View Full Version : Hagler vs. Leonard!!


TBear
12-23-2009, 02:42 AM
So who do you think really won?

kevintaylor
12-23-2009, 02:46 AM
Hagler.I think he clearly out boxed leonard.Plus looks like leonard ran alot.

Thread Stealer
12-23-2009, 03:00 AM
Leonard: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11
Hagler: 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12.
Final: 114-114

MANGLER
12-23-2009, 03:02 AM
I always had it a draw.

cooper5
12-23-2009, 03:43 AM
I seen it live closed circuit in a theater and at the time the decision looked just, but watching the replay later it it didn't.

donkim
12-23-2009, 04:05 AM
Leonard beat Hagler and it's rather embarrassing to Hagler's legacy that we are even debating the result of a fight that was never even supposed to go the distance in the first place.

There is absolutely no argument for Hagler winning this fight convincingly,because he didn't.


Deep down,Hagler knows he lost that fight.


Hagler.I think he clearly out boxed leonard.Plus looks like leonard ran alot.


LMAO.


If you want to see some running,you should try watching some of Hagler's fights before he even won the title,although I guess it would be fair to assume that the only Hagler fight you have watched would be the Hearns fight....correct?

Argentine
12-23-2009, 04:10 AM
Leonard beat Hagler and it's rather embarrassing to Hagler's legacy that we are even debating the result of a fight that was never even supposed to go the distance in the first place.

There is absolutely no argument for Hagler winning this fight convincingly,because he didn't.


Deep down,Hagler knows he lost that fight.





LMAO.


If you want to see some running,you should try watching some of Hagler's fights before he even won the title,although I guess it would be fair to assume that the only Hagler fight you have watched would be the Hearns fight....correct?
Totally Agree,.............!

sonnyboyx2
12-23-2009, 04:26 AM
Leonard beat Hagler and it's rather embarrassing to Hagler's legacy that we are even debating the result of a fight that was never even supposed to go the distance in the first place.

There is absolutely no argument for Hagler winning this fight convincingly,because he didn't.


Deep down,Hagler knows he lost that fight.





LMAO.


If you want to see some running,you should try watching some of Hagler's fights before he even won the title,although I guess it would be fair to assume that the only Hagler fight you have watched would be the Hearns fight....correct?

Totally Agree.. Leonard won 9-3rds.. Hagler was very fortunate that Hearns broke his famous right-hand in the opening round or Hagler was getting TKOd in 3rds.. Marvin Hagler is one of the most over-rated fighters of all times, Hagler had the oppotunity to fight 5`6ins Dwight Braxton but wanted no part of "The Camden Buzzsaw".. he chose Ray Leonard who was coming back after 3yrs out and Leonard whupped his ass

roxy
12-23-2009, 06:16 AM
I thought Leonard won the first half and Hagler won the second! If they made it a draw we might have seen a rematch.

GJC
12-23-2009, 06:36 AM
Nearest thing to a draw I ever saw. Gun to my head I'd go with Hagler as I think you'd need to do more than Leonard did to take a mans title

sonnyboyx2
12-23-2009, 07:13 AM
Nearest thing to a draw I ever saw. Gun to my head I'd go with Hagler as I think you'd need to do more than Leonard did to take a mans title

For that fight to be a draw it would have to be scored 6rds each yet after 6rds it was clear that it was 5rds Leonard 1rd even, to claim otherwise is simply deluding oneself... i had this fight 9-3 Leonard and i bet 50 on a Hagler victory, Hagler thought all he had to do was turn-up and knock out Ray Leonard... Leonard knew that the fight would go the distance so he set out from the opening bell to put rounds in the bag, after 6rds it dawned on Hagler that he was not going to KO Leonard but it was to late to win the fight on the scorecards... Hagler was `bitter`and pissed off from the 7th round onwards because he knew he had `blown it`... his bravado in the ring awaiting the decision told you all you needed to know about who Hagler thought had won, he knew Leonard had `wupped his ass` so Hagler tried to blame the judges, when that did not work he tried to blame his trainers and when that did not work he "Blamed his Wife"... i can recall a interview with Leonard only weeks before the fight and he said,"Hagler does not scare me, i am bigger than Hagler, taller than Hagler, more skilled than Hagler and a far better boxer than Hagler, this is gonna be an easy fight"

mrboxer
12-23-2009, 11:02 AM
hagler should of won,i saw the fight again last night with a couple of friends,we ordered 2 large pizzas with pepperoni,double cheese,olives[black]and anchovies,we washed the beer down with a couple of beers[bud]and the fight though it was filled with action it cleary shows that hagler won every round but the first and fifth,i had it ten rounds to two for hagler,:boxing:

andrewcuff
12-23-2009, 01:13 PM
Totally Agree.. Leonard won 9-3rds.. Hagler was very fortunate that Hearns broke his famous right-hand in the opening round or Hagler was getting TKOd in 3rds.. Marvin Hagler is one of the most over-rated fighters of all times, Hagler had the oppotunity to fight 5`6ins Dwight Braxton but wanted no part of "The Camden Buzzsaw".. he chose Ray Leonard who was coming back after 3yrs out and Leonard whupped his ass

1. Hagler had one of, if not the best chin of all time. Hearns would not have knocked him out as the first round showed.

2. Hagler overrated? Please explain how.

3. Hagler had been trying to fight Leonard since the early 1980s.

4. The fight was not a "whupping", it was close.

andrewcuff
12-23-2009, 01:15 PM
Hagler.I think he clearly out boxed leonard.Plus looks like leonard ran alot.

Uuuhh...no. Hagler threw away the early rounds and never adjusted to Leonards 30 second flurries at the end of each round.

Hagler was beaten before he entered the ring. He'd waited years for a fight and gave up several advantages beforehand i.e. gloves, ring size etc.

Another factor to consider is the age of Hagler at the time. Ray Leonard even admits he saw Hagler was in decline during the Mugabi fight.

sonnyboyx2
12-23-2009, 01:29 PM
1. Hagler had one of, if not the best chin of all time. Hearns would not have knocked him out as the first round showed.

2. Hagler overrated? Please explain how.

3. Hagler had been trying to fight Leonard since the early 1980s.

4. The fight was not a "whupping", it was close.

Hagler beat lightweight Roberto Duran by 1pt.. he lost to welterweight champion Ray Leonard, He was very fortunate that Hearns broke his famous right-hand in the opening round, "Hagler refused to face Hearns in a rematch"... Haglers victories over Antuofermo, Obelmihejas (twice) Sibson, Lee, Scypion, Hamsho (twice) and Mugabi was all against Class B fighters.. Haglers best win was over rough, tough Argentinian Juan Roldan who Hagler deliberately thumbed in the opening round... Marvin Hagler had several chances to prove his greatness yet refused each time (Dwight Braxton, Hearns `rematch`) All he wanted was to beat Ray Leonard coz he thought it was a `cake-walk` for himself, but Leonard knew that Hagler was an easy fight so came back after 3yrs out and whupped his ass.

GJC
12-23-2009, 05:02 PM
.. i had this fight 9-3 Leonard

Be 9-3 f you just watched the highlight reel of the Leonard last 30 second flurries and score points for him sticking his chin out. You don't score point for flurries that hit gloves or doing the whirley arm bit. I wouldn't ridicule anyone who scored it to Leonard as it was close but 9-3, c'mon!

GJC
12-23-2009, 05:11 PM
Hagler beat lightweight Roberto Duran by 1pt..

I'm a huge Duran fan but as well as Duran did Hagler won handily

he lost to welterweight champion Ray Leonard,

He fought an incredibly dumb fight and still squeeked it in my view

He was very fortunate that Hearns broke his famous right-hand in the opening round,

No one ever knocked Hagler down so to predict a Hearns KO is a stretch.

"Hagler refused to face Hearns in a rematch"...

Timeline again, he was limiting himself to one fight a year so had mandatory against Mugabi and the big $ fight against Leonard end of career.

Haglers victories over Antuofermo, Obelmihejas (twice) Sibson, Lee, Scypion, Hamsho (twice) and Mugabi was all against Class B fighters.. Haglers best win was over rough, tough Argentinian Juan Roldan who Hagler deliberately thumbed in the opening round...

We adding Hagler to your Lennox Lewis list is seems?

Marvin Hagler had several chances to prove his greatness yet refused each time (Dwight Braxton, Hearns `rematch`)

Didn't know he was ever due to fight Braxton, when? You can source this?

All he wanted was to beat Ray Leonard coz he thought it was a `cake-walk` for himself, but Leonard knew that Hagler was an easy fight so came back after 3yrs out and whupped his ass.
Agree I think he did underestimate Leonard, but Leonard whupped him?? People are still arguing about this bout 20 years later. Would hardly be the case in a whupping would it?

boxerca
12-23-2009, 05:36 PM
Everytime I watched it, I had Leonard winning.

cooper5
12-23-2009, 05:59 PM
He'd waited years for a fight and gave up several advantages beforehand i.e. gloves, ring size etc.
.

There were a couple things agreed on, Leonard wanted one and Hagler wanted the other. One was ring size and the other was the 12 round distance(15 was still used by one organization). They each got to pick one of these things.

And I can understand arguements for either of these guys winning. But With Hagler being a dominant champion I understand his anger towards the judges after the fight.
Still for Leonard to comeback after a real long layoff and beat one of the best in the world, shows what kind of a special fighter he was.

DeepSleep
12-23-2009, 06:13 PM
Totally Agree.. Leonard won 9-3rds.. Hagler was very fortunate that Hearns broke his famous right-hand in the opening round or Hagler was getting TKOd in 3rds.. Marvin Hagler is one of the most over-rated fighters of all times, Hagler had the oppotunity to fight 5`6ins Dwight Braxton but wanted no part of "The Camden Buzzsaw".. he chose Ray Leonard who was coming back after 3yrs out and Leonard whupped his ass

When was Hagler given the chance to fight Qawi? At what weight would they fight at? Unless I have eaten too many straight right hands at the gym today I think that by the time Hagler was a big name Qawi was at Cruiserweight.

