did. Even SRL said he thought Hearns won that fight.

Ezzard wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote:i think SRL-hagler is considered a career defining fight because of teh hype surrounding it and how long it took for the fight to materialise

But you don't think it has any more boxing significance than Leonard-Hearns II?

no i dont but history has distorted it to make hagler-leonard a more signifcant fight

Adamj1987 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Adamj1987 wrote:i think SRL-hagler is considered a career defining fight because of teh hype surrounding it and how long it took for the fight to materialise

But you don't think it has any more boxing significance than Leonard-Hearns II?

no i dont but history has distorted it to make hagler-leonard a more signifcant fight

Well I think the fact that it was such an upset made it more significant afterwards. But going in it was intriguing, Hagler was unbeaten for 10 years and Leonard hadn't boxed for 3. In contrast Hearns by this point had been knocked out by Barkley and had a life or death struggle with James Kinchen so the level of anticipation wasn't as high because he was considered to be well on the slide.

But it was a bad decision and Hearns deserves a lot of credit.

The fact it was the awaited meeting between the two and that is was for the middleweight title made it a lot more significant.

Ditto what others have said. Leonard still hadn't been defeated since Duran, was coming off a 3 year layoff, and Hagler hadn't been defeated in over a decade.

On the other hand, Leonard was coming out of his war vs the average Lalonde and Hearns his KO loss to Barkely into their rematch. Both were noticeably past their best so there was much less anticipation.

Less aniticipation is fine. But is it a less signinifcant result?

Hearns looked washed up but turned the form book on its head.

Both fights were joke decisions in favor of Leonard.

Wesley Mouzon said to me on the phone that night (neither of us had seen the Hearns-Leonard II fight yet but we had heard the result)
"Can you imagine how much Hearns must have beaten him by for them to be forced to give Hearns a draw?"

Hearns knocked Leonard down twice and got a DRAW !

Ezzard wrote:I often hear people say that Hearns-Leonard II was not a significant bout. That Hearns always lost the big ones.

And yet Leonard-Hagler is an important result.

In both fights the ages of the fighters were roughly the same.

So why is one a career defining fight and the other not?

Ezzard,

What you saying is that Leonard had a big media operation working for him and Hearns did not.

granberry wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I often hear people say that Hearns-Leonard II was not a significant bout. That Hearns always lost the big ones.

And yet Leonard-Hagler is an important result.

In both fights the ages of the fighters were roughly the same.

So why is one a career defining fight and the other not?

Ezzard,

What you saying is that Leonard had a big media operation working for him and Hearns did not.

head of nail, meet my friend Mr Hammer.

Ezzard wrote:I often hear people say that Hearns-Leonard II was not a significant bout. That Hearns always lost the big ones.

And yet Leonard-Hagler is an important result.

In both fights the ages of the fighters were roughly the same.

So why is one a career defining fight and the other not?

TBH, I don't think either fight is a career defining fight.

Leonard -v- Hagler was more about hype than substance: the fight was not even that exciting.

Leonard -v- Hagler was a boxing event; plus, for some reason, the result is still in doubt in the minds of so many people.

Leonard's win over Hagler was much more significant.
Leonard had to overcome severe disadvantages. (Hearns did not.)Leonard had one fight in the last 5 years. He was fighting as a middleweight for the first time. He beat one of the greatest middleweights of All-Time. No one else in the history of boxing has ever done anything like this.

Hearns did not have to overcome those kind of disadvantages. Actually Hearns had an advantage that is rarely talked about. Hearns did not even have to make the middleweight limit for this fight.

Of course this all makes logical sense and since we are talking about Ray Leonard, many people on this forum will completely overlook all of this.

Ambling Alp wrote:. Hearns did not even have to make the middleweight limit for this fight.

.

which fight are you on about?

the second Leonard Hearns fight at 'supermiddleweight' where Hearns was conned/forced into weighing in at 162lbs?

i'm sorry i just don't get what you are saying if you are quoting weights as some sort of 'lay off leonard' thing- the weight for the 2nd fight is exactly why people have a go at Leonard for forcing people to fight, Pacquiao style, at weights or in circumstances that suited him and not then. like Lalonde being mde to weigh 168 i believe for the 'lightheavyweight' belt.

