View Full Version : Hagler's loss to Leonard


masta
10-14-2009, 08:55 PM
Do you think Marvin Hagler's loss to Sugar Ray Leonard was due to him being past his prime?

BEEHOP
10-15-2009, 01:20 AM
Leonard was just better that night.

MANGLER
10-15-2009, 01:25 AM
No. Hagler fought a god fight and to this day many still think he won. No excuses.

JAB5239
10-15-2009, 01:28 AM
Leonard was just better that night.

Agreed. If Hagler hadn't given Leonard so many concessions beforehand he could have won that fight. But he did and Ray beat him fair and square in a close fight.

JAB5239
10-15-2009, 01:30 AM
No. Hagler fought a god fight and to this day many still think he won. No excuses.

I had him winning it when it happened. But after watching it a few more time I had to give it to Ray. No excuses.

blacklodge
10-15-2009, 02:18 AM
Although I don't doubt Hagler left a little behind in the Mugabi fight, I think it was his ego that lost him the fight (just as DLH's ego lost him the Trinidad fight, and a thousand other examples). Also, I think it was SRL's ego that won him the fight. Leonard knew he could fight the fight he did (Camacho-Boza Edwards was a template he said at the time) and win a decision. Hagler spotted him 4 rounds (not intentionally, I don't think), fought orthodox, and never went for the kill when SRL tired, which is what made Hagler the dominant champion he was in the first place. He just didn't do stuff like that. I think he acquired a fevered ego from his post-Hearns acclaim, and convinced himself that SRL had to actively "take" his title like Hearns tried to do. In that sense, Hagler "deserved" to lose just as much as SRL didn't "deserve" to win. For me, this fight is just a statistic and doesn't deserve the status it often recieves as a great fight.

sonnyboyx2
10-15-2009, 03:38 AM
Hagler was under the impression that all he had to do was turn-up on the night and KO Ray Leonard, he had no respect for Leonard and vastly underestimated him, Hagler had no game plan simply because he was so convinced in his head that he would `easily` KO Leonard who had been out of the ring for over 3yrs.. Hagler stupidly gave away the first 4rds then decided "Now i will knock him out" But Leonard had warmed to the task, he had never ever had any fear of Hagler and was enjoying himself in there.. Leonard was taller, faster, more skilled than Hagler and he won quite easily in the end... Hagler was "Shocked" and tried to blame everyone, the judges, the referee, Vegas, then he blamed Leonard for what had been his own mistakes, Hagler could not handle it, so left the USA and his wife and kids, he was hurt by his own ego... Ray Leonard won and he won easily, he won because he was a better fighter.. the arguments that still go on today about who won do Marvin Hagler justice yet Leonard an injustice... i scored the fight 9-3 Leonard

Silencers
10-15-2009, 09:16 AM
Partly but it was also because of what happened before the fight where he pretty much let Leonard have what he wanted to have in the fight in return for a bigger purse and partly because of bad tactics, I mean why would he try to outbox Leonard from the orthodox stance in the first 3 rounds? And also Leonard was Leonard.

Dynamite Kid
10-15-2009, 10:31 AM
Partly but it was also because of what happened before the fight where he pretty much let Leonard have what he wanted to have in the fight in return for a bigger purse and partly because of bad tactics, I mean why would he try to outbox Leonard from the orthodox stance in the first 3 rounds? And also Leonard was Leonard.

I guess its a case of using a guys greatest asset against him or in this case his biggest weakness.

I actually think Duran's aggression, determination and no nonsense balls to the wall attitude is what made him so formidable, he just wanted to beat the **** out of you so bad, that is where i think you could use his best asset against him because he could be frustrated when he could not put some hurt on you. I think Leonard used his greatest asset against him to win the second fight.

By the same token Hagler's insecurity is what drove him on to succeed and become the formidable fighter he was, but against Leonard that insecurity was also his undoing. He let those insecurity's get the best of him and tried to Box with Leonard to prove a point.

SnoopySmurf
10-15-2009, 10:44 AM
I dunno, Leonard lost that fight, IMO.