GJC
12-23-2009, 07:18 PM
No I can't see it either but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Qawi only held the LHW title for 18 months and both Hagler and Qawi at that time were tidying up their divisions so to speak fighting the mandatorys etc.
Hagler never seemed to show much inclination to move out of his weight class to me, a sensible move as I don't think he would have the size to campaign too successfully at LHW.
That said if he was going to fight any light heavy in that era Qawi would have been his best chance, I can't see tat he would have had much success against Spinks.

Besides why would he want to move up to a historically low paying division when he had Duran,Hearns and Leonard to move up? Would have made no sense at all.

Sugarj
12-23-2009, 07:23 PM
I never found Hagler a winner and have watched this fight dozens of times. The first time I watched it I had Leonard by a few points, but realistically after consideration and rewatches 115:113 Leonard is how I have it now.

Even the biggest Hagler nuthugger has to admit, he was far from impressive that night, he looked slow and missed a lot with his punches, he had very little defense (he was a bit of a goalkeeper to be honest).

There was no round that Hagler truely dominated and Leonard dazzled even in rounds that he lost. Hagler's cornerwork and gameplan was desperate. Who decided to send Hagler out orthodox for the first few rounds? And why were the Petronelli's not giving him the riot act towards the end of the fight between rounds, surely they must have known it was close? Even Gil Clancy commentating said that they were speaking to Hagler 'like it was an IBM meeting'!!!!

GJC
12-23-2009, 07:31 PM
I never found Hagler a winner and have watched this fight dozens of times. The first time I watched it I had Leonard by a few points, but realistically after consideration and rewatches 115:113 Leonard is how I have it now.

Even the biggest Hagler nuthugger has to admit, he was far from impressive that night, he looked slow and missed a lot with his punches, he had very little defense (he was a bit of a goalkeeper to be honest).

There was no round that Hagler truely dominated and Leonard dazzled even in rounds that he lost. Hagler's cornerwork and gameplan was desperate. Who decided to send Hagler out orthodox for the first few rounds? And why were the Petronelli's not giving him the riot act towards the end of the fight between rounds, surely they must have known it was close? Even Gil Clancy commentating said that they were speaking to Hagler 'like it was an IBM meeting'!!!!
No I agree Hagler was awful, I think he seemed to think that he only had to turn up to win.
That said I think Leonard did get a lot of points for being Sugar Ray Leonard.
I admire his talent but the Duran Leonard fight was scored closer than it was in my view to the point where some are convinced Leonard was robbed.
He did well in the 2nd Duran fight but not to the point at which it has been eulogised, it is a fight that slots well into a 3 minute highlight reel.
As for the Hearns draw!!!!
He was a great fighter and is in my top 20 but I would say that apart from Hearns 1, the judges really liked him.

andrewcuff
12-23-2009, 07:37 PM
I never found Hagler a winner and have watched this fight dozens of times. The first time I watched it I had Leonard by a few points, but realistically after consideration and rewatches 115:113 Leonard is how I have it now.

Even the biggest Hagler nuthugger has to admit, he was far from impressive that night, he looked slow and missed a lot with his punches, he had very little defense (he was a bit of a goalkeeper to be honest).

There was no round that Hagler truely dominated and Leonard dazzled even in rounds that he lost. Hagler's cornerwork and gameplan was desperate. Who decided to send Hagler out orthodox for the first few rounds? And why were the Petronelli's not giving him the riot act towards the end of the fight between rounds, surely they must have known it was close? Even Gil Clancy commentating said that they were speaking to Hagler 'like it was an IBM meeting'!!!!

Hagler is my favourite boxer of all time and I will second that!

JAB5239
12-24-2009, 01:10 AM
1. Hagler had one of, if not the best chin of all time. Hearns would not have knocked him out as the first round showed.

Tommy's broken hand was not the reason he was knocked out. Hagler was.

donkim
12-24-2009, 02:12 AM
No I agree Hagler was awful, I think he seemed to think that he only had to turn up to win.
That said I think Leonard did get a lot of points for being Sugar Ray Leonard.
I admire his talent but the Duran Leonard fight was scored closer than it was in my view to the point where some are convinced Leonard was robbed.
He did well in the 2nd Duran fight but not to the point at which it has been eulogised, it is a fight that slots well into a 3 minute highlight reel.
As for the Hearns draw!!!!
He was a great fighter and is in my top 20 but I would say that apart from Hearns 1, the judges really liked him.



Nobody has ever claimed that Duran was robbed other than Dunce holding the opinion that he felt that Leonard won.The fight has been rewritten by Duran apologists as if it were a virtual shutout.

I do hope you're not suggesting that Duran was winning or deserved to be ahead before he "quit" in their rematch?


I didn't see the judges favoring Leonard too highly during the first fight with Hearns,and there were certain rounds in which Hearns took a battering and all three judges opted to score as a simple 10-9.


The only gift you could argue that Leonard was ever given,was in his rematch with Hearns and that was only because the knockdowns should have been decisive.Hearns was taking a battering in certain rounds in their rematch also to the point where a 10-8 round was just.

Marcov
12-24-2009, 05:29 AM
Hagler was very fortunate that Hearns broke his famous right-hand in the opening round or Hagler was getting TKOd in 3rds.. Marvin Hagler is one of the most over-rated fighters of all times, Hagler had the oppotunity to fight 5`6ins Dwight Braxton but wanted no part of "The Camden Buzzsaw".. he chose Ray Leonard who was coming back after 3yrs out and Leonard whupped his ass

Where do you get all this stuff? For the record Hagler worked his way to the number 1 position the hard way(unlike nowdays). And when he was #1 he couldn't get a title shot! Ring Magazine started calling him the uncrowned champion. During one year he waited for a shot he defeated 5 top ten contenders(In one year)! that was amazing and unheard of today. He got his shot and they gave Vito a draw. So he went back and beat two more top ten contenders! Now days a fighter doesn't have to beat one contender to get a title shot. He won and held the unified title for years in dominating fashion. He beat the best of the best for years. Sure later in his career Duran and Leonard did good with him, but they are all time greats(IMO).

And Dwight Braxton who had changed his name to Dwight Muhammad Qawi years before the Leonard-Hagler fight was fighting as a cruiserweight for years before Leonard Hagler!

boxing_great
12-24-2009, 06:18 AM
does Leonard deserve his atg position whatever that may be on people's top 10 ? he could have just as easily been the loser in the hagler fight, he really lost the 2nd fight against Hearns, and he lost to Duran.The 2nd time Duran quit because of some stomach injury or something..

sonnyboyx2
12-24-2009, 07:14 AM
I'm a huge Duran fan but as well as Duran did Hagler won handily

He fought an incredibly dumb fight and still squeeked it in my view

No one ever knocked Hagler down so to predict a Hearns KO is a stretch.

Timeline again, he was limiting himself to one fight a year so had mandatory against Mugabi and the big $ fight against Leonard end of career.

We adding Hagler to your Lennox Lewis list is seems?

Didn't know he was ever due to fight Braxton, when? You can source this?

Agree I think he did underestimate Leonard, but Leonard whupped him?? People are still arguing about this bout 20 years later. Would hardly be the case in a whupping would it?

i would not call Haglers win over Duran `Handily`Hagler won by 1pt on all judges scorecards, he won it by winning the last round, after the final bell Hagler awaited the decision with his left-eye swollen shut and bleeding from the mouth, he looked over at Duran and Duran shouted to him "You aint no Marvelous".

If you think Hagler `squeeked` the fight then you was not watching the same fight as i watched... Leonard clearly won!

Juan Roldan floored Hagler... if Hearns had not broken his famous right-hand in the opening round he would have won via TKO in 3rds.. referee Richard Steele took Hagler over to the ringside doctor at the start of the 3rd such was the injuries Hagler recieved in the 1st round... so it is far from being a `stretch` to claim Hearns would have won via TKO

Mugabi was never Haglers mandatory... Mugabi moved up from Light-middle... Hagler v Leonard was never on the cards unto after the Mugabi fight.

No i am not adding Hagler to the Lewis list, Hagler was undisputed champion of the world for 7yrs where as Lewis abregated his responsibilities as undisputed champion by refusing to face the No1 contenders so was stripped of every belt... but if that is the only way you can have a snipe at me, then fire-away!

Dwight Braxton was light-heavyweight champion 1981-83 Marvin Hagler was middleweight champion 1980-87 ... many Ring Magazine, KO magazine & Boxing Monthly fight publications from 81-83 had/have front cover topics of "Will Marvin move up and challenge The Camden Buzzsaw" it was a huge fight that fight-fans wanted to see, but Hagler wanted nothing to do with Braxton, instead he chose to fight Obelmejias (twice) Scypion, Lee, Hamsho, Antuofermo and light-weight Roberto Duran.
Source :-- check Ebay for Ring, KO magazines from 81-83 i am sure you will come across this match-up many times over...

The way i seen Hagler vs Leonard it was a whupping!... the way ringside reporters like Gil Clancy, Colin Hart & Reg Gutteridge seen it, it was a whupping.

donkim
12-24-2009, 07:15 AM
Michael Spinks was willing to fight Hagler at a catchweight,no answer from the Hagler camp.




does Leonard deserve his atg position whatever that may be on people's top 10 ? he could have just as easily been the loser in the hagler fight, he really lost the 2nd fight against Hearns, and he lost to Duran.The 2nd time Duran quit because of some stomach injury or something..


Or something indeed.This topic is probably a little advanced for you.

boxing_great
12-24-2009, 07:23 AM
says the person in the red.

sonnyboyx2
12-24-2009, 07:26 AM
Where do you get all this stuff? For the record Hagler worked his way to the number 1 position the hard way(unlike nowdays). And when he was #1 he couldn't get a title shot! Ring Magazine started calling him the uncrowned champion. During one year he waited for a shot he defeated 5 top ten contenders(In one year)! that was amazing and unheard of today. He got his shot and they gave Vito a draw. So he went back and beat two more top ten contenders! Now days a fighter doesn't have to beat one contender to get a title shot. He won and held the unified title for years in dominating fashion. He beat the best of the best for years. Sure later in his career Duran and Leonard did good with him, but they are all time greats(IMO).

And Dwight Braxton who had changed his name to Dwight Muhammad Qawi years before the Leonard-Hagler fight was fighting as a cruiserweight for years before Leonard Hagler!