My point is that Super middleweight was much more ideal for Hearns than Leonard. Lalonde was also much closer to be natural at 168 than Leonard.

my point is that as natural lightheavyweights being forced to drain down both men were at significant disadvantages to Leonard.

he made Hearns come down 13lbs how is he more 'natural' as a lightheavy having to make 162lbs?

also your point about the middleweight limit makes no sense as Hearns never fought Leonard at middleweight.

i know people tend to hate on Leonard sometimes unneccesarily. i personalyl am more of a leonard fan than a leonard hater

but some of the stuff Leonard pulled was simply risible.

Ambling Alp wrote:Leonard's win over Hagler was much more significant.
Leonard had to overcome severe disadvantages. (Hearns did not.)Leonard had one fight in the last 5 years. He was fighting as a middleweight for the first time. He beat one of the greatest middleweights of All-Time. No one else in the history of boxing has ever done anything like this.

You make a good pr man for Leonard.

But Leonard never beat Hagler.

He ran for his life and was warned for holding by name by "referee" Richard STEAL over 30 times with no points taken away.

You cannot "win" a title by running for your life and clinching and holding for dear life in between sprints.

Unless you are Leonard.

The decision for Leonard was garbage.

All he did was manage to last until the end.

That is not "winning."

When I talked to Gene Fullmer and Harold Johnson just after that "fight" each responded the same way when I asked if they saw that "fight."

Both answered by saying , in a derisive, mocking voice (mocking "referee" Steal)

"Don't hold, Ray."

"Stop holding him, Ray."

"Let him go, Ray."

"Stop holding, Ray."

Fullmer said to me in an incredulous voice,

"HOW CAN YOU TAKE A TITLE BY RUNNING AWAY?"

Johnson said, "I don't give Leonard no credit for running away."

I can very well understand how you wouldn't notice any of the the punchs that Leonard was landing on Hagler.

As usual you present a nonsensical decsription of a fight and omit massive chunks that don't fit your theory.

(Before you respond with your usual melodramatic claims that I bugger other men and don't know who Kid Zimbabwe is, just remember to keep it civil or I'll have my boys delete and / or edit your posts again, Francis.)

Gene Fullmer and Harold Johnson didn't know what they were talking about.

LOL

Par for the course for these internet "boxing" sites.

Stick close to the clueless Thomas Hauser/Bert Sugar media for all your "knowledge" of "boxing."

granberry wrote:Gene Fullmer and Harold Johnson didn't know what they were talking about.

LOL

Par for the course for these internet "boxing" sites.

Stick close to the clueless Thomas Hauser/Bert Sugar media for all your "knowledge" of "boxing."

Regardless of what you claim Fullmer and Johnson said (and we only have your word for that), your description of the fight bears no resemblence to what actually took place.

I was a big Hagler fan going into that fight. I thought he was going to chop Leonard up and spit him out in little pieces. Unfortunately, from the opening bell, it was clear to anyone who knows anything at all about boxing, that Marvin was in for a very hard night's work.

BTW, I seem to recall you had trouble understanding what was happening when Liston - Ali (1) didn't go the way you had it all laid out in your mind. I see a pattern here, Francis.

Hagler was my FAVORITE fighter at the time but anytime I watch that fight I just can't score it for him. He was not active enough. Do I think the Marvin of 4-5 years earlier wins, you bet.

Yes. I thought Hagler lost the fight more than Leonard won the fight.

Now tell me how Ali "beat" Jimmy Young.

LOL

granberry wrote:Now tell me how Ali "beat" Jimmy Young.

LOL

There was a thread in the last 6 months where several fans (including yours truly) scored that fight.

You should look it up and you'll find that, yet again, what you are implying with regard to how other fans in here have scored fights bears no resemblence to reality.

You claim to have spoke to Young on many occasions, Francis. What did he say when you asked him about his unusual "tactic" of poking his head out of the ring between the ropes?