How would a fight have gone between Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler in 1981. Leonard had beaten Duran at the end of 1980, and both Ayub Kalule and Tommy Hearns in 1981. Hagler had stopped both Vito Antufermo and Mustapha Hamso that same year. Same size ring as they fought in in 1987, same gloves, same 12 rounds. Does Hagler win this time? Or is REay even more slick and elusive as many would suggest this was his finest year as a pro. Who wins and how would it go?

Hagler; too large, too aggressive, impossible to KO. By the time the fight occurred he had slowed down considerably.

Hagler; too large, too aggressive, impossible to KO. By the time the fight occurred he had slowed down considerably.


Ray leonard wins by much easier decision than in 87. Hagler in 83 could barely outbox a overblown Duran at middleweight. Hagler was never a great boxer. He was great when you came directly forward and led, allowing him to counter punch, and if your right there he could rip those powerful very powerful counter hooks and uppercuts

I ask people to point out what fight had hagler ever shown the ability to box whit a leonard. Also, to cut of the ring...Hmmmm

I offer this. In 1987 we always here about this supposed hagler had slowed etc.. Ok. My quesiton is WHAT ABOUT RAY? I never ever hear anyone talk about how in 1987 that Ray Leonard abilties had seriously eroded. He looked fast somewhat in that fight only because he was facing a Middleweight. When he fought Norris, you could see just how much his reflexes and speed had slowed down.

Look at Ray leonard that fought Hearns, and Duran, and Kalule (leonard walked right through the Jr middlweight champion, but he would not dare fight Hagler this way). Did he tire vs Duran or Hearns? But he was shot come round 7 inthe Hagler fight. He was much much faster, more accurate, had more zip on his punches, better defensivley. Had leonard not lost his legs and was peak, Haglr would have had to cut off the ring to catch Ray, and he never ever did this before. Hagler had issues with Boxing Duran, what do you think would happen when he fought Ray who outboxed Duran soo bad Duran quit. Hmmmm

Hearns reach was the factor in their 1st fight, Hagler had no such advantage. Hagler also had issues with other fighters earlier on in is career. He also had a glaring weakness. he could not lead, and he could not deal with mobility. Dundee pointed ths out in the Duran fight, and told ray to simply move laterally and when Hagler stepped to punch which i a dead give away that a punch was coming when he led, (sort of like Trinidad dippig before he threw his left hook) Leonard would eaither move away, dip to his right or tie hagler up...Worked like a charm.

I think people once again dont ever look at styles, just say this figher can beat this fighter. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT STYLES. Leonard movment poses a style that NOONE ON HERE HAS EVER SEEN HAGLER HAVE SUCCESS WITH. Even slight movment (duran) gave hagler issues and forced him to box. A prime leonard either outboxed Hagler thorougly or gets stopped, and Prime leonard had never even hit the canvass. Hagler would not outbox Ray.

I think Hagler would have been too much for Leonard at that point, just too big, too motivated, too hungry and too aggressive for the 1981 Leonard.

I think Hagler would have been too much for Leonard at that point, just too big, too motivated, too hungry and too aggressive for the 1981 Leonard.

he was too big for duran too, but duran who is nowhere near the boxer leonard is, not as fast, older, was pretty much able box hagletr too a stand still.

It's about styles

Ray leonard wins by much easier decision than in 87. Hagler in 83 could barely outbox a overblown Duran at middleweight. Hagler was never a great boxer. He was great when you came directly forward and led, allowing him to counter punch, and if your right there he could rip those powerful very powerful counter hooks and uppercuts

I ask people to point out what fight had hagler ever shown the ability to box whit a leonard. Also, to cut of the ring...Hmmmm

I offer this. In 1987 we always here about this supposed hagler had slowed etc.. Ok. My quesiton is WHAT ABOUT RAY? I never ever hear anyone talk about how in 1987 that Ray Leonard abilties had seriously eroded. He looked fast somewhat in that fight only because he was facing a Middleweight. When he fought Norris, you could see just how much his reflexes and speed had slowed down.

