BoxRec

I had it 115-112 for Hearns, if anyone else here has scored that fight how did you see it? I like Sugar Ray but poor Tommy got dicked good and proper

this is how i had the rounds
R1 Hearns
R2 Hearns
R3 Hearns
R4 Hearns
R5 Leonard
R6 Hearns
R7 Leonard
R8 Hearns
R9 Leonard
R10 Leonard
R11 Hearns
R12 Leonard

The problem is Leonard fought in such a way that he looked good without doing much i.e. against Hagler. He threw lots of punches and they may have not landed but they looked good. BUT he did stand and fight Duran in the first fight so he showed he good have a fight and had heart.

I remember that at the time I reckoned Hearns won clearly by two rounds. Don't have a round-by-round tally to hand but I have the video so I'll watch it again.

J

Arsenal wrote:The problem is Leonard fought in such a way that he looked good without doing much i.e. against Hagler. He threw lots of punches and they may have not landed but they looked good. BUT he did stand and fight Duran in the first fight so he showed he good have a fight and had heart.

but in the hagler fight ray did land the better cleaner punches while marvin just walked forward, my scorecard for that fight was a pretty convincing win for ray actually. but in this fight hearn's jab gave ray all sorts off problems and pretty much stopped him from doing anything for the first four rounds wich proved to be decisive.

I thought Hearns clearly won the second Leonard fight on points, another dodgy Sugar Ray decision as per the Hagler fight IMO

I don't think you need to score this fight to know that Hearns was robbed. As for Hagler, I don't think you should win a round for fighting 30 seconds in a round.

I think I scored it a draw, but it's been awhile since I watched it. What really stood out for me, since I didn't see it live, was how the next day some co-workers told me how Hearns flat out kicked Leonard's ass, and how they were through watching boxing because of the decision. When I watched the fight I expected to see Leonard get a beating, but instead what I saw was Leonard suffer a flash knockdown in the 4th I think, and then another in the 11th from a three punch combination. Neither time was Leonard hurt, and the second time he looked really frustrated. Nobody mentioned that Leonard had the two most decisive rounds of the fight, including the final round when Hearns was hurt, and only survived by hanging on for dear life. I can only imagine what all the Ray haters would be saying if the shoe was on the other foot, and it was Leonard hanging on to his opponent to avoid being knocked out. I think the decision was fare, and had it been a 15 rounder, I strongly believe that Ray would have a scored a TKO.

I don't remember my score round by round, but I had Hearns winning by two.

i agree seamus

I had Hearns winning by 1 or 2. I gave out 10-8 rounds to both figthers too. I agree that if it was 15 Tommy would have probably got KO'd. To be fair thoguh in the 12th Hearns starts very well, runs out of gas and then has to hold on as Ray throws everything at him.

If Tommy had known how to clinch in the 1st fight he may have hung on and won that one.

Seamus

I'm not convinced that Leonard wasn't hurt from the knockdowns. Ray was an absolute master at appearing unfazed after taking a monster shot. He only ever looked at a loss from the Duran left hook in the 2nd round of their first fight. He does certainly back off after each knockdown.

As for the Ray 'hating'... This is a nonsense argument that seem to be prevalent amongst fans of certain boxers and in the mainstream media for national/religious/political issues and groups. It's a weak device for limiting a discussion. Nobody is beyond criticism. If you want to champion a boxer or a cause then be prepared to stand up and put your point across, that's what it's all about. I had a similar discussion with someone on another board and he cried into his warm milk about 'Ray haters'. I'm interested in your views, everyone has got their own prejudices and opinions. You can't hide from other people's'...

Anyway, I agree with your sentiment. This was not a robbery. The decision favoured Leonard but it was a close fight and there have been far worse decisions.

I thought that Tommy deserved the decision but really Leonard was starting to really get close to a knockout towards the end. Ultimately Ray was the better fighter and had the fight been a 15 rounder, I think Tommy would have lost by KO

Tommy should have won by about 2 rounds... the fight was pretty even but the difference was the knockdowns, which should have sealed the fight for Tommy...

silkov wrote:Tommy should have won by about 2 rounds... the fight was pretty even but the difference was the knockdowns, which should have sealed the fight for Tommy...

They should have, but as Al Bernstein said after the fight(I'm paraphrasing) "As long as SRL is standing at the final gong it seems he doesn't lose a fight".

Sad but true. The judges always loved their little Sugar Ray.

Nero3000 wrote:

silkov wrote:Tommy should have won by about 2 rounds... the fight was pretty even but the difference was the knockdowns, which should have sealed the fight for Tommy...

They should have, but as Al Bernstein said after the fight(I'm paraphrasing) "As long as SRL is standing at the final gong it seems he doesn't lose a fight".

Sad but true. The judges always loved their little Sugar Ray.