Hagler lost the first three rounds (dunno why he fought southpaw!) to Ray easily. But as soon as Hagler got in closer and started banging Leonard, Leonard took a page out of Ali's book and would run for most of each round but fight in the last 30 seconds. Judges were won over by this tactic.

Silencers
10-15-2009, 10:46 AM
I guess its a case of using a guys greatest asset against him or in this case his biggest weakness.

I actually think Duran's aggression, determination and no nonsense balls to the wall attitude is what made him so formidable, he just wanted to beat the **** out of you so bad, that is where i think you could use his best asset against him because he could be frustrated when he could not put some hurt on you. I think Leonard used his greatest asset against him to win the second fight.

By the same token Hagler's insecurity is what drove him on to succeed and become the formidable fighter he was, but against Leonard that insecurity was also his undoing. He let those insecurity's get the best of him and tried to Box with Leonard to prove a point.

Maybe, if that was the case, it was just plain stupid.

D-MiZe
10-15-2009, 10:47 AM
Hagler won.

:fu2:

mrboxer
10-15-2009, 10:53 AM
hagler won that fight he got robbed,hagler won every round but two,ive watched that fight many times and i still do not know how the judges gave that fight to leonard,it is the most contoversial decision ever awarded:boxing:

Dynamite Kid
10-15-2009, 11:07 AM
hagler won that fight he got robbed,hagler won every round but two,ive watched that fight many times and i still do not know how the judges gave that fight to leonard,it is the most contoversial decision ever awarded:boxing:

How can it be when Hagler clearly gave away 4 rounds, it was only a 12 round fight so 6 rounds and you get a draw, Leonard won 4 rounds quite clearly in most peoples eyes, those 4 rounds came inside the 6th round. If you start giving out drawn rounds then you are trying to eradicate possible rounds Leonard could! of won because you want Hagler to win, which is obviously biased, so if you dont give out even rounds then you saying that Hagler swept the board after those 4 rounds that Leonard won, which is highly unlikely, so lets say Hagler did not win all the remaining rounds and Leonard won one, that is a 5 rounds to Leonard in what you are claiming to be a robbery!!! & the most controversial decision ever awarded:boxing.

None of that sounds logical to me.

SnoopySmurf
10-15-2009, 11:18 AM
I liked Hagler then too. As soon as he lost the first three rounds, I knew Leonard would run and Hagler would have to knock him out to win the fight. I think I was about 18 years old then but I was already jaded by the judging. Loooooong time ago. :)

T3dBundy
10-15-2009, 11:34 AM
i dont know how ppl can say hagler won.
what did they expect from leonard, that he trys to knock out hagler?
hagler is the greatest middleweight ever but that night leonard was greater.

Bushidō
10-15-2009, 12:17 PM
Do you think Marvin Hagler's loss to Sugar Ray Leonard was due to him being past his prime?

No I think if they fought again he would have beat him clearly. He outsmarted himself and for some reason went to conventional stance. HE gave up the first 3 rounds or so.

Bushidō
10-15-2009, 12:18 PM
Hagler also made the mistake of giving Leonard everything in negotiations. Ring size, 12 rounds etc

Princemanspopa
10-15-2009, 03:10 PM
Twelve rounders were already coming into play,especially at Las Vegas at this point,Hagler's previous two title defenses against John Mugabi and Thomas Hearns were both scheduled for twelve rounds.


After watching Hagler in his prime struggle against Mexican journeyman Marcos Geraldo,I tend to think Ray Leonard in his prime would have beaten Hagler in his prime.Geraldo who was usually a pressure fighter,fought as a counter puncher against Hagler and allowed Hagler to press the fight and Hagler was confused by Geraldo's quick counter flurries,at no point in this fight did Hagler manage to hurt the glass jawed Geraldo either.


I dunno, Leonard lost that fight, IMO.

Hagler lost the first three rounds (dunno why he fought southpaw!) to Ray easily. But as soon as Hagler got in closer and started banging Leonard, Leonard took a page out of Ali's book and would run for most of each round but fight in the last 30 seconds. Judges were won over by this tactic.