Look at Ray leonard that fought Hearns, and Duran, and Kalule (leonard walked right through the Jr middlweight champion, but he would not dare fight Hagler this way). Did he tire vs Duran or Hearns? But he was shot come round 7 inthe Hagler fight. He was much much faster, more accurate, had more zip on his punches, better defensivley. Had leonard not lost his legs and was peak, Haglr would have had to cut off the ring to catch Ray, and he never ever did this before. Hagler had issues with Boxing Duran, what do you think would happen when he fought Ray who outboxed Duran soo bad Duran quit. Hmmmm

Hearns reach was the factor in their 1st fight, Hagler had no such advantage. Hagler also had issues with other fighters earlier on in is career. He also had a glaring weakness. he could not lead, and he could not deal with mobility. Dundee pointed ths out in the Duran fight, and told ray to simply move laterally and when Hagler stepped to punch which i a dead give away that a punch was coming when he led, (sort of like Trinidad dippig before he threw his left hook) Leonard would eaither move away, dip to his right or tie hagler up...Worked like a charm.

I think people once again dont ever look at styles, just say this figher can beat this fighter. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT STYLES. Leonard movment poses a style that NOONE ON HERE HAS EVER SEEN HAGLER HAVE SUCCESS WITH. Even slight movment (duran) gave hagler issues and forced him to box. A prime leonard either outboxed Hagler thorougly or gets stopped, and Prime leonard had never even hit the canvass. Hagler would not outbox Ray.

I really want to say Hagler, but I can also envision Ray winning this fight. I'd like to hear more opinions.

Look to be honest, as a Leonard fan in 1981 i thought he would be crazy to step up and fight Hagler then as well. I remember many times in the ring I would box or spar vs bigger stronger fighters and my manager always told me TECHNIQUE AND STYLES AND HEART WIN. I would never have any issues vs the bigger opponet, it was the quicker ones that matched my speed that gave me issues. Based on Technique, and style you can exploit a bigger stalker that follows you around the ring, vs one that cuts off the ring. In essence other than power, it would be easier for Leonard when you think about it, to fight Hagler who in any era was slower than Duran, not the boxer that Duran is, and does not ever cut off a ring, and telegraphs his punch when forced to lead by stepping. It should be easier for Leoanrd to use his style vs Hagler than it would be vs a Duran, who was a great boxer/stalker with power and speed.

You look at Hagler devestating ko's they all came vs fighters that came straight ahead, had no movement, or came after him. Thus Hagler had a counterpunching cakewalk vs mugabi and hearns. One would ask why would it be easier for leonard to beat hagler, when he struggle with hearns, and hearns got stopped in 3 vs hagler. That person who thinks in that manner and uses that type of Analogy knows nothing about boxing. You have to study the fight itself. Hearns came right after Halger and never employed his fantastic height and reach advantage, as he did behind a great jab vs Leonard. Also, Hearns and everyone knew he was not going to stop hagler, thus hagler coud from the jump come right after a fighter that would come right back after him, thus no boxing no cutting off the ring, no dealing with angles, no tying up when hagler is about to unleash those powerful inside hooks and uppercuts. Just like Ali struglles and even loses the first fight to Frazier, Frazier get destroyed by Foreman, and hmmm that analogy has Forment destroying Ali...Hmmmm what happened.

Remember it is always about Style, Technique, and dedication and heart.....that is unless he catches a greeat Hagler hook and it ends all that, which is always possible. However we have to consider the fact that in 1981 Ray lenard had faced middleweights before, Duran, Hearns, southpaws, etc..and never ever touched the canvass, not til after his reflexes slowed and he came out of retirment. So that rational is completley fair to think Halger would catch up to him and stop him, but it not based on anything that ever happened between these two in the ring, so one would have to suggest that hagler would outpoing him then. Hmmmm did you see Duran vs Hagler in 1983. a PRIME Leonard is not a better boxer than Duran, who by little movements and forcign hagler to lead, made it a boxing match. I would suggest that Leonard was faster, bigger, and a better boxer ( not toe to toe warrior) than Duran was, and would give Hagler much more to think about in terms of movment and strategy.