Are you saying Hearns did not break his right-hand in the opening round with Hagler?

i have addressed the Hagler vs Braxton topic above.

name for me the 5 Top 10 contenders Marvin Hagler fought in the year he was waiting to fight Antuofermo? from my memory they was 5 tomato cans... when Hagler fought Antuofermo they fought to a draw and IMO that fight was a DRAW Hagler certainly never took the title off Antuofermo..

I am in no-way knocking Marvin Hagler, he was a very good fighter & champion, but lets be clear here about his victories and his limitations.

donkim
12-24-2009, 07:33 AM
says the person in the red.


It's not difficult to go around kissing everybody's behind on this forum.Some users(such as myself)feel that we are entitled to have a mind and opinion of our own.

Perhaps you should learn this too.

sonnyboyx2
12-24-2009, 07:33 AM
Hagler was a bully who only wanted to fight guys from the lower-weight divisions when he was champion..
Duran - lightweight
Mugabi - Light-middleweight
Hearns - Welterweight
Leonard - Welterweight
Antuofermo - Light-middleweight

Yet Dwight Braxton who was only 5ft 6ins tall Hagler wanted nothing to do with him.

donkim
12-24-2009, 07:35 AM
Hagler was a bully who only wanted to fight guys from the lower-weight divisions when he was champion..
Duran - lightweight
Mugabi - Light-middleweight
Hearns - Welterweight
Leonard - Welterweight
Antuofermo - Light-middleweight

Yet Dwight Braxton who was only 5ft 6ins tall Hagler wanted nothing to do with him.


Don't forget Benitez,Hagler always mentioned Benitez along with Hearns and Leonard.

sonnyboyx2
12-24-2009, 07:40 AM
Don't forget Benitez,Hagler always mentioned Benitez along with Hearns and Leonard.

very true my friend, i know you know your stuff- cheers!

boxing_great
12-24-2009, 08:22 AM
It's not difficult to go around kissing everybody's behind on this forum.Some users(such as myself)feel that we are entitled to have a mind and opinion of our own.

Perhaps you should learn this too.

I never do, just seems that everybody doesn't see sense in what you have to say.

andrewcuff
12-24-2009, 08:50 AM
i would not call Haglers win over Duran `Handily`Hagler won by 1pt on all judges scorecards, he won it by winning the last round, after the final bell Hagler awaited the decision with his left-eye swollen shut and bleeding from the mouth, he looked over at Duran and Duran shouted to him "You aint no Marvelous".

If you think Hagler `squeeked` the fight then you was not watching the same fight as i watched... Leonard clearly won!

Juan Roldan floored Hagler... if Hearns had not broken his famous right-hand in the opening round he would have won via TKO in 3rds.. referee Richard Steele took Hagler over to the ringside doctor at the start of the 3rd such was the injuries Hagler recieved in the 1st round... so it is far from being a `stretch` to claim Hearns would have won via TKO

Mugabi was never Haglers mandatory... Mugabi moved up from Light-middle... Hagler v Leonard was never on the cards unto after the Mugabi fight.

No i am not adding Hagler to the Lewis list, Hagler was undisputed champion of the world for 7yrs where as Lewis abregated his responsibilities as undisputed champion by refusing to face the No1 contenders so was stripped of every belt... but if that is the only way you can have a snipe at me, then fire-away!

Dwight Braxton was light-heavyweight champion 1981-83 Marvin Hagler was middleweight champion 1980-87 ... many Ring Magazine, KO magazine & Boxing Monthly fight publications from 81-83 had/have front cover topics of "Will Marvin move up and challenge The Camden Buzzsaw" it was a huge fight that fight-fans wanted to see, but Hagler wanted nothing to do with Braxton, instead he chose to fight Obelmejias (twice) Scypion, Lee, Hamsho, Antuofermo and light-weight Roberto Duran.
Source :-- check Ebay for Ring, KO magazines from 81-83 i am sure you will come across this match-up many times over...

The way i seen Hagler vs Leonard it was a whupping!... the way ringside reporters like Gil Clancy, Colin Hart & Reg Gutteridge seen it, it was a whupping.

1. The Roldan knockdown was a slip. No-one ever floored Hagler - his chin was supreme!

2. Tommy caught Hagler with his best punch and he barely backed him up half a step.

andrewcuff
12-24-2009, 08:52 AM
Hagler was a bully who only wanted to fight guys from the lower-weight divisions when he was champion..
Duran - lightweight
Mugabi - Light-middleweight
Hearns - Welterweight
Leonard - Welterweight
Antuofermo - Light-middleweight

Yet Dwight Braxton who was only 5ft 6ins tall Hagler wanted nothing to do with him.

Haha. Drivel.

Antuofermo was the MW champion when Hagler fought him you dunce.

sonnyboyx2
12-24-2009, 09:01 AM
Haha. Drivel.

Antuofermo was the MW champion when Hagler fought him you dunce.

Antuofermo was European Light-Middleweight champion when Britains Maurice Hope poleaxed him in the last round he then moved up in weight to campaign at 160lbs

Hagler was floored by a left-hook from Roldan and took a standing 8 count when he got to his feet.

Thomas Hearns smashed Haglers face open in the opening round with his punches, he broke his famous right-hand and must have been in tremendous pain the next 2 round.. whats to say if he had not broken his hand that he would not have KOd Hagler? he KOd Roberto Duran!

so IMO its you who is the dunce talking drivel.

andrewcuff
12-24-2009, 10:53 AM
Antuofermo was European Light-Middleweight champion when Britains Maurice Hope poleaxed him in the last round he then moved up in weight to campaign at 160lbs

Hagler was floored by a left-hook from Roldan and took a standing 8 count when he got to his feet.

Thomas Hearns smashed Haglers face open in the opening round with his punches, he broke his famous right-hand and must have been in tremendous pain the next 2 round.. whats to say if he had not broken his hand that he would not have KOd Hagler? he KOd Roberto Duran!

so IMO its you who is the dunce talking drivel.

And? Hagler challenged Antuofermo for his MW crown. You can hardly say that is picking on the smaller man. What was he to do? Not fight him?

Uhh...the point is, he caught Hagler with his best punch and broke his hand on Hagler's head. And Hagler walked through it. Marvin had a thicker skull than average, hence the broken hand.

The Roldan knockdown is a joke. You only need to see Hagler's reaction to it. A man who walks through the best Hearns and Mugabi can throw does not get knocked down by a Roldan.

GoogleMe
12-24-2009, 10:59 AM
Leonard +1 round.

Ziggy Stardust
12-24-2009, 12:40 PM
very true my friend, i know you know your stuff- cheers!

So this is what Sonnyboyx has been reduced to: Hobnobbing with Slimey Poophead and parroting his lines; being a contrary douche just for the sake of bing a contrary douche. Is he just a wee bit bitter because no one else wants to jump on his "hate Lennox" bandwagon? :bottle:

Poet

BritishBoxing92
12-24-2009, 01:18 PM
hard for me to say...hagler was way good at the beginning but then lenord stole rounds which was very entertaining

mrbigshot
12-24-2009, 01:36 PM
hagler should of won,i saw the fight again last night with a couple of friends,we ordered 2 large pizzas with pepperoni,double cheese,olives[black]and anchovies,we washed the beer down with a couple of beers[bud]and the fight though it was filled with action it cleary shows that hagler won every round but the first and fifth,i had it ten rounds to two for hagler,:boxing:

that just shows how irrelevant your opinion on boxingscene is valued because u talk absolute sh1t

you are what british people call a w@nker

i had leonard throwing more punches but hagler doing more damage!!! but because u have to judge the fight on a round by round basic i had it 7 rounds to 5 for leonard i think is flashy cominbations stole the fight but i do agree with some posters that hagler allowed leonard to dictate the fight and he stubbornly boxed orthodox for like 6 rounds when he turned south paw he had more successful

this version of leonard did not beat hagler, hagler beat himself but thats just my opinion!!

p.s i dont believe hagler was over rated, he was an excellent switch hitting boxer who was pretty cautionious early on in his career but once he got robbed in is first title shot he turned more aggressive i dont believe hagler was the best middleweight ever but is record dont lie he had power speed a rock solid chin and a high punch output i do believe if a prime leonard met a prime hagler then leonard would of UD him.

lanigav
12-24-2009, 02:22 PM
I think Leonard won the early rounds pretty clearly, but Hagler came on stronger as the fight went on. Leonard boxed pretty well and remained flashy, and fought out of the corners when Hagler pinned him- I think the judges like to see that. The score cards were bull****, but I think Leonard won anyways. It could have gone to either man though, Hagler made his punches count more.

JAB5239
12-24-2009, 02:59 PM
Antuofermo was European Light-Middleweight champion when Britains Maurice Hope poleaxed him in the last round he then moved up in weight to campaign at 160lbs

Hagler was floored by a left-hook from Roldan and took a standing 8 count when he got to his feet.

Thomas Hearns smashed Haglers face open in the opening round with his punches, he broke his famous right-hand and must have been in tremendous pain the next 2 round.. whats to say if he had not broken his hand that he would not have KOd Hagler? he KOd Roberto Duran!

so IMO its you who is the dunce talking drivel.

Whats to say he would have? Problem wasn't Tommy's hand, it was his chin.

GJC
12-24-2009, 03:34 PM
Nobody has ever claimed that Duran was robbed other than Dunce holding the opinion that he felt that Leonard won.The fight has been rewritten by Duran apologists as if it were a virtual shutout.

You do read that people think Leonard won, it wasn't a shutout but it was a clear Duran win.

I do hope you're not suggesting that Duran was winning or deserved to be ahead before he "quit" in their rematch?

No he was a couple of rounds behind, but by the same token it wasn't that fantastic a Leonard performance Duran was just awful.

I didn't see the judges favoring Leonard too highly during the first fight with Hearns,and there were certain rounds in which Hearns took a battering and all three judges opted to score as a simple 10-9.