Yes why did Marvin Hagler(a natural southpaw) fight as a southpaw,we may never know,but it's pretty obvious that you've never actually seen this fight and would rather parrot what others say in regards to this fight.


Hagler in his prime,did a great deal of running also,against limited puncher Cyclone hart and old and shot bennie briscoe,but I doubt you've actually seen much of that Hagler.

TheGreatA
10-15-2009, 03:23 PM
Don't forget that Leonard too struggled with Geraldo.

Princemanspopa
10-15-2009, 04:35 PM
He did but Geraldo was a natural middleweight and Leonard weighed in fully clothed as a junior middleweight.Geraldo used his obvious size advantage and pushed the fight and never stopped coming forward against Leonard even rocking him on atleast one occasion,but Leonard despite being two weight classes below Geraldo had him hurt quite a few times,definitaly more so than Hagler.


I think it would be quite fair to say that Geraldo wouldn't have gotten very far with Leonard by trying to box him.

TheGreatA
10-15-2009, 05:58 PM
He did but Geraldo was a natural middleweight and Leonard weighed in fully clothed as a junior middleweight.Geraldo used his obvious size advantage and pushed the fight and never stopped coming forward against Leonard even rocking him on atleast one occasion,but Leonard despite being two weight classes below Geraldo had him hurt quite a few times,definitaly more so than Hagler.


I think it would be quite fair to say that Geraldo wouldn't have gotten very far with Leonard by trying to box him.

Can you imagine that being a prime Marvin Hagler instead of Marcus Geraldo though. You could say the same about Leonard being in there when Hagler fought Geraldo so it goes both ways.

Either way it would have been an interesting fight which unfortunately didn't happen until a little too late.

bojangles1987
10-15-2009, 06:47 PM
Leonard wasn't exactly young and fresh himself. Though I think Hagler won, he put himself in position to lose that fight by giving away so many early rounds. He was the better fighter, but he let Leonard psyche him out.

blacklodge
10-15-2009, 07:17 PM
Not to be fickle, but I don't consider Hagler to be in his prime when he fought Geraldo. He hadn't even beat Minter yet.

KILLA RIGHT
10-15-2009, 08:25 PM
I dunno, Leonard lost that fight, IMO.

Hagler lost the first three rounds (dunno why he fought southpaw!) to Ray easily. But as soon as Hagler got in closer and started banging Leonard, Leonard took a page out of Ali's book and would run for most of each round but fight in the last 30 seconds. Judges were won over by this tactic.

yup hagler won that fight

masta
10-15-2009, 08:50 PM
Well, since I created the thread, I might as well give my opinion on the topic.

I think Hagler gave the first three rounds away because he wanted to show Leonard that he could beat him at his own game.

Overall, I scored the fight for Leonard. But if Hagler fought southpaw in the first three rounds then my score could have been different.

Princemanspopa
10-15-2009, 09:15 PM
Not to be fickle, but I don't consider Hagler to be in his prime when he fought Geraldo. He hadn't even beat Minter yet.

Sure that makes sense,if you haven't actually watched Hagler before he fought Alan Minter.Hagler's championship reign began when he beat Minter,but that sure as hell isn't when his prime began.


He was the better fighter

No,he wasn't.



yup hagler won that fight

You've never even seen that fight.

BOLLOCKS
10-15-2009, 09:27 PM
Hagler was robbed.

Ziggy Stardust
10-15-2009, 09:34 PM
Hagler was robbed.

And here I thought you got the chair a few years ago :ugh:

Poet

blacklodge
10-16-2009, 06:29 AM
Sure that makes sense,if you haven't actually watched Hagler before he fought Alan Minter.Hagler's championship reign began when he beat Minter,but that sure as hell isn't when his prime began.

I don't consider a fighter's prime to be a universal combination of age and/or number of fights. I've seen his fights, thanks for the assumption by the way, and I put his prime, which I define as best performances, starting in about '82. Caveman Lee to Hearns, particularly Hamsho II. I would even go as far as to say that the Hagler of '79-'80 may have lost the Duran fight, as he hadn't quite reached the level of ring intell and experience necessary to make the adjustments he did in that fight and win the late rounds.