Finally, I think what we would have seen in 1981 simply would be a much faster version of 1987, as many will say hagler slowed a bit, well Ray slowed also and whats even more telling is that Ray slowing down causes a much greater impact to his style than the slowing that Hagler experienced. Also ray was known for always being able to fight sustained15 round fight, example benitez, duran, heanrs. Well in 87 Hagler only stated landed punches when the slower than prime ray slowed down even more, and was visable tired and right in front of him. What if ray boxed him like he did Duran in New Orleans, with that stamina. These fighters that ray beat dd not pose the ko threat that hagler posed, but ray would have a much much easier time putting his punches together vs a middleweight Hagler. Much more stationary target, that is not as fast as the others, by a long shot.

he was too big for duran too, but duran who is nowhere near the boxer leonard is, not as fast, older, was pretty much able box hagletr too a stand still.

It's about styles

He gave Duran way too much respect though, he didn't fight the fight he should have fought, if he fights the right fight against Leonard, he would be too much for him.

major fallacy in thinking. Hagler was never a fighter that came roaring out after you likeca Tyson. To change his style vs a legend like duran would be foolish. Hagler was great being hagler. You just disrespect a gr duran or leonardvand just rush in on them, it's not that easy. If it was many would have done it before.

Hagler was not generally a fighter that liked to lead. He was at his best when he was counter punching. The reason why the duran fight was likecit was, was because duran is a very good boxer, and very smart. Instead of being the aggressor & meeting the fate that yearns met, he made hagler lead a lot. Also duran has very good defense & head movement.

I do agree hAgler be duran & Leonard could have been more aggressive, but vs these two great fighters who are smart enought to generally follow their game plan, this would not neccessarily lead to better results. Well let me be corrected, maybe vs duran it wouldn't, but anyone who saw the hagler Leonard fight knows Leonard ran short on stamina starting round 7. Had hAgler pressured the 87 version of ray from round 1, I don't think ray could have lasted. However the 81 version could have.

wpink1, you make good points about styles. But look at the 87 fight and look at Hagler's timing! It was so off... that was not just Ray's excellent D and gameplan. It was Hagler who lost a lot of sharpness. Hagler in 1981 is a much sharper fighter. Some of those punches would land, and Leonard certainly had a less full body to take those punches. Note that I am mentioning the body, because a prime Leonard would certainly do great at evading headshots for the first part of the fight. But those bodyshots would not fail to get there IMO.

Not to mention that hopefully Hagler would not chase Leonard from an orthodox stance.

wpink1, you make good points about styles. But look at the 87 fight and look at Hagler's timing! It was so off... that was not just Ray's excellent D and gameplan. It was Hagler who lost a lot of sharpness. Hagler in 1981 is a much sharper fighter. Some of those punches would land, and Leonard certainly had a less full body to take those punches. Note that I am mentioning the body, because a prime Leonard would certainly do great at evading headshots for the first part of the fight. But those bodyshots would not fail to get there IMO.

Not to mention that hopefully Hagler would not chase Leonard from an orthodox stance.

good points, but wmute both would be. Faster, so that is a wash. Leonard lost a lot of speed timing and reflexes, & I would argue that this impacted leonards style to a greater degree than hagler simply because Leonard entire style was based on reflexes, timing, speed, and being inactive then coming back without a tune up and moving up two weight classes has to impact him to a greater degree than how these 5 years impacted hagler.

good points, but wmute both would be. Faster, so that is a wash. Leonard lost a lot of speed timing and reflexes, & I would argue that this impacted leonards style to a greater degree than hagler simply because Leonard entire style was based on reflexes, timing, speed, and being inactive then coming back without a tune up and moving up two weight classes has to impact him to a greater degree than how these 5 years impacted hagler.

I see what you are saying, but to give you an example of what I mean in this case... Look at the recent Cotto-Mosley fight. Mosley missed a ****load of punches bad, everyone screamed "Cotto is a great boxer, look at his D". But if you look at the fight it is painfully obvious that it was sadly Mosley losing his sharpness.