I think it's a fair statement. If Ray had scored 2 knockdowns he would not have been given a draw.

The statement, "As long as SRL is standing at the final gong, it seems that he doesn't lose a fight" (implying that Leonard got a lot of gift decisons) isn't a fair statement.

Leonard was 2-2-1 in fights that went the distance and settled by the judges. He won all of his other championship fights by stoppage.

As far as the earlier Ray-hating comment that Seamus brought up,I strongly disagree with Ezzard's comment that it was nonsense. There is certainly some truth to what Seamus was saying.

There are a lot of people who don't like Leonard who can't/won't talk about him accurately.

The comment "The judges always loved their little Sugar Ray" by Nero 3000 is a perfect example. Obviously he doesn't like Leonard, can't be remotley objective, and makes a baseless comment about Leonard being a favorite of the judges.

As far as the two knockdown in their 2nd fight is concerned, that doesn't automatically mean that Herans deserved the win. There are still 10 other rounds to score.

The comment by Ezzard "If Ray would have scored two knockdowns, he wouldn't have been given a draw", again what is this based on? It is simply a myth that Leonard won undeserved decisons.

Ambling Alp wrote:The statement, "As long as SRL is standing at the final gong, it seems that he doesn't lose a fight" (implying that Leonard got a lot of gift decisons) isn't a fair statement.

Leonard was 2-2-1 in fights that went the distance and settled by the judges. He won all of his other championship fights by stoppage.

As far as the earlier Ray-hating comment that Seamus brought up,I strongly disagree with Ezzard's comment that it was nonsense. There is certainly some truth to what Seamus was saying.

There are a lot of people who don't like Leonard who can't/won't talk about him accurately.

The comment "The judges always loved their little Sugar Ray" by Nero 3000 is a perfect example. Obviously he doesn't like Leonard, can't be remotley objective, and makes a baseless comment about Leonard being a favorite of the judges.

As far as the two knockdown in their 2nd fight is concerned, that doesn't automatically mean that Herans deserved the win. There are still 10 other rounds to score.

The comment by Ezzard "If Ray would have scored two knockdowns, he wouldn't have been given a draw", again what is this based on? It is simply a myth that Leonard won undeserved decisons.

I guess it's based on Ray being the media darling and the cash cow. Ray got the better of two disputed decisions in Hagler and Hearns II (though I think he won the Hagler fight).

Nero was posting a quote by someone else, that does not make him anti-Leonard. I don't know if he is or if he isn't.

I'd say for every so-called Leonard-hater there's a Leonard fan. I'm not sure where objectivity comes into it in these cases. Besides my point isn't about that. Everyone has their favourites and champions certain fighters, that's unavoidable and a part of all such discussions. My point was that branding someone a 'hater' basically short circuits any debate and allows you to block out anything you don't want to hear. If I feel that someone is under rating some of my favourite fighters I defend them and try to sell their achievements. I don't try and put a lid on it by dismissing them as a 'hater'.

Alp, you recently posted some excellent pro-Tunney arguments. At no time did you label anyone as a Tunney-hater. Yet I hear this Ray-hater tag thrown around quite a bit...

Ezzard,
I agree with you that sometimes it seems that people call other people haters of a certain fighter as a easy way of not having to defend criticism of that a fighter. However, I don't think that is what Seamus was trying to do.

Specifically, with Leonard, it seems that many people that don't like him, don't judge him accurately on how good he was.

I have seen many baseless posts that criticize (saying that he was always favored by the judges, didn't fight anyone good before he won the title, ducked certain fighters, etc.) Often its obvious that the person doesn't like Leonard personally. Sometimes he is referred to as "pretty boy", "Little Ray" etc.

As for Nero, it looked to me that the post about "Little Ray" was his own. If not, than I'm apologize to Nero.

With the exception of Tyson, I have seen more of these types of criticism about Leonard than anyone else. Take the Hagler-Leonard fight.

Instead of of giving grudging respect to Leonard for coming off a long layoff, moving up in weight and beating one of the greatest middleweights of all time; We hear from the anti-Leonard people that Hagler was washed up or that Hagler was "robbed".

I suppose it's human nature to rate guys you like better than those you don't. I make a conscious effort to try not do that.
For example, I personally dislike Tyson more than any other fighter, but I recognize that he was one of the best heavyweights ever. (Certainly not # 1, but certainly top 15). Some people will take one extreme position and go one and on about "Prime" Tyson who was invincible and all that baloney. Others will take the other exteme view that he wasn't that good at all. I try to just look at what at what he did in the ring and try be as objective as possible.

If someone wants to criticize Leonard on legitimate criticisms (Such as the stupid fight he fought against Duran in their first fight) that's fine. It's just that is seems that so often that people are saying negative things about Leonard's career that simply are inaccurrate, and they won't give him the respect that his career deserves.