BennyST
10-16-2009, 09:16 AM
Everything has already been said about this fight that possibly could be said. Hagler was past his best, but so was Leonard so it evens out there and Leonard was also coming off an incredibly long lay-off.

The fact is though that Leonard scraped it out by the skin of his teeth through his own will and determination and also, through Hagler's own stupidity and arrogance. As is well known, he thought he could beat Leonard at his own game and would show him up by out-boxing him. It completely misfired because he was much slower than he had been and his reflexes, counter punching etc were just not what they had been but he refused to allow that concession and gave Leonard the first few rounds without any thought about the consequences.

Really, really stupid fight by him. It was one of those fights that Hagler lost, but Leonard also won. It wasn't just Hagler losing it or just Leonard winning it. Both guys did what they did to make that fight turn out the way it did. I think Hagler would have definitely won a rematch, so while he was certainly past his best that doesn't actually account for his losing the fight. It was simply his ego that lost him the fight. That is all it was.

Just out of curiosity, to the guy that said he had the score 9-3 and Leonard won it easily.....Ummm, how? You only gave Hagler three rounds? Try watching it without sound and instead of focusing solely on Leonard have a look at what Hagler does this time. You might come out with a different opinion because there is no way that fight was anything like 9-3 for Leonard.

SnoopySmurf
10-16-2009, 10:17 AM
Yes why did Marvin Hagler(a natural southpaw) fight as a southpaw,we may never know,but it's pretty obvious that you've never actually seen this fight and would rather parrot what others say in regards to this fight.


Hagler in his prime,did a great deal of running also,against limited puncher Cyclone hart and old and shot bennie briscoe,but I doubt you've actually seen much of that Hagler.

I saw the fight live on TV in 1987. I thought for sure he fought south paw (I know he's south paw) and switched to orthodox. So my memory from 22 years ago isn't as accurate. But I still know he switched a lot in the fight. Obviously me mentioning Leonard running a lot in this fight, and you countering that Hagler did run in OTHER fights hurt your vagina a bit. Sorry. But we're talking about THIS fight.

Who's doing the running? Leonard. Who was stalking? Hagler.

There was a lot of people who thought Hagler won this fight back then too. People with more credentials than us. So why are you surprised that people here feel the same way?

Just coz my opinion differs from yours, you assume I didn't see the fight. Idiot.

mrboxer
10-16-2009, 10:27 AM
How can it be when Hagler clearly gave away 4 rounds, it was only a 12 round fight so 6 rounds and you get a draw, Leonard won 4 rounds quite clearly in most peoples eyes, those 4 rounds came inside the 6th round. If you start giving out drawn rounds then you are trying to eradicate possible rounds Leonard could! of won because you want Hagler to win, which is obviously biased, so if you dont give out even rounds then you saying that Hagler swept the board after those 4 rounds that Leonard won, which is highly unlikely, so lets say Hagler did not win all the remaining rounds and Leonard won one, that is a 5 rounds to Leonard in what you are claiming to be a robbery!!! & the most controversial decision ever awarded:boxing.

None of that sounds logical to me.i agree everything you wrote does not sound logical:boxing:

VibesMan
10-16-2009, 03:16 PM
Big Hagler fan (and Leonard for that matter).

No matter how many times I watch it SRL wins, and fairly clearly for me.

One of those fights where I just don't understand the controversy.

mickey malone
10-16-2009, 03:38 PM
Big Hagler fan (and Leonard for that matter).

No matter how many times I watch it SRL wins, and fairly clearly for me.

One of those fights where I just don't understand the controversy.
You and me both!

Princemanspopa
10-16-2009, 04:27 PM
I don't consider a fighter's prime to be a universal combination of age and/or number of fights. I've seen his fights, thanks for the assumption by the way, and I put his prime, which I define as best performances, starting in about '82. Caveman Lee to Hearns, particularly Hamsho II. I would even go as far as to say that the Hagler of '79-'80 may have lost the Duran fight, as he hadn't quite reached the level of ring intell and experience necessary to make the adjustments he did in that fight and win the late rounds.