It takes two to miss, so to speak. You can have great D, but if the guy in front of you is a sharp puncher with good timing he is going to occasionally catch you (see Mayweather-Castillo, BOTH fights). That's what I see happening. It might still be that Leonard has what it takes to make it to the end and win a decision potshotting Hagler, but I would be very sure that the late rounds would be deep water for him.

I agree with wpink.
Leonard had the style to outbox Hagler.
He had the movement and reflexs to outmove and not get hit too often.
And he was tough enough to not get KO'd.

It still could be interesting if Hagler fights the right fight unlike in 87, and he is able to score with his main weapon, his right jab.
Still think its Ray by UD.

15 would favour Hagler more, but Ray was still capable of pulling it off.

Don't get me wrong, the entire fight would be deep water for Leonard. No one including me thinks this would be easy. If hagle had the ability to lead and cut off a ring and had the speedvof duran it would be a nightmare for ray, but what hagler did he did great, and what he tried to do on occasion and what duran and Leonard forced him to do by making him lead, simply changed hagler from the terror that fighters who went after him (hearns) found out.

Or is REay even more slick and elusive as many would suggest this was his finest year as a pro.

** Leonard had a slew of options back then and turned this fight down.

That should give you your answer, especially on top of the way Ray went to great subsequent lengths to selectively pick his opponents and conditions.

His finest year of a pro, he beats Larry?Bonds, Ayube Kalule, and scrapes out a win over Hearns by the skin of his teeth, which is really the fight that secures his legend. Somehow the year doesn't stand out to me compared to other great years of great fighters, but certainly the Hearns fight is an alltime classic.

Have to question the Bonds fight in light of the easy rematch he had against Duran. Could be he wasn't quite in the pink for the Duran rematch as we've been led to believe and needed some sorting out. I'd speculate that Kalule was also a sorting out for Hagler as well as a little bauble hunting. Ray looked pretty good against a tricky, tough customer, but I suspect the next week was experiencing the pains of the aftermath of the first Duran fight and decided to stay in his weight class. He was in much more pain after Hearns.

So, those are the only 3 time frames in 81 when the Hagler fight is feasable. Given the tightness of the Benitez and Hearns victories, and the way he was hurt by Duran in their first fight, I don't give him much chance against Hagler who was Duran on 'roids.

We know that he claimed to be healthy when he made a big production of yanking the media and Hagler's chain in his charity dinner fundraising event. He announces his retirement with great hoopla and theatre when everyone in attendence thought he was going to announce his fight with Hagler.

In short, in 81 if he thought he could, he would have fought Hagler. He didn't, and didn't in 82.

What ifs are nice for fantacists, but reality dictated the result.

Sorted.

** Given the tightness of the Benitez and Hearns victories, and the way he was hurt by Duran in their first fight, I don't give him much chance against Hagler who was Duran on 'roids.

.

I dont think 'Hagler was Duran on roids' at all.

Very very different styles.


The same is true of Benitez/Hearns compared to Hagler. Very different styles.

Obviously they were both better fighters back in 81 than when they actually did fight. I just think Hagler was more deteriorated when they actually came to fight than Ray was. I think the Hagler that was murdering guys in the early 80s would have been too much for Ray.

major fallacy in thinking. Hagler was never a fighter that came roaring out after you likeca Tyson. To change his style vs a legend like duran would be foolish. Hagler was great being hagler. You just disrespect a gr duran or leonardvand just rush in on them, it's not that easy. If it was many would have done it before.

Hagler was not generally a fighter that liked to lead. He was at his best when he was counter punching. The reason why the duran fight was likecit was, was because duran is a very good boxer, and very smart. Instead of being the aggressor & meeting the fate that yearns met, he made hagler lead a lot. Also duran has very good defense & head movement.