No I didn't make myself clear I thought that fight was one of the few times the judges wern't in Leonard's corner I personally had him ahead before the TKO

The only gift you could argue that Leonard was ever given,was in his rematch with Hearns and that was only because the knockdowns should have been decisive.Hearns was taking a battering in certain rounds in their rematch also to the point where a 10-8 round was just.
It was a close fight but it has got to be one of the few times that 2 knock downs haven't swung it for a fighter, I thought it was enough to swing the fight to Hearns

GJC
12-24-2009, 03:48 PM
i would not call Haglers win over Duran `Handily`Hagler won by 1pt on all judges scorecards, he won it by winning the last round, after the final bell Hagler awaited the decision with his left-eye swollen shut and bleeding from the mouth, he looked over at Duran and Duran shouted to him "You aint no Marvelous".

Like I said earlier I thought Duran put in a great performance and I had quite a bit of money on him, 5-1 you don't pass up. But even through my rose tinted glasses I didn't have Duran ahead with 2 or 3 rounds to go like the judges did.

If you think Hagler `squeeked` the fight then you was not watching the same fight as i watched... Leonard clearly won!

Well I'm not alone, this fight has been argued about for 20 some years. I don't argue with those that hold a different opinion to mine as it was that close. But whatever your view it wasn't a clear win

Juan Roldan floored Hagler...

Don't agree

if Hearns had not broken his famous right-hand in the opening round he would have won via TKO in 3rds.. referee Richard Steele took Hagler over to the ringside doctor at the start of the 3rd such was the injuries Hagler recieved in the 1st round... so it is far from being a `stretch` to claim Hearns would have won via TKO

To which I believe, Hagler told the doctor "I ain't missing him am I?"
I would say that the injury made Hearns go all or nothing whereas he could have out boxed Hagler but no one including Roldan ever knocked Hagler down so you can't arbitrarily decide that Hearns would have. I think Hearns had hit Hagler with his best punches and Hagler kept coming forward.

Mugabi was never Haglers mandatory... Mugabi moved up from Light-middle... Hagler v Leonard was never on the cards unto after the Mugabi fight.

Well he was certainly the number one contender? Hagler had been chasing Leonard for years, the fact that Leonard saw enough slippage in the Mugabi fight to go for the fight is understandable.

No i am not adding Hagler to the Lewis list, Hagler was undisputed champion of the world for 7yrs where as Lewis abregated his responsibilities as undisputed champion by refusing to face the No1 contenders so was stripped of every belt... but if that is the only way you can have a snipe at me, then fire-away!

That did come over as a little harsh for which I apologise, my point was that like with Lewis you have a tendency to play with timelines and turn rumours and opinion into facts.

Dwight Braxton was light-heavyweight champion 1981-83 Marvin Hagler was middleweight champion 1980-87 ... many Ring Magazine, KO magazine & Boxing Monthly fight publications from 81-83 had/have front cover topics of "Will Marvin move up and challenge The Camden Buzzsaw" it was a huge fight that fight-fans wanted to see, but Hagler wanted nothing to do with Braxton, instead he chose to fight Obelmejias (twice) Scypion, Lee, Hamsho, Antuofermo and light-weight Roberto Duran.
Source :-- check Ebay for Ring, KO magazines from 81-83 i am sure you will come across this match-up many times over...

Newspaper talk about potential match ups its not the same as contracts being drawn up or talks between the two camps about a fight.

The way i seen Hagler vs Leonard it was a whupping!... the way ringside reporters like Gil Clancy, Colin Hart & Reg Gutteridge seen it, it was a whupping.
By no stretch can you call this fight clear or a whupping can you?

GJC
12-24-2009, 03:49 PM
hagler should of won,i saw the fight again last night with a couple of friends,we ordered 2 large pizzas with pepperoni,double cheese,olives[black]and anchovies,we washed the beer down with a couple of beers[bud]and the fight though it was filled with action it cleary shows that hagler won every round but the first and fifth,i had it ten rounds to two for hagler,:boxing:
Total nonsense although i'll take your word for the menu.
Maybe half way between your view and sonny's whupping will be about right.

Sugarj
12-24-2009, 04:19 PM
I'll second that GJC, for what its worth most folks actually would give the fifth round to Hagler not Leonard, so its strange that a room full of Hagler fans found this round one of Leonard's most dominant!!

Or could it have been the budweiser clouding things??

Now round four was very dominant for Leonard!! This I believe had the bolo punch and a very neat four punch combo from Leonard.

Marcov
12-24-2009, 04:29 PM
Are you saying Hearns did not break his right-hand in the opening round with Hagler?

i have addressed the Hagler vs Braxton topic above.

name for me the 5 Top 10 contenders Marvin Hagler fought in the year he was waiting to fight Antuofermo? from my memory they was 5 tomato cans... when Hagler fought Antuofermo they fought to a draw and IMO that fight was a DRAW Hagler certainly never took the title off Antuofermo..

I am in no-way knocking Marvin Hagler, he was a very good fighter & champion, but lets be clear here about his victories and his limitations.

My source was Ring magazine in the 70's and I know Mike Colbert 23-0, Kevin Finnegan 31-6, Doug Demmings 20-3, Bennie Briscoe and Sugar Ray Seales were ranked. I think Willie Monroe and Norberto Cabrera were rankd as well but I'll have to dig out a ring mag from 78-79 to be sure.

sonnyboyx2;7063092 I mean no offence by this, but were you even alive in the late seventies and watching boxing?

Great Afrikan
12-24-2009, 06:06 PM
Hagler edged it....:grumble:

DeepSleep
12-24-2009, 06:10 PM
I just rewatched it and got the same result I got before, SRL 116 - 112.

Rounds:
SRL - 1,2,3,4,6,10,11,12
Hagler - 5,7,8,9

GJC
12-24-2009, 07:10 PM
I just rewatched it and got the same result I got before, SRL 116 - 112.

Rounds:
SRL - 1,2,3,4,6,10,11,12
Hagler - 5,7,8,9
I watched it again a few months back so a little hazier but there is no way Leonard won the last 3 rounds. And the commonly held belief that Leonard won the first 5 rounds I don't go with pretty sure Hagler won one of them, 3rd as memory serves?

Sugarj
12-24-2009, 08:22 PM
Much as I scored the fight to Leonard, agreed he didn't win the last three rounds, I seem to remember giving him either the tenth or eleventh. The ninth round was interesting.......most give it to Hagler, he did his best work of the fight, but for me I felt that Leonard's combinations this round more than answered Hagler's good pressure work as he pinned Leonard on the ropes.

As for the first five, I gave Leonard 1,2, and 4. I felt 3 was fairly even, but had 5 a Hagler round.

DeepSleep
12-24-2009, 08:38 PM
I watched it again a few months back so a little hazier but there is no way Leonard won the last 3 rounds. And the commonly held belief that Leonard won the first 5 rounds I don't go with pretty sure Hagler won one of them, 3rd as memory serves?

Yes of the early rounds Round 3 is the round that is very close. He finally gets to SRL who clearly had to re-adjust to fighting Hagler once he went southpaw. I'd be hard pressed to argue with anyone giving the round to Hagler. Also of the first five rounds I'd also give Hagler round 5.

I re-watched the last three rounds.

Round 10 is clearly SRL, he throws more, lands more, and lands cleaner all the while not getting hit cleanly. Hagler barely mounts an offense in this round.

Round 11 is closer but still SRL has the edge in my book. Both land some blows but SRL lands much cleaner punches than Hagler whose punches seem to have lost a lot of accuracy.

Round 12 could have gone either way, with both fighters landing clean punches.

I think 3, 11, 12 are all very close rounds that could go either way. I think the fight was very close and I'd say that I wouldn't argue very much if the judges gave it to Hagler or ruled it a draw. The 118 - 110 score by Jose Juan Guerra was ridiculous.

sonnyboyx2
12-25-2009, 05:05 AM
My source was Ring magazine in the 70's and I know Mike Colbert 23-0, Kevin Finnegan 31-6, Doug Demmings 20-3, Bennie Briscoe and Sugar Ray Seales were ranked. I think Willie Monroe and Norberto Cabrera were rankd as well but I'll have to dig out a ring mag from 78-79 to be sure.

sonnyboyx2;7063092 I mean no offence by this, but were you even alive in the late seventies and watching boxing?

born 1958 started collecting fight films in 79, today i have a collection of over 20,000+

only Mike Colbert was ranked in 79 (fringe) the others was not Top 10 ranked fighters... Sugar Rar Seales was virtually blind when Hagler beat him the final time, by all accounts Kevin Finnigan gave Hagler `fits`with Hagler winning by using dirty tactics, Briscoe was years past his best,... interesting how you leave out Thomas, Patterson & Warren 3 Tomato-cans who between them had more than 50 defeats

GJC
12-26-2009, 02:54 PM
Yes of the early rounds Round 3 is the round that is very close. He finally gets to SRL who clearly had to re-adjust to fighting Hagler once he went southpaw. I'd be hard pressed to argue with anyone giving the round to Hagler. Also of the first five rounds I'd also give Hagler round 5.

I re-watched the last three rounds.

Round 10 is clearly SRL, he throws more, lands more, and lands cleaner all the while not getting hit cleanly. Hagler barely mounts an offense in this round.

Round 11 is closer but still SRL has the edge in my book. Both land some blows but SRL lands much cleaner punches than Hagler whose punches seem to have lost a lot of accuracy.

Round 12 could have gone either way, with both fighters landing clean punches.

I think 3, 11, 12 are all very close rounds that could go either way. I think the fight was very close and I'd say that I wouldn't argue very much if the judges gave it to Hagler or ruled it a draw. The 118 - 110 score by Jose Juan Guerra was ridiculous.
Like I said I wouldn't argue with those who scored it to SRL opinion is opinion, I would argue with those who said it was clearly to one guy or other as it was an extremely tight fight.
I hate draws and think it is a cop out but 'd go with a draw for this one.
I'm a bit old fashioned as well in my belief that a challenger has to win a title and you have to give the benefit of any doubt to the champion. Had Hagler been challenging i'd probably go with Leonard on that proviso.

HaglerSteelChin
12-26-2009, 06:30 PM
Possibly the most controversial close decision of all time.

I have seen the fight numerous times and i had leonard winning by one point, i had 6 RDS leonard, 5RDS Hagler, and one even. We know hagler was foolish to fight orthodox instead of southpaw in the early rds. If it would have been 15 Rds than i think Hagler would have won possibly by stoppage.