Well considering you put Hagler's prime from 1982-1985,based off of his greatest performances,then how do you explain his performance against Hamsho the first time around? That was quite possibly the greatest Hagler as an all round fighter has ever looked,or how about his performance against Vito Antuofermo the first time around? Hagler never lacked anything in that fight and contrary to popular belief,didn't slow during in the latter rounds either.

Anyone who saw Hagler's fight with Duran would be hard pressed to have given Duran more than a round during the first ten,Duran did very little throughout the bout and was almost granted the greatest gift decision any fighter could have picked up.


I saw the fight live on TV in 1987. I thought for sure he fought south paw (I know he's south paw) and switched to orthodox. So my memory from 22 years ago isn't as accurate. But I still know he switched a lot in the fight. Obviously me mentioning Leonard running a lot in this fight, and you countering that Hagler did run in OTHER fights hurt your vagina a bit. Sorry. But we're talking about THIS fight.

Who's doing the running? Leonard. Who was stalking? Hagler.

There was a lot of people who thought Hagler won this fight back then too. People with more credentials than us. So why are you surprised that people here feel the same way?

Just coz my opinion differs from yours, you assume I didn't see the fight. Idiot.

He started off fighting orthadox and eventually switched to his more natural stance as fighting orthadox against Leonard clearly wasn't working.

Hagler would often switch stances throughout his career,sometimes fighting orthadox worked effectively for him as it did against Duran.

Lateral movement is movement,Hagler used it when he fought as a boxer(which he was primarily known for being before his "destruct and destroy phase".Claiming Leonard "ran" is a double standard used by his critics in an attempt to discredit him,as I already stated,Hagler also "ran" from the likes of Cyclone Hart and Bennie Briscoe in an attempt to keep a distance.


You watched the fight live 22 years ago? Congratulation,I watched it two weeks ago on youtube,so perhaps my memory of that fight is alot more clear than yours.

blacklodge
10-16-2009, 09:07 PM
Well considering you put Hagler's prime from 1982-1985,based off of his greatest performances,then how do you explain his performance against Hamsho the first time around? That was quite possibly the greatest Hagler as an all round fighter has ever looked,or how about his performance against Vito Antuofermo the first time around? Hagler never lacked anything in that fight and contrary to popular belief,didn't slow during in the latter rounds either.

Anyone who saw Hagler's fight with Duran would be hard pressed to have given Duran more than a round during the first ten,Duran did very little throughout the bout and was almost granted the greatest gift decision any fighter could have p

He looked great against Hamsho both times. Antuofermo I as well, which by the way was one of the worst decisions I've seen. I didn't see the fight until
'90-'91, and I foolishly believed before that it was a close fight. Calling it 13-2 in rounds would be generous.
Regarding the whole prime thing, I wasn't saying it's a night and day scenario. Hagler, to me, reached a point of confidence and experience in big fights and most importantly knowing what he had to do to win after he won the title and had a couple of defenses. He thought "they" were out to get him, and I think it motivated him to another level. I think Hagler lost sight of that after the acclaim he received after the Hearns fight, and it lost him the fight against Leonard. I don't believe his skills had diminished that much by '87, and I think to say that is a grasp by his fans to account for, or cover up the fact that he blew the fight by thinking Leonard couldn't win with flurries and bolos and all his cutesy, flashy b.s. He could, and he did. He needed to take the fight to Leonard at the beginning, like Duran did, like Hearns did, and he didn't.
I might have to disagree with you on the Hagler-Duran scoring. I don't think it was as controversial as many did at the time (although had the fight been 12 rounds, Duran would have won on the official cards, if I recall), but I think Duran took some of those early to middle rounds while Hagler was figuring him out. Plus, Hagler seemed really weird after that fight. It's been awhile, and I was young and just hitting my stride as a boxing fan, but HBO did a whole special on the aftermath and the controversey and I noticed Hagler seemed a little shakey and fragile in interviews. Word is that Leonard watched that fight in preparation for his fight with Hagler, as well as the Camacho-Boza Edwards fight. Add the typical Leonard "showmanship" and there's the fight.