I do agree hAgler be duran & Leonard could have been more aggressive, but vs these two great fighters who are smart enought to generally follow their game plan, this would not neccessarily lead to better results. Well let me be corrected, maybe vs duran it wouldn't, but anyone who saw the hagler Leonard fight knows Leonard ran short on stamina starting round 7. Had hAgler pressured the 87 version of ray from round 1, I don't think ray could have lasted. However the 81 version could have.

Hagler was a much more aggressive fighter after the first Antuofermo fight though, he still fought some fights as the counterpuncher after that fight but he was becoming more aggressive with more regularity as well as evidenced in the Caveman Lee and Minter fights, he was very aggressive in those fights and a few other ones as well. I understand that you don't just rush into Duran because Duran was a very good counterpuncher and inside fighter but I think Hagler would have had more success had he been more aggressive in that fight.

Both of them had lost quite a lot by 1987, Hagler wasn't the same after the Mugabi fight, his timing was off, he couldn't get his shots off as quick as he used to and he was making mistakes that he wouldn't have made in 1981 in my opinion, Leonard obviously lost speed, stamina and a few other things. I just don't think Leonard would have been able to outbox Hagler for the duration of a 15 round fight back in 1981, I could be wrong though.

Wow, lots to correct factually on here.

First off to the most un intelligent boxingscene poster I have ever came across, the same guy that says Tyson beat better fighters than ali....London Rules, man you really need to learn your boxing.

Lets see the Hagler fight was not truly on the table until AFTER he beat Hearns. Check your facts. You talk about Leonard being hurt with Duran. He got hit with a great shot by the hands of stone in round 2 and for a split second his knees buckled, then WHAT? Where was he seriously hurt. He took a great shot, that happens in boxing, he had the chin, the legs, the boxing iq etc..to deal with it and thus fought the fight of his life from rounds 5 on. Get your facts right..If you want to debate facts..Leonard won on 2 of the 3 judges scorecards more rounds after round 4 than Duran did, and the 3rd the had almost all ties. Wow

As for Leonard record...From 1979-1981, you try to mislead the facts. The facts are he faced probably the greatest 2 year stint of opposition ever. Benitez, then Duran twice, the kalule, then Hearns. Lets see

Benitez 38-0-1
Duran 71-1
Duran 72-1
Kalule 36-0
Hearns 32-0

3 top all time fighters, Each of these legends went on to win titles after leonard beat them at heavier wight classes, one undefeated Jr middleweight champ (step up in weight) this undefeated Jr middleweight champion was also picked to beat Ray in the76 Olympics had his country not boycotted as he was the best Jr welter in world then, and he had never amateur or professional been knocked down..Hmmm Ray knocked him out.

Total combined record 249-2-1. 99 % winning record. Meaning his level of opposition which for the most part where considered the best ever no matter what decade ( 3 of them) at their peak, duran 28 Hearns 23, Benitez 21. Hmmmmmmm check your facts my friend.

Finally what you keep leaving out is again the hagler fight was not even being discussed until after Ray beat Hearns, and you say by the skin of his teeth. What a joke, he stopped Hearns. In every round where they had meaningful exchanges it was Tommy that got hurt and Tommy(another point in which you left out) was consdered as the hardest hitting Welter ever. Leonard handled his shots, didnt he? Leonard after Hearns had one fight, then was preparing for a pretty good Roger Stafford and had a detached retina which, in that day and age meant probably blindness if reinjured. I think you may need to research Aaron Pryor and Sugar Ray Seales, Greb all very good fighters with permanent partial to complete blindness from retinal damage. It was commonly assumed that after Roger STafford either leoanrd was going to fight Hearns again or move up and fight Hagler. The basis for the Kalule fight was to prep him how ot fight a bigger southpaw.

Now after a fighter fights the level of repeated compettion that leoanrd did from 1979-1981, would it be assumed that they would take a fight or two off. Do you want to see the fights that other greats took after fighting a great fighter. How about how many BUMS DURAN faced at lightweight after he faced Dejesus or Buchanan ( neither of these are the level that leonard faced, nor back to back to back to back fights like leoanrd faced). How about Hagler. Then finally Leonard came out of retirement after only 1 fight in 5 years with no tune up. He moved up and fought Hagler then, when it was obvious he lost a lot from inactivity.