Im pretty unbiased about Ray Leonard, not my fave fighter but i dont hate him either. I rate him as one of the top 3 or 4 welterweights ever. However, he got gift decisions vs Hagler and the seconds Hearns fight. Marvin was all over him like a rash for most of the fight, and Hearns definitely outscored Ray. I thought the aggressor usually got the credit in US matches? Ray was the media darling in the 80s, look at the way he got Donny Lalonde down to 168lbs to take his lightheavy title as well!

That's an interesting point that he got Lalonde down to 168 lbs. But was Lalonde and his team really that naieve to accept those terms??. Regardless I do not rate Leonards titles at Super Middle and above, pure publicity belt grabbing. He was a devestating Welter and Super Welter, but I believe that was his peak and limit

[quote="Ambling Alp"]Ezzard,

Specifically, with Leonard, it seems that many people that don't like him, don't judge him accurately on how good he was.

With the exception of Tyson, I have seen more of these types of criticism about Leonard than anyone else. Take the Hagler-Leonard fight.

[b]
If someone wants to criticize Leonard on legitimate criticisms (Such as the stupid fight he fought against Duran in their first fight) that's fine.[/b] It's just that is seems that so often that people are saying negative things about Leonard's career that simply are inaccurrate, and they won't give him the respect that his career deserves.[/quote]

In the interview with Howard Cosell after the fight, Leonard was almost crying, saying he couldn't fight his fight, Duran controlled him. It was the next day that Leonard revised history with his excuse that he fought the wrong fight because he was trying to beat Duran at his own game. Seems like you are another person who lost his objectivity about Leonard because of his phony sweet smile and never ending efforts to get credit beyond his achievements.

You got it, I'm another person who lost his objectivity about Leonard because of his phony sweet smile. :(

Ezzard, this is yet another example of what I was talking about earlier.

[quote="Ambling Alp"]You got it, I'm another person who lost his objectivity about Leonard because of his phony sweet smile. :(

Ezzard, this is yet another example of what I was talking about earlier.[/quote]

Really, so why do you say he fought a stupid fight against Duran in the first fight when Leonard himself admitted he couldn't do anything else, Duran controlled him?

I don't recall Leonard say that, but maybe he was giving Duran credit.
Obviously, Leonard was capable of doing better, and he proved it in the 2nd fight.

Leonard wasn't "controlled" by Duran either in the first fight. Duran deserved the decison, but it was a competitive fight. Leonard won several rounds.

In the 2nd fight, Leonard fought more like he normally did and did much better. (Yes, I have heard all the BS excuses why Duran wasn't prepared in the 2nd fight and don't buy them.)

As for Leonard fighting a dumb fight the first fight, I mean that as a criticism of Leonard, not an excuse.

If you only score rounds 4 and 11, 10-8 for Hearns, which I assume everyone did, than yes this looks like a clear victory for the Hitman. But if you score rounds 9 and 12, 10-8 for Leonard as well, then this is a close fight.

And just to stir up more controversy. A good post fight neurological examination would have shown that Leonard won.

[quote="Ambling Alp"]I don't recall Leonard say that, but maybe he was giving Duran credit.
Obviously, Leonard was capable of doing better, and he proved it in the 2nd fight.

Leonard wasn't "controlled" by Duran either in the first fight. Duran deserved the decison, but it was a competitive fight. Leonard won several rounds.

In the 2nd fight, Leonard fought more like he normally did and did much better. (Yes, I have heard all the BS excuses why Duran wasn't prepared in the 2nd fight and don't buy them.)

As for Leonard fighting a dumb fight the first fight, I mean that as a criticism of Leonard, not an excuse.[/quote]

Well you may not recall but I do, vividly. Almost crying like a baby as he told Cosell that he couldn't do what he wanted, that Duran controlled him. He wasn't giving Duran credit. He was saying what happened as he almost cried. While Leonard thought he was controlled by Duran, I wonder how you know more about the fight than he did?

As was often the case with Leonard, since he was the draw and controlled the purse strings, he demanded and got many concessions for the 2nd Duran fight as he did in others. He stacked the deck. He fought whomever he wanted, when he wanted. So, when it comes to frequent discussions on this board as to "how have x done against y, each at their best?". We will never know with Leonard since he made sure he didn't fight opponents at their best. This is how he destroyed his legacy, in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I think Sugar Ray Leonard was a great fighter. But, I also think he was an insincere manipulator who got victories because of his power (of the purse) and his manipulative abilities.

In contrast, it seems to me, Oscar de la hoya, is as powerful in terms of the purse. But, he seems to be more of a fighter in his heart than Leonard, who was more of a manipulator.

I don't expect you to agree since you have already "bought into" Leonard. But, why do you think someone of his great talent is disrespected by so many while others, de la Hoya for example, are greatly respected?