This is a fight where possibly 3 Rds were swing rds and they could have gone either way. For example, RD9 Hagler was winning and had SRL in the ropes but SRL fought back with a fury combination that were not pittypat, it moved Hagler off him. Some will say that SRL won the drama of the fight in RD9 at that moment, because Hagler couldnt finish SRL.

The final punchstat numbers had SRL landing more punches. It was a close fight and merited a rematch in which i thought Hagler wouldnt give up the early by fighting in his usual Southpaw.

Marcov
12-26-2009, 06:51 PM
born 1958 started collecting fight films in 79, today i have a collection of over 20,000+

only Mike Colbert was ranked in 79 (fringe) the others was not Top 10 ranked fighters... Sugar Rar Seales was virtually blind when Hagler beat him the final time, by all accounts Kevin Finnigan gave Hagler `fits`with Hagler winning by using dirty tactics, Briscoe was years past his best,... interesting how you leave out Thomas, Patterson & Warren 3 Tomato-cans who between them had more than 50 defeats

Fair enough. Your qualifications are simular to mine.
I will find the story from Ring magazine about Hagler while he was waiting for his shot and also should be able to supply rankings from that time.

GJC
12-28-2009, 06:36 PM
This is a fight where possibly 3 Rds were swing rds and they could have gone either way.
I think thats the nub of it really and I think that SRL was more eye catching and Hagler more effective. Plus I think that Leonard gota lot of kudos for coming out of retirement after a long lay off and fighting above his weight etc, and frankly Hagler did himself few favours by fighting a stupid fight.
Think those factors swung it for Leonard more than what actually happened. Close fight few swing rounds and Leonard maybe got the benefit of the doubt on those swing rounds which maybe the defending champion would normally get.

Marcov
12-28-2009, 06:49 PM
I think thats the nub of it really and I think that SRL was more eye catching and Hagler more effective. Plus I think that Leonard gota lot of kudos for coming out of retirement after a long lay off and fighting above his weight etc, and frankly Hagler did himself few favours by fighting a stupid fight.
Think those factors swung it for Leonard more than what actually happened. Close fight few swing rounds and Leonard maybe got the benefit of the doubt on those swing rounds which maybe the defending champion would normally get.

Good post and I have to agree all the way

P.WILL
12-29-2009, 10:03 PM
1. Leonard
2. Leonard
3. Leonard
4. Leonard
5. Hagler
6. Leonard
7. Leonard
8. Hagler
9. Hagler
10. Hagler
11. Leonard
12. Leonard

Leonard- 116
Hagler- 112

Bigdaddy_Vh
12-29-2009, 10:43 PM
Marvin Hagler is one of the most over-rated fighters of all times,

not a knock at you personally because i dont know you but that is by far the dumbest thing i have ever heard. yes, you are entitled to your opinion but there is no basis for this comment. its completely absurd. Hagler was a ****ing monster. Overrated? tell that to mugabi and hearns who could have knocked out any other fighter within 2 or 3 weight classes. hagler ate their best and kept coming forward. hagler was a ****ing warrior.

Leonard won the fight for several reasons:
he would only fight hagler if it was 12 rounds. he knew if it went 15 he was finished(smart negotiating move on leonards part)
he would only fight hagler in the bigger ring. he had to have the extra room to dance.(again, another smart negotiating move on leonards part). Hagler knew he had to give in to these concessions or else there would be no fight. He did what real fighters are supposed to do. Make the important fights happen.

Leonard only fought for 15 seconds each round at the end, stealing the rounds in the eyes of the judges.
Leonard was a smart man, he knew he could win the fight if he fought this way and he did exactly what he had to do. Not exactly a display of bravado but Leonard was a different fighter than Hagler. He was a prizefighter, not a warrior, and thats ok.

btw, i always had the fight 114-114 personally. and yes i am completely biased towards Hagler. didnt hate leonard but LOVED hagler. just telling it how i see it.

donkim
12-30-2009, 01:26 AM
just telling it how i see it.


See what? Obviously you've never seen the fight,because nobody who has seen the fight would dare come out with such nonsense as "Leonard only fought for 15 seconds each round at the end"


I can easily post a clip which would completely destroy such a claim.


Don't attempt to discredit the washed up,inactive,blown up welterweight Ray Leonard's performance against the supposed greatest middleweight of all time.It's not Leonard's fault that Hagler wasn't as good as he was promoted.

Hagler even being made to go the distance is a complete embarrassment to his legacy.


sonnyboyx2 holds the opinion that Marvis is overrated,and considering he was beaten by a washed up,inactive blown up welterweight,he has a strong argument to fall back on.


Warrior's don't spend their entire career's calling out smaller men either.

Danny TKO
12-30-2009, 06:23 AM
I rate both guys as great fighters. Although I lost respect for Leonard later when I realised how much he manipulated both fights and people.

Ray got inside Haglers head to the extent that he didn't fight the right fight. He started the fight and stayed too long in the orthodox stance. (In training Ray had struggled with the southpaw style being caught often with the straight left).

When I watched the fight live with commentary I got carried away and scored Leonard by 4 rounds. It's only after watching it again without the commentary that I was able to score it more accurately. I scored it to Ray by two rounds but there were a number of rounds that I could understand being given either way. Do you score the round to Ray for landing more shots or to Marvin for landing the fewer but more hurtful ones ? Scoring a fight is subjective and the judges that night went for flash over pressure.

I don't hold with the idea that a challenger has to rip the title from a champion. Ray would have been stupid to come back after the lay off and stand toe to toe with Marvin. His game plan was to frustrate Hagler with movement and speed and it worked. Hagler had no answer to it and at times looked to me like he was trying to show that he could outbox Ray instead of applying pressure early. By doing this he was 4 or 5 rounds behind and desperate before half way.

I rate Hagler as one of the best middle weights ever but he got it all wrong that night with Leonard.

sonnyboyx2
12-30-2009, 07:53 AM
I rate both guys as great fighters. Although I lost respect for Leonard later when I realised how much he manipulated both fights and people.

Ray got inside Haglers head to the extent that he didn't fight the right fight. He started the fight and stayed too long in the orthodox stance. (In training Ray had struggled with the southpaw style being caught often with the straight left).

When I watched the fight live with commentary I got carried away and scored Leonard by 4 rounds. It's only after watching it again without the commentary that I was able to score it more accurately. I scored it to Ray by two rounds but there were a number of rounds that I could understand being given either way. Do you score the round to Ray for landing more shots or to Marvin for landing the fewer but more hurtful ones ? Scoring a fight is subjective and the judges that night went for flash over pressure.

I don't hold with the idea that a challenger has to rip the title from a champion. Ray would have been stupid to come back after the lay off and stand toe to toe with Marvin. His game plan was to frustrate Hagler with movement and speed and it worked. Hagler had no answer to it and at times looked to me like he was trying to show that he could outbox Ray instead of applying pressure early. By doing this he was 4 or 5 rounds behind and desperate before half way.

I rate Hagler as one of the best middle weights ever but he got it all wrong that night with Leonard.

you are correct... i could also say the same for many posts on this topic yet you outlined it to a tee... Hagler thought all he had to do was `turn-up and KO Ray Leonard` He vastly underestimated Sugar Ray to the extent that it was embarrassing for him and his supporters (myself included) as Leonard beat him at every aspect of the sport of Boxing, infact it was an easy fight for Leonard considering he was coming back off a 3yrs lay-off... IMO Leonard exposed Hagler as "NOT the wrecking-machine" He tried to portray to his fans.. Haglers greatest victory was his win over Hearns yet it is a tarnished victory due to the fact that Thomas Hearns broke his famous right-hand in the opening round, Haglers victory over Mugabi was again badly tarnished when Duane Thomas, Terry Norris & Gerald McClellan all destroyed Mugabi in devastating fashion ... Could a prime Marvin Hagler beat a Prime Ray Leonard -- Definately Not!

nachorjj
12-30-2009, 07:59 AM
8 rounds to 4 leonard

Ziggy Stardust
12-30-2009, 11:44 AM
Haglers greatest victory was his win over Hearns yet it is a tarnished victory due to the fact that Thomas Hearns broke his famous right-hand in the opening round

Sounds like a nuthuggers excuse to me. The only thing "broken" in that fight was Hearns' chin. BTW, if I hear Hearns' right hand described as "famous" one more time I think I'm gonna puke :puke: What are you? Princemanspoophead's parrott now?

Poet

sonnyboyx2
12-30-2009, 12:10 PM
Sounds like a nuthuggers excuse to me. The only thing "broken" in that fight was Hearns' chin. BTW, if I hear Hearns' right hand described as "famous" one more time I think I'm gonna puke :puke: What are you? Princemanspoophead's parrott now?

Poet

are you claiming that Thomas Hearns "FAMOUS" right hand was NOT broken in the opening round of the Hagler fight?

here is a link.
http://www.answers.com/topic/tommy-hearns


i guess the only Hitman you nuthug is Ricky Hatton

sonnyboyx2
12-30-2009, 12:37 PM
So this is what Sonnyboyx has been reduced to: Hobnobbing with Slimey Poophead and parroting his lines; being a contrary douche just for the sake of bing a contrary douche. Is he just a wee bit bitter because no one else wants to jump on his "hate Lennox" bandwagon? :bottle:

Poet

it really hurt you deep when i exposed Lennox on this forum, you are very very bitter now because you have no-one to nuthug any more, everyone now knows exactly what Lewis was.. i noticed a new thread yesterday on this forum - "How Good was Lennox resume" - the topic got only 3 posts, all by newbies - yet was viewed by over 100+ so it is now obvious that i have educated most members on Lennox Lewis which is why you are so bitter and twisted, but dont cry little boy, you can still keep your poster up on your bedroom wall and each night before your mummy tucks you in and turns off the light you can call out, "But i still love you Lenny, night night big fella" :luvbed:

One more round
12-30-2009, 07:02 PM
Haglers greatest victory was his win over Hearns yet it is a tarnished victory due to the fact that Thomas Hearns broke his famous right-hand in the opening round,

So??

Hearns would have lost anyway man, didn't have the chin or the stamina to beat Marvin.