London tell us what more can you expect, and what are these so called options, when keeping the same level of expectations for everyone else that has and will fight. Meaning leonard fought these fighters back to back, name another fighter who has accomplished this and then (since you target ray for not fighting hagler in 81) fought a fighter the level of Hagler including stepping up in weight...Name him London.


Silencer - good points...However the only fight after the Mugabi fight was Leonard, and I believe that when you have a fighter that uses movement and vs Hagler who has to step then punch, which allowed ray to be in and out, this forces hagler to not only look bad vs a mobile opponent which he never foght like this before, but since ray used mobility and forced Halger to lead, then that means hagler is going to look a lot slower as he has to lung and reach for a target that is not there, hence the wild misses and round house wings when vs other fighters these where shorter more accurate crisp counters... Leonard held when on the inside smothering these punches, and finaly you saw what happened when leoanard was winning, but lost his mindset in round 5 and was inside and allowed hagler to counter. So again it is styles that made a slower hagler ( I agree they both were slower in 87 than in 81) look even slower. Just like many great fighters look bad vs southpaws....fighting a fighter that uses angles and speed can make a hagler and duran look slow and bad.

Good points wpink, we'll just agree to disagree on this one.

I watched Hagler - Objelmas (u know the guy) and was suprised how fast and accurate Hagler was.

Im actually now thinking a fight between Hagler and Leonard would be amazing. Haglers pressure was incredible, eventhough Leonard was a great fast mover.

I think it was be close.

First off to the most un intelligent boxingscene poster I have ever came across, the same guy that says Tyson beat better fighters than ali London Rules, man you really need to learn your boxing.

** My dearest Mr. pink, I must say I feel so honored to be placed on the same level as the great Roberto Duran.

I never addressed you, yet, as with Roberto Duran, you only need see my name to come flapping into the flame of your own ineptitude.

You are welcome to provide a link to any quote attributed to me saying Tyson beat better fighters than Ali. You seem to lack a certain mental acuity to properly comprehend basic English, probably because of your tendency to overemote which shortcircuits proper reasoning. Me thinks, like dyslexics are prone, you reversed the order of what you read and came out with a new orginal meaning that only makes sense to you.

I never "target ray for not fighting hagler in 81" anymore than I question his competition from 79-80. These are phantoms figments of your mind my dear chap, stuff you make up and attribute to me to assist you win some kind of phantom argument you wish to make up.

I proposed Leonard's first 3 fights as the only viable time for Hagler to fight Leonard in 81, sticking the the thread originator's guidelines. Most assuredly Hagler was part of a smorgasbord of fighters of fighters proposed for Ray to fight. Ray was captain of his ship at the start of 81. No fighter had ever made as much money so early in their careers, had more network clout, better management and trainers, or more negotiation clout to that point.

Ray chose the other fighters that he fought, and passed on the dozen or so other offers, one of which was Hagler. No biggie until you get your schoolgirl emotions caught on a rollercoaster of nonsense.

Finally, as far as me needing to learn boxing, hey, more than willing to step into the ring and let you have a go at teaching me grasshoppa, so cheerio for now, and say hello to the Spinks clan for me.

Saw Michael at a title fight recently, and he looks pretty sharp these days. Big fan of his. :usa2:

London,,First off you really would not want to step in a ring, or the streets with me...so keep the internet tough talking to a minimum. As for the thread....I love proving people inaccurate or wrong.

" Leonard had a slew of options back then and turned this fight down.

That should give you your answer, especially on top of the way Ray went to great subsequent lengths to selectively pick his opponents and conditions".

That is what you said. I think most people would assume that your trying to degrade his list of opponents, which i factually destroyed your false statment. Thus you had to completley backtrack.

