BoxRec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wBPzG7h ... re=related

The bell rings at 4:12 Leonard puts his hands in the air and Hagler motions to him with his right hand. I think he knows he lost the fight and the Petronelli said to Hagler at the end of the 11th. "We need this bad..... We need some miracles...."

Saw that fight, I bought the tickets my son bought the beer. We both hought Hagler won.

The Second God wrote:Saw that fight, I bought the tickets my son bought the beer. We both hought Hagler won.

Maybe don't drink alcohol when scoring fights?

I "hought" Hagler lost. But just barely.

I watched it on CCTV at the Odeon in Birmingham. Massive event.

On the night I thought Leonard won very comfortably but I did think he was close to going under towards the end. When I watched it again the next day on TV I had it much, much closer. I still thought Ray won but it was close.

Ezzard wrote:I watched it on CCTV at the Odeon in Birmingham. Massive event.

On the night I thought Leonard won very comfortably but I did think he was close to going under towards the end. When I watched it again the next day on TV I had it much, much closer. I still thought Ray won but it was close.

In a 15 rounder, Hagler would have done him! Ray was totally spent at the end of 12. He didn't have another 3 Rounds in him.

Rocky Balboa wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I watched it on CCTV at the Odeon in Birmingham. Massive event.

On the night I thought Leonard won very comfortably but I did think he was close to going under towards the end. When I watched it again the next day on TV I had it much, much closer. I still thought Ray won but it was close.

In a 15 rounder, Hagler would have done him! Ray was totally spent at the end of 12. He didn't have another 3 Rounds in him.

He trained and fought a strategy for a 12 round fight. If it was 15, he might have fought differently.

one could argue a draw but not a win for hagler.
had he won, this would be called the robbery of
the century to this day.

hagler went forward, but never dominated.

I scored it 7-5 for Hagler. Unlike "the second God," I had no beer.

man wrote:one could argue a draw but not a win for hagler.
had he won, this would be called the robbery of
the century to this day.

hagler went forward, but never dominated.

Agree

man wrote:one could argue a draw but not a win for hagler.
had he won, this would be called the robbery of
the century to this day.

hagler went forward, but never dominated.

I missed the part where dominating was necessary for victory.

It is completely nonsensical to say, "you could argue a draw, but not a win," in any fight, ever. A one-point swing is the difference between debatable, & totally out of the question? Please.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

man wrote:one could argue a draw but not a win for hagler.
had he won, this would be called the robbery of
the century to this day.

hagler went forward, but never dominated.

I missed the part where dominating was necessary for victory.

It is completely nonsensical to say, "you could argue a draw, but not a win," in any fight, ever. A one-point swing is the difference between debatable, & totally out of the question? Please.

I used to think Leonard won the fight but the last time I watched it I scored it for Hagler. A close W for either W is not a bad decision.

Giancarlo wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

man wrote:one could argue a draw but not a win for hagler.
had he won, this would be called the robbery of
the century to this day.

hagler went forward, but never dominated.

I missed the part where dominating was necessary for victory.

It is completely nonsensical to say, "you could argue a draw, but not a win," in any fight, ever. A one-point swing is the difference between debatable, & totally out of the question? Please.

How about you rattle off a few fights which could be draws, but not wins for one of the fighters. Cant? Back to business, then. Theres a good lad.

dempseyfire wrote:I used to think Leonard won the fight but the last time I watched it I scored it for Hagler. A close W for either W is not a bad decision.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"you could argue a draw, but not a win," in any fight, ever.

leaves me speechless. i rest my case.

"I rest my case."

LOL. You havent even gotten it off the couch yet.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"I rest my case."

LOL. You havent even gotten it off the couch yet.

where to start when you say things like that? of course
there can be close fights where you could argue a draw
but not a win. leonard hagler is that for me. hagler did
simply not land enough and whenever he seemed to
corner leonard, ray would flurry out. hagler in my book
did not outland him, nor land enough big, nor dominated
the action. which in my humble opinion might make a
draw possible, but not a win. and had hagler got that
decision, you could still hear the booing of the crowd that
night and to this day leonard would be the ultimate victim
of bad boxing decisions.

but you know what? i leave all that at the couch. your
statement took away the very basis for useful discussion.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

man wrote:one could argue a draw but not a win for hagler.
had he won, this would be called the robbery of
the century to this day.

hagler went forward, but never dominated.

I missed the part where dominating was necessary for victory.

It is completely nonsensical to say, "you could argue a draw, but not a win," in any fight, ever. A one-point swing is the difference between debatable, & totally out of the question? Please.

Actually, in some situations it is logical to say that a draw is legitimate but a win for one guy is not. A lot depends on how close the individual rounds are.

Lets say for example, you think fighter A won 6 rounds, fighter B won 4 rounds, and two were very close. It is logical to say that you can see how someone would give fighter B the two close rounds which would make it 6-6 and a draw. However, there is no way that fighter B deserved to have won the decision because even if you give fighter B every close round, you still can't give him more rounds than fighter A.

Although I bet on SRL, I liked Hagler a lot too, and felt bad for him in the loss. SRL was a master at stealing rounds with flurries at the end of the round. I thought SRL won a narrow decision, but wouldn't have been disappointed in a draw.

I think it comes down to the way you score a fight. The categories are effective aggression, defense, ring generalship, and clean and hard punching.

Hagler landed the harder blows but Leonard landed many more of them and he pretty much let Leonard do whatever he wanted to do. For instance, the refs knew that Leonard was going to do a lot of dancing or running, depending on your perspective, and it was up to Hagler to cut off the ring. Did Hagler effectively do that? Did he do it more often than not?

Who fought whose fight?

Answer that and you have your winner.

I've always thought Leonard eeked out a narrow win & nothing has made me change my mind.

Hagler was too slow; too cocky & too arrogant.

Rather than get on & do what he was good at, he wasted time cursing Leonard & trying to prove that he was the man at the top.

Even the times when it looked like Leonard was wilting, he'd fire back & put the gloss on it (ie, round 9).

Hagler lost that fight & deep down, I think he knows it.

Syntax Error wrote:I've always thought Leonard eeked out a narrow win & nothing has made me change my mind.

Hagler was too slow; too cocky & too arrogant.

Rather than get on & do what he was good at, he wasted time cursing Leonard & trying to prove that he was the man at the top.

Even the times when it looked like Leonard was wilting, he'd fire back & put the gloss on it (ie, round 9).

Hagler lost that fight & deep down, I think he knows it.

He looked like he knew it in the seconds after the bell.

I know Cosell isn't popular around here and I even forgot the fight but Cosell kept saying " He's fighting his fight." He's not fighting your (the opponent's) fight."

That's the story of Hagler-Leonard.