Ziggy Stardust
12-31-2009, 09:50 AM
are you claiming that Thomas Hearns "FAMOUS" right hand was NOT broken in the opening round of the Hagler fight?

here is a link.
http://www.answers.com/topic/tommy-hearns

:bottle: :bottle: :bottle: :bottle:

i guess the only Hitman you nuthug is Ricky Hatton

Oh, you mean the dud I call "Ricky's Flattened? Sorry dude, I nuthug no fighter: It's not in my nature to be an unthinking cultist of any stripe. Unlike yourself.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
12-31-2009, 09:59 AM
it really hurt you deep when i exposed Lennox on this forum, you are very very bitter now because you have no-one to nuthug any more, everyone now knows exactly what Lewis was.. i noticed a new thread yesterday on this forum - "How Good was Lennox resume" - the topic got only 3 posts, all by newbies - yet was viewed by over 100+ so it is now obvious that i have educated most members on Lennox Lewis which is why you are so bitter and twisted, but dont cry little boy, you can still keep your poster up on your bedroom wall and each night before your mummy tucks you in and turns off the light you can call out, "But i still love you Lenny, night night big fella" :luvbed:

The only educating you've done is educating Boxing Scene on how big a moron you really are. Your hate posts haven't changed a single poster's mind about Lennox other than maybe to create a little more sympathy for him. The fact that you interject him into every discussion boxing discussion on this site smacks more than a little of obsession and causes most of the intelligent posters to wish you would just STFU already.....those that can even be arsed to read your tripe that is.

BTW, how am I a Lennox nuthugger when I rank him #13 all-time at Heavyweight? :rofl: The difference is that while I favor several ATGs over Lennox you favor damn near anyone who ever fought over him. BIG difference.

Poet

sonnyboyx2
12-31-2009, 10:23 AM
The only educating you've done is educating Boxing Scene on how big a moron you really are. Your hate posts haven't changed a single poster's mind about Lennox other than maybe to create a little more sympathy for him. The fact that you interject him into every discussion boxing discussion on this site smacks more than a little of obsession and causes most of the intelligent posters to wish you would just STFU already.....those that can even be arsed to read your tripe that is.

BTW, how am I a Lennox nuthugger when I rank him #13 all-time at Heavyweight? :rofl: The difference is that while I favor several ATGs over Lennox you favor damn near anyone who ever fought over him. BIG difference.

Poet

you could not be more incorrect... i only ever discuss Lewis when a topic crops up on him, i also happen to rate Lewis No14 on my Heavyweight List so thats no too far removed from your own opinion.. as for my posts i am not really interested who reads them, but i do know for a fact that YOU read them, the difference between me and yourself is that i have forgotten more boxing knowledge than you have ever known.. you are nothing more than a clown who comes on here to ridicule and trash what other posters think of certain fighters and fights, to me you are nothing more than something on the bottom of my shoe that i have stepped in

chrismart83
01-03-2010, 12:01 AM
I had it a draw. Id have to watch it again to double check, but it was such a close fight, i could see why anyone could score it a draw or a 1 round win to either fighter.

http://www.fightjudge.com/user/Chrismart83/400/scorecard.png (http://www.fightjudge.com)

tyger
01-03-2010, 01:16 AM
Hagler won by one point. The world was so amazed Leonard could come back after a couple year layoff against a much bigger opponent and hang with one of the top lb4lb fighters in the world they gave him the benefit of the scoring in a close fight.

GJC
01-03-2010, 10:31 AM
I had it a draw. Id have to watch it again to double check, but it was such a close fight, i could see why anyone could score it a draw or a 1 round win to either fighter.

http://www.fightjudge.com/user/Chrismart83/400/scorecard.png (http://www.fightjudge.com)
Thanks for sharing that.
Think the amazing thing about this fight is that even people who favour Leonard end up giving Hagler rounds that Hagler supporters give to Leonard and vice versa.
If that makes any sense?

chrismart83
01-03-2010, 12:00 PM
Thanks for sharing that.
Think the amazing thing about this fight is that even people who favour Leonard end up giving Hagler rounds that Hagler supporters give to Leonard and vice versa.
If that makes any sense?


Yeah mate, makes sense.

I found it hard to judge, and probably made some mistakes along the way.
A lot of the rounds i saw Hagler landing the harder more effective shots, and then Leonard would catch the eye more in the last 30 seconds with more 'flashy' looking shots, yet i scored it for Hagler as thats the way i saw it.

Very close fight though. Really should have been a re-match.

Wiirdo
01-03-2010, 01:07 PM
What the hell? Double standards if I've ever seen any.

Hagler is slated for losing to an ATG a division below past his prime, but Leonard is given a free pass for losing to Duran in his prime? ****ing bull****. Why are you punishing Hagler for not getting a rematch?

Hagler gave into ALL of Leonard's demands, and still made it an extremely close controversial decision. Leonard also completely blindly robbed Hearns in the rematch that was supposed to clear any doubt about the previous fight. It's sad that even if it was a 15-rounder and Hagler won the last three, he still would have lost on Guerra's card.

I can't believe people are trying to turn only being knocked down once against him. First of all, he still won the fight and it was also clearly a slip. Hearns would have never beaten Hagler, yet he knocked Leonard down in a single fight double the amount of times Hagler's ever been knocked down in his whole career. Hagler also fought a better version of Hearns.

GJC
01-03-2010, 01:40 PM
What the hell? Double standards if I've ever seen any.

Hagler is slated for losing to an ATG a division below past his prime, but Leonard is given a free pass for losing to Duran in his prime? ****ing bull****. Why are you punishing Hagler for not getting a rematch?

Hagler gave into ALL of Leonard's demands, and still made it an extremely close controversial decision. Leonard also completely blindly robbed Hearns in the rematch that was supposed to clear any doubt about the previous fight. It's sad that even if it was a 15-rounder and Hagler won the last three, he still would have lost on Guerra's card.

I can't believe people are trying to turn only being knocked down once against him. First of all, he still won the fight and it was also clearly a slip. Hearns would have never beaten Hagler, yet he knocked Leonard down in a single fight double the amount of times Hagler's ever been knocked down in his whole career. Hagler also fought a better version of Hearns.
You are best to quote the post you are replying to for ease

Wiirdo
01-03-2010, 02:36 PM
You are best to quote the post you are replying to for ease

Yeah, probably, but I'm not really aiming at certain posts, just the general theme of the thread.

GJC
01-03-2010, 02:41 PM
Don't neccessarily agree that is the general theme of the thread, generally quite balanced with a couple of exceptions.

donkim
01-04-2010, 02:21 AM
Hagler is slated for losing to an ATG a division below past his prime, but Leonard is given a free pass for losing to Duran in his prime? ****ing bull****. Why are you punishing Hagler for not getting a rematch?

Hagler is slated for losing to a washed up,inactive smaller man and rightfully so.If he was as great as they say,he would have not only have beaten Leonard,but stopped him in a convincing fashion.


Hagler gave into ALL of Leonard's demands, and still made it an extremely close controversial decision. Leonard also completely blindly robbed Hearns in the rematch that was supposed to clear any doubt about the previous fight. It's sad that even if it was a 15-rounder and Hagler won the last three, he still would have lost on Guerra's card.


Leonard's rematch with Hearns is irrelevant to this topic so don't bother using it to try and support your faulty argument.

Hagler was had thirty six minutes to beat a washed up,inactive welterweight who had spent his hiatus sniffing coke.and he failed to beat him.

Hagler didn't give into any demands,he happily accepted Leonards requests as he was making more money than Leonard and rightfully was confident enough that Leonard stood no chance.

I can't believe people are trying to turn only being knocked down once against him. First of all, he still won the fight and it was also clearly a slip. Hearns would have never beaten Hagler, yet he knocked Leonard down in a single fight double the amount of times Hagler's ever been knocked down in his whole career. Hagler also fought a better version of Hearns.



Hagler struggled greatly against a crude fighter who spent the vast majority of the fight with one eye after Hagler had thumbed him.Roldan didn't lose because he was knocked out,he lost because after spending a few rounds debating whether or not he wanted to continue,he finally decided to pack it in.As for the knockdown,it wasn't that much of a clear slip.

Leonard fought a far more dangerous Thomas Hearns than Marvin Hagler ever did.Thomas Hearns as a welterweight was a killer who could end a fight with a single right hand.Hearns was never as devestating a fighter as he moved up from welterweight.

JAB5239
01-04-2010, 02:50 AM
[QUOTE=donkim;7167583]Hagler is slated for losing to a washed up,inactive smaller man and rightfully so.If he was as great as they say,he would have not only have beaten Leonard,but stopped him in a convincing fashion.


Since when does one fight, his 67th and last fight, determine a fighters greatness over his entire career?


Hagler struggled greatly against a crude fighter who spent the vast majority of the fight with one eye after Hagler had thumbed him.


Why is it when you don't like a fighter you try to put him down in any way possible, including alluding that he intentionally cheated. You did this very same thing with Duran just a couple days ago.

donkim
01-04-2010, 05:45 AM
Since when does one fight, his 67th and last fight, determine a fighters greatness over his entire career?


because that last fight and that one loss occured to a hopeless washout who had no business doing what he did.

Ray Leonard was finished as an elite fighter the moment he retired in 1982.

Cocaine abuse and inactivity will destroy a young athlete in their prime.


Leonard was there to be finished off in dramatic fashion and Hagler couldn't do it.


Why is it when you don't like a fighter you try to put him down in any way possible, including alluding that he intentionally cheated. You did this very same thing with Duran just a couple days ago.



Hagler did thumb him,that is an absolute fact.Roldan's eye was completely shut.

BennyST
01-04-2010, 06:32 AM
because that last fight and that one loss occured to a hopeless washout who had no business doing what he did.

Ray Leonard was finished as an elite fighter the moment he retired in 1982.

Cocaine abuse and inactivity will destroy a young athlete in their prime.


Leonard was there to be finished off in dramatic fashion and Hagler couldn't do it.

Hagler did thumb him,that is an absolute fact.Roldan's eye was completely shut.

You call that the performance of a 'hopeless washout', non elite fighter? Did you even see it? I'd hate to see what you consider a great performance or a bad one at that too.

Fighters can come back you know? Ali did it to beat a prime Quarry. After a couple of years Oscar came back to stop Mayorga in a flawless performance. While not as good opponents as Leonard or Hagler, it shows that having trained for a lifetime, you don't lose skill with proper training but you can lose motivation. Determination and motivation are more important in this sport than skill and Leonard had a lot more at that point than Hagler who was going to retire anyway.