His finest year of a pro, he beats Larry?Bonds, Ayube Kalule, and scrapes out a win over Hearns by the skin of his teeth, which is really the fight that secures his legend. Somehow the year doesn't stand out to me compared to other great years of great fighters, but certainly the Hearns fight is an alltime classic

Another slam about him which any reasonable person...any intellignent person gets your point, which your trying to back track now. His Finest year...Meaning 1981 was the best he had to offer,,,,You say this with out pointing out that from 1979-1981 he fought the best list of opponents ever in history..3 top all time fighters..and the undefeated Jr middleweight champion all in their primes. Combined record 249-2-1, 99% record. No you try to minimize his success's by saying he only barely won vs Hearns in 1981. Hmmmm didnt he damm near stop hearns in rounds 6 & 7, 13 and then STOP him in the 14th round. Barely by the skin of his teeth. Hmmm very misleading.. Sounding like McCain.

Did you mention that Hagler Leonard fight was clealry the fight after he beat Hearns, not before. What you left out when talking about Bonds and kalule, and is that leonard was the WBC champ, and Hearns was the WBA undefeated ko artist champion 32-0 with 30 kos...who had been clamoring for a fight for over a year. No you try to point out that Leonard avoided Hagler to Unify the Welterweight title. Wow. Unify the Welterweight Title. Hmmm didnt Hagler unify the Middleweight title. Did Hagler ever move up to accept the challenge vs Saad Muhammad. Hmmmm.

Did you mention that Leonard after beating hearns, had only one fight then was out due to Retinal Injury that was considered career ending in 1981, and for those that doubt how serious this is, look at Aaron Pryor, Sugar Ray Seales, and Greb and others. No, you try to paint a completley inaccurate picture.

Did you point out that he did Fight Hagler in 87. Maybe Hagler was 5-6 years older at the age of 32, but hmmm didnt Leoanrd age to. Wasnt Leonard inactive. Did you point out leonard moved up to face him with out any tune up. Hmmm No. Again no factiual points.

As for you issues about Ali vs tyson...Hmmm maybe you need to reread the thread The Myth of Mike Tyson on here. Also, others. You clearly slammed Ali's list of compeition on several debates and tried to point out Tyson challengers where better. Do you have amnesia, we had a long debate about this....and I since realized exactly what I am dealing with.

LondonRulesRing....please learn boxing. Anyone who reads your post recognizes you slammed Leonards resume and after I pointed out how stupid that was, now your backtracking.....Learn Boxing.

Ohh I also challenged you my friend to name another Figher who has beat better fighters in their entire career, and also fought over a 2 year period better fgihters and beat them.

Till then, I dont think you have room to slam Leoanrd in 81 or ever for that point.

Another slam about him which any reasonable person...any intellignent person gets your point, which your trying to back track now. His Finest year...Meaning 1981 was the best he had to offer,,,,You say this with out pointing out that from 1979-1981 he fought the best list of opponents ever in history..3 top all time fighters..and the undefeated Jr middleweight champion all in their primes.

** My sweetie, perhaps it would be helpful if you could get assistance from someone to read the original thread that I responded to.

He was the one proposing 81 as Ray's finest year, not me. I broke it down in segments and mentioned that other than the Hearns and Kalule, it was pretty non eventful. Many greats have had better years, not that it was a bad year for Ray except for the eye damage Hearns started that led to him becoming a part time legacy hunting fighter.

Look, you must have the attention span of a gnat not to be able to follow a fairly straight forward, simple thread. You keep going off on tangents like previous years, McCain, and maybe BigFoot and Timbuktu in your next post.

It's a fact that Leonard chose not to fight Hagler in 81, and went to great lengths to yank him and the media around in 82 while still not fighting him. Read into it what you want, but you need to find some schoolgirl peers that understand your emotions, not me.

I'm only here infrequently to talk about boxing and check out any video leads that might interest me.

** My sweetie, perhaps it would be helpful if you could get assistance from someone to read the original thread that I responded to.

He was the one proposing 81 as Ray's finest year, not me. I broke it down in segments and mentioned that other than the Hearns and Kalule, it was pretty non eventful. Many greats have had better years, not that it was a bad year for Ray except for the eye damage Hearns started that led to him becoming a part time legacy hunting fighter.