Now, I know you think everything written and discussed about a fighter you don't like equates to an excuse, but maybe, just maybe, a lack of motivation and overconfidence thinking he could beat Leonard, as he had been retired for so long, didn't prepare him for the Leonard that did come to fight because Leonard fought as good as he ever did and fought the perfect fight plan and stuck to it. It wasn't so much Hagler being ****e but Leonard being so damned good coming back along with what I would say was a possibly overconfident Hagler. As well as him fighting an utterly stupid fight.

Anyway, that was not the performance of a shot, washed up fighter and saying it was is just an insult to Leonard as well as Hagler.

It's not as if he was old and you simply have no way of knowing how he was feeling. Obviously he was more than confident after seeing Hagler's recent performances as well as how he knew he was feeling in himself.

Ziggy Stardust
01-04-2010, 10:19 AM
Since when does one fight, his 67th and last fight, determine a fighters greatness over his entire career?


Why is it when you don't like a fighter you try to put him down in any way possible, including alluding that he intentionally cheated. You did this very same thing with Duran just a couple days ago.

Trying to argue logically with him? :rofl: Sorry my friend but you're WAY over his head :D

Poet

JAB5239
01-04-2010, 12:48 PM
because that last fight and that one loss occured to a hopeless washout who had no business doing what he did.

Leonard a hopeless washout? I don't think so. and one loss still does not determine an entire career.

Ray Leonard was finished as an elite fighter the moment he retired in 1982.

You are basing this on what, the Howard Davis fight and his decision to retire again? Its obvious he wasn't finished as he has wins over Hagler, Duran, LaLonde and a draw with Hearns (yeah, I thought he lost too) after the fact.

Cocaine abuse and inactivity will destroy a young athlete in their prime.

I could be wrong, but I thought Leonard only dabbled in cocaine for a short period. You are making it seem like he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at the local crack den day in and day out.

Leonard was there to be finished off in dramatic fashion and Hagler couldn't do it.


Maybe he simply fought the wrong game plan against a motivated fighter he had underestimated.


Hagler did thumb him,that is an absolute fact.Roldan's eye was completely shut.


So he thumbed him, big deal. This is boxing and these things happen. You've tried to make it sound intentional thought just as you tried to make it sound intentional with Duran.

sonnyboyx2
01-04-2010, 02:55 PM
If Roldan had NOT been thumbed, there is no saying how the fight may have gone... Marvin was having big trouble with Roldans rolling-in two-fisted style... i am a big fan of both these fighters and back in 84 i was eagerly awaiting this fight yet it turned into an anti-climax after the 2nd round due to Roldans injury... Roldan came into the fight virtually undefeated in 50 fights, he was as rough and tough as they come

donkim
01-04-2010, 02:56 PM
Leonard a hopeless washout? I don't think so. and one loss still does not determine an entire career.


Yes, I think so.He didn't do a damn thing else worth speaking about in his return.


You are basing this on what, the Howard Davis fight and his decision to retire again? Its obvious he wasn't finished as he has wins over Hagler, Duran, LaLonde and a draw with Hearns (yeah, I thought he lost too) after the fact.


I base it on him having fought just nine rounds in over five years.I base it on his well documented abuse of cocaine.


The Dooran apologists will tell you that Leonard's victory over Dooran the third time didn't mean anything.Dooran was shot and out of shape and showed up for a payday.

He was very fortunate enough to receive a draw against a fading Thomas Hearns,hurting him numerous times throughout the fight and yet failing to finish off when he had Hearns on queer street.




I could be wrong, but I thought Leonard only dabbled in cocaine for a short period. You are making it seem like he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at the local crack den day in and day out.


Hardly a short period.He has claimed as long as a four year dependency on alcohol and cocaine.




So he thumbed him, big deal. This is boxing and these things happen. You've tried to make it sound intentional thought just as you tried to make it sound intentional with Duran.


Well it was a big deal because when your fighting another man,complete eye sight does help.Both Hagler and Duran were notoriously dirty fighters.Duran's antics during the Davey Moore fight were an absolute disgrace.

them_apples
01-04-2010, 05:41 PM
Hagler.

the commentator made it sound like Leonard was dominating, it was just pure flash.

throughout most of the fight Leonard landed snappy flashy punches, Hagler just kept coming.

I would have liked it if Hagler closed well, but still he landed the meaner shots and I give him the sd.

Bigdaddy_Vh
01-04-2010, 06:22 PM
Hagler is slated for losing to a washed up,inactive smaller man and rightfully so.If he was as great as they say,he would have not only have beaten Leonard,but stopped him in a convincing fashion.

I guess with this logic(and based off of your avatar) one must assume that Bonavena was a washed up bastard as well. Using the same logic, if he wasnt washed up, he wouldnt have lost to frazier. twice...

donkim
01-04-2010, 06:35 PM
I guess with this logic(and based off of your avatar) one must assume that Bonavena was a washed up bastard as well. Using the same logic, if he wasnt washed up, he wouldnt have lost to frazier. twice...


I have no idea what you are talking about.If anybody else does then please give me a clue.

HaglerSteelChin
01-04-2010, 10:28 PM
If Roldan had NOT been thumbed, there is no saying how the fight may have gone... Marvin was having big trouble with Roldans rolling-in two-fisted style... i am a big fan of both these fighters and back in 84 i was eagerly awaiting this fight yet it turned into an anti-climax after the 2nd round due to Roldans injury... Roldan came into the fight virtually undefeated in 50 fights, he was as rough and tough as they come

Many argentine fighters are known for being tough and having great chins. Its a shame that Roldan had that eye problem in the end of RD3. It actually happened toward the end of the 3rd RD. I think the fight would have gone to the late RDs as 14 or 15 with Hagler eventually winning. Roldan did win the first 2 Rds and it was getting close in the 3rd RD as Hagler started to box and did land some decent shots.

Even with the bad eye Roldan still soldiered on. Even the Hagler corner said "you got a one eyed fighter and now he is just a punching bag Marv.....just a punching bag."

Some argue about the KD. It was one of those half slips and half punches that was landed in top of the head. It could have scored either way.

Roldan almost KOD Hearns for the vacant MW title in 1987 i believe. But Hearns held on and than KOD Roldan. It was the last chance for Roldan to be a MW champ.

JAB5239
01-05-2010, 04:16 AM
[QUOTE=donkim;7171565]Hardly a short period.He has claimed as long as a four year dependency on alcohol and cocaine.


From the Washington post, March 31, 1991.

Sugar Ray Leonard said yesterday that he used cocaine from 1983 to 1986 and also drank alcohol heavily during those three years following surgery for a detached retina that threatened to end his boxing career. An emotional Leonard attributed his failed marriage to his behavior, and said he stopped using drugs because he wanted to be a better father to his two sons.

It says here he only used cocaine from 1983 to 1986. Nothing about being dependent or having some extreme habit. Care to refute?

sonnyboyx2
01-05-2010, 05:23 AM
Many argentine fighters are known for being tough and having great chins. Its a shame that Roldan had that eye problem in the end of RD3. It actually happened toward the end of the 3rd RD. I think the fight would have gone to the late RDs as 14 or 15 with Hagler eventually winning. Roldan did win the first 2 Rds and it was getting close in the 3rd RD as Hagler started to box and did land some decent shots.

Even with the bad eye Roldan still soldiered on. Even the Hagler corner said "you got a one eyed fighter and now he is just a punching bag Marv.....just a punching bag."

Some argue about the KD. It was one of those half slips and half punches that was landed in top of the head. It could have scored either way.

Roldan almost KOD Hearns for the vacant MW title in 1987 i believe. But Hearns held on and than KOD Roldan. It was the last chance for Roldan to be a MW champ.

very true... Thomas Hearns said "Roldan was the hardest hitter & toughest guy he ever fought and that includes Leonard & Hagler"...... i am a huge Roldan fan and have quite alot of his fights.. Roldan once fought a 500lb Grizzly bear that was muzzled & gloved, there was a nasty cut but they patched the bear up and sent it back out again" :rofl:

HaglerSteelChin
01-05-2010, 05:57 AM
very true... Thomas Hearns said "Roldan was the hardest hitter & toughest guy he ever fought and that includes Leonard & Hagler"...... i am a huge Roldan fan and have quite alot of his fights.. Roldan once fought a 500lb Grizzly bear that was muzzled & gloved, there was a nasty cut but they patched the bear up and sent it back out again" :rofl:

He definitely had Hearns on queer street but hearns unlike the SRL leonard fight knew how to hold on. Roldan had won like 14 fights in row after the Hagler loss, and even KOD James kinchen. I do think he was one of the best MW's that didnt become champ like Briscoe and Armstrong who felt short. BTW, before people jump on me i am not saying roldan is as good as armstrong.

I thought Baldomir would give PBF some trouble due to great chin and awkward style which Roldan also had. Baldomir was from Santa Fe, Argentina same as Monzon who i think was possibly the greatest latin fighter although he was far from a good human being.

GJC
01-05-2010, 04:29 PM
because that last fight and that one loss occured to a hopeless washout who had no business doing what he did.

Ray Leonard was finished as an elite fighter the moment he retired in 1982.

Cocaine abuse and inactivity will destroy a young athlete in their prime.


Leonard was there to be finished off in dramatic fashion and Hagler couldn't do it.





Hagler did thumb him,that is an absolute fact.Roldan's eye was completely shut.
Well we pretty much know who you don't like, how about you tell us what fighters you do like? It is much harder to paint a picture than put your foot through one. You just seem to me to be a very negative person who takes pleasure in villyfying fighters based on little evidence and insulting posters. You don't contribute much to these forums apart from a dark cloud, it is a pity as I believe you are an intelligant knowledgable poster if you chose to contribute rather than just want to irritate.

Marcov
01-07-2010, 04:30 AM
I watched again last night and though I know punch stats don't have anything to do with scoring, both fighters landed a simular number of punches. If they landed close to the same number, Hagler landed the harder punches and was the aggressor. Did Ray get the call on ring generalship?