Look, you must have the attention span of a gnat not to be able to follow a fairly straight forward, simple thread. You keep going off on tangents like previous years, McCain, and maybe BigFoot and Timbuktu in your next post.

It's a fact that Leonard chose not to fight Hagler in 81, and went to great lengths to yank him and the media around in 82 while still not fighting him. Read into it what you want, but you need to find some schoolgirl peers that understand your emotions, not me.

I'm only here infrequently to talk about boxing and check out any video leads that might interest me.


Its clear your upset cuz i clearly pointed out how false your original post was. Yes everyone on here knows that the question was leoanrd vs hagler in 81. However, you weakly and thoughtlessly point out baseless and thoughtless point, Loenard chose not to fight Hagler in 81. Hmmm Again you didnt read my post, or use logic before stating this.

I clealry pointed out to you, that Ray from 1979-81 fought the toughest stretch in History. Here is your whining.."He fought hearns, Kalule and Bonds instead of hagler". How weak. Again you ignore intelligence. So Leonard was supposed to fight Hagler instead of unifying the welterweight Title. Hmmmm Is that not what every fighter should do to claim they where the best at their weight class. You point out Bonds and Kalule...Weren't these fights prior to Hearns. Wasnt the Hearns fight in sept of 81. Wow my man you have high expectations...Leoanrd not only fought duran (twice) benitez and Heanrs in a two year period and kalule, but he should have also fought Hagler a middleweight, not could have... but should have. Wow.

Lets see. When was the last time a fighter was considered ducking a fighter two weight classes above him. Hmmm I guess Hopkins was ducking Mayweather since they never fought. Hmmm. Also did Hagler ever move up and fight anyone. Was not he called out by Saad Muhammed. Hmmm

I dont recall anyone else saying 81 was leonard finest year, besides your post, I may be wrong, but I recall a simply fantasty match up, then you get on here as usual with your completely faulty posting, and said in Leonards best year..(do I need to quote you) etc..etc..etc.. Now your backing off of this. I would too if i learned the facts as you did earlier.

Also, funny you dont want to continue to debate how you supposedly never said Tyson had a tougher resume than Ali, since I should you the thread (1 of them) that you jumped on with unintelligent rambling about how tyson was beating this great foe and that great foe...Hmmm what great foe did Tyson ever beat. He was great, but had never faced the Foremans, Fraziers, Listons..etc..

One of the top 3 middleweights of all time in his prime against a welter who'd been manhandled by a lightweight (admittedly also among the best of all time)? This is a tough one. I'm going to pick the natural middleweight. In 1981, if Leonard comes to fight, Hagler breaks him down and knocks him out. If he runs, Hagler still gets a UD. As has been pointed out above, this fight could have been made, but the wily Leonard only became interested in fighting Hagler after he had lost the fire inside.

One of the top 3 middleweights of all time in his prime against a welter who'd been manhandled by a lightweight (admittedly also among the best of all time)? This is a tough one. I'm going to pick the natural middleweight. In 1981, if Leonard comes to fight, Hagler breaks him down and knocks him out. If he runs, Hagler still gets a UD. As has been pointed out above, this fight could have been made, but the wily Leonard only became interested in fighting Hagler after he had lost the fire inside.

Yes this fight could have occured. Leonard could have risked his eye sight based on the best information and treatments of that day and fight Hagler.

Also when was leoanrd mandhandled by Duran. The fight i saw was decided by 1 round difference. Funny how people get on here with FALSE statments. I think you may get manhandled and fighting with the wrong strategy, intentiionally with his back on the ropes, mixed up......

for me hagler hit his peak in 85,the night hearns got kod..i have a strong view that on "that night" no fighter ever could have beat him. in 81 both hagler & srl were not at thier peaks so at 160lb in 1981 hagler would get my nod.. srl was very wise to fight marvin when he did,marvins last fight before the superfight was evedent of how much hagler had lost his speed etc.