BennyST
01-07-2010, 09:46 PM
Well we pretty much know who you don't like, how about you tell us what fighters you do like? It is much harder to paint a picture than put your foot through one. You just seem to me to be a very negative person who takes pleasure in villyfying fighters based on little evidence and insulting posters. You don't contribute much to these forums apart from a dark cloud, it is a pity as I believe you are an intelligant knowledgable poster if you chose to contribute rather than just want to irritate.

Yeah. It seems to be a sad thing here of late G. Quite a few posters that obviously have brains but choose to use them to be horribly negative against the sport they supposedly love and other fans who are just trying to discuss it.

Oh well, some people are just full of bitterness and hate in general. What can you do?

GJC
01-07-2010, 11:34 PM
Yeah. It seems to be a sad thing here of late G. Quite a few posters that obviously have brains but choose to use them to be horribly negative against the sport they supposedly love and other fans who are just trying to discuss it.

Oh well, some people are just full of bitterness and hate in general. What can you do?
I have never seen him or Slimey make a stand alone positive post for a fighter.
Guys like Obama and Sonnyboy have criticised some fighters as is their right but to balance that they have praised others.
This pair to my knowledge have ever praised a fighter or poster on here.

JAB5239
01-08-2010, 05:21 AM
I have never seen him or Slimey make a stand alone positive post for a fighter.
Guys like Obama and Sonnyboy have criticised some fighters as is their right but to balance that they have praised others.
This pair to my knowledge have ever praised a fighter or poster on here.

Agree or disagree Obama and Sonny come to talk boxing. The other two consistently flame. Its not about who's right, but how you present your case. I have no problem disagreeing with someone. I got no problem with being wrong. I do have a problem with people with an obvious agenda to start trouble trying to shovel bull****.

GameGod
01-08-2010, 06:03 AM
My decision goes to Leonard, but with 3 judges it seems reasonable for a split decision or even majority or split draw.

HaglerSteelChin
01-09-2010, 12:01 AM
Well we pretty much know who you don't like, how about you tell us what fighters you do like? It is much harder to paint a picture than put your foot through one. You just seem to me to be a very negative person who takes pleasure in villyfying fighters based on little evidence and insulting posters. You don't contribute much to these forums apart from a dark cloud, it is a pity as I believe you are an intelligant knowledgable poster if you chose to contribute rather than just want to irritate.

you know i just to look at the troll's posts, he contributes nothing to this board. For example, he thinks the ONE lost by PW to Quintana is a major lost by PW and his weakness as a fighter is exploited. All PW did was to destroy Quintana in 1 RD in the rematch. He had a close win against Martinez, but he decided to fight instead of box to impress people and entertain. Pavlik did duck PW.......that is a fact especially by missing doctor appointments.

Donnakim likes to go off on PW fans because he has nothing better to do- yet he talks about other people needing to shut down their PC, LOL.

boxing fanatic
01-09-2010, 12:50 AM
this is one that will always be debated but I thought leonard won the fight by stealing rounds shame there was not a rematch and if the fight happens 5years earlier hagler dominates.:boxing::boxing:

donkim
01-09-2010, 04:12 AM
you know i just to look at the troll's posts, he contributes nothing to this board. For example, he thinks the ONE lost by PW to Quintana is a major lost by PW and his weakness as a fighter is exploited. All PW did was to destroy Quintana in 1 RD in the rematch. He had a close win against Martinez, but he decided to fight instead of box to impress people and entertain. Pavlik did duck PW.......that is a fact especially by missing doctor appointments.

Donnakim likes to go off on PW fans because he has nothing better to do- yet he talks about other people needing to shut down their PC, LOL.


Quintana didn't just beat Williams,he exposed him badly.I gave Williams two rounds and nothing else.


If you're foolish enough to believe that Quintana didn't exposed Williams after they fought for twelve rounds,then you're being ridiculous.


Williams didn't decide to fight Martinez to entertain the crowd,he fought the same fight that he always does and again was exposed against a guy who is a much better boxer than him.

Williams can't box and has obvious flaws and when you don't give a stationary target like Quintana and Martinez didn't give him,then he will struggle and struggle badly.



Williams ducked Pavlik last year when he turned down a million dollars,as confirmed by good old Larry Merchant himself.





if the fight happens 5years earlier hagler dominates.:boxing::boxing:



Based on what? Hagler never dominated Mexican journeyman Marcos Geraldo,who employed the same strategy against Hagler that Leonard would later duplicate.




Unless you were a face first brawler like a Hamsho or Antufermo,then Hagler doesn't destroy anybody.

One more round
01-09-2010, 04:34 AM
Donkim, you contribute nothing here, please just get off the site.

Come to think of it, I have never actually heard you give any fighter praise.

HaglerSteelChin
01-09-2010, 04:55 AM
Quintana didn't just beat Williams,he exposed him badly.I gave Williams two rounds and nothing else.


If you're foolish enough to believe that Quintana didn't exposed Williams after they fought for twelve rounds,then you're being ridiculous.


Williams didn't decide to fight Martinez to entertain the crowd,he fought the same fight that he always does and again was exposed against a guy who is a much better boxer than him.

Williams can't box and has obvious flaws and when you don't give a stationary target like Quintana and Martinez didn't give him,then he will struggle and struggle badly.



Williams ducked Pavlik last year when he turned down a million dollars,as confirmed by good old Larry Merchant himself.





If Quintana badly exposed PW, why didnt he lose again? Why did Quintana have his rear end handed to him in the 1 Rd rematch? Styles makes fights. I said before the PW vs Martinez fight that it would be close. PW didnt use his reach and decided to slug it out instead of box. Why? PW is trying to win fans over and get big deals. If he wins a one sided fight like he did with Winky Wright the master boxer who PW destroyed; than he will have more people ducking him. PW is still 38-1 and avenged his only lost. I know Donna kin scored it 118-110, but I had it 115-113 which was closer to what the judges had it.

If he has been so much exposed as you state why isn't Mayweather calling him for a fight? PW also beat Margarito with his loaded gloves and shut out winky. He didnt have alot of time to prepare for Martinez and yet beat a top boxer.

Pavlik delayed the fight with PW on 2 occassions. What was PW going to do? Wait another month? He is a fighter and went to the ring. Pavlik only fought when he was going to get stripped of his title. Kelly made the staph infection an excuse yet he MISSED doctor appointments, that shows how motivated he was to fight PW. You state you are an expert in boxing. Haven't fighters fought with cut eyes, injured hands, and even Harry Greb fought while being blind in one eye? Yet a troll as yourself still will find reasons to make excuses for Pavlik and trivial reasons to knock PW. Pavlik is too slow for PW, BHOP at 43 took him to school. You don't think they studied the film? Pavlik is one of those morons who believes in the triangle theory. Since he beat Taylor and Taylor beat BHOP twice- than it = me beating BHOP.

donkim
01-09-2010, 05:49 AM
If Quintana badly exposed PW, why didnt he lose again? Why did Quintana have his rear end handed to him in the 1 Rd rematch? Styles makes fights. I said before the PW vs Martinez fight that it would be close. PW didnt use his reach and decided to slug it out instead of box. Why? PW is trying to win fans over and get big deals. If he wins a one sided fight like he did with Winky Wright the master boxer who PW destroyed; than he will have more people ducking him. PW is still 38-1 and avenged his only lost. I know Donna kin scored it 118-110, but I had it 115-113 which was closer to what the judges had it.


How many Paul Williams fights have you seen? He never uses his height or reach to great effect.His jab is awful and more often or not he fights at close range.


Paul Williams beat a rusty,old Winky Wright based upon speed and workrate.He didn't outbox him at all.


Paul Williams wasn't just beaten,he was beaten up by a smarter,more skillful fighter.


If you don't see how Martinez and Quintana exposed Williams basic lack of fundamentals,then you have no business watching this sport anymore


Paul Williams isn't a good boxer at all.



If he has been so much exposed as you state why isn't Mayweather calling him for a fight? PW also beat Margarito with his loaded gloves and shut out winky. He didnt have alot of time to prepare for Martinez and yet beat a top boxer.


Paul Williams was fortunate to receive a decision over a fighter who had been out of the ring longer than Williams,had been brought up a weight class(Quite odd that Williams wouldn't want the fight to be at a weight class that he can make comfortably,where a title would have een at stake also).


How do you know Margarito had loaded gloves? Do you have proof of this lad? Margarito started slow but won the vast majority of the second half of that fight.He even rocked Williams.


Why would Mayweather want to call him out?


Pavlik delayed the fight with PW on 2 occassions. What was PW going to do? Wait another month? He is a fighter and went to the ring. Pavlik only fought when he was going to get stripped of his title. Kelly made the staph infection an excuse yet he MISSED doctor appointments, that shows how motivated he was to fight PW. You state you are an expert in boxing. Haven't fighters fought with cut eyes, injured hands, and even Harry Greb fought while being blind in one eye? Yet a troll as yourself still will find reasons to make excuses for Pavlik and trivial reasons to knock PW. Pavlik is too slow for PW, BHOP at 43 took him to school. You don't think they studied the film? Pavlik is one of those morons who believes in the triangle theory. Since he beat Taylor and Taylor beat BHOP twice- than it = me beating BHOP.



Pavlik's team offered Williams a fight in late 2008 and Williams was offered a million dollars and Williams turned it down,so Pavlik decided to fight Hopkins instead.


I see what we have here.We have a butt hurt Paul Williams fanboy who go's to bed every night crying himself to sleep over my criticism of the overrated Paul Williams.

Williams chin is suspect and he's never faced a puncher of Pavlik's class.Williams is easy to hit unlike Hopkins and is nowhere near as crafty as Hopkins is.


Get over yourself lad.

HaglerSteelChin
01-09-2010, 06:30 AM
How many Paul Williams fights have you seen? He never uses his height or reach to great effect.His jab is awful and more often or not he fights at close range.


Paul Williams beat a rusty,old Winky Wright based upon speed and workrate.He didn't outbox him at all.


Paul Williams wasn't just beaten,he was beaten up by a smarter,more skillful fighter.


If you don't see how Martinez and Quintana exposed Williams basic lack of fundamentals,then you have no business watching this sport anymore


Paul Williams isn't a good boxer at all.






Paul Williams was fortunate to receive a decision over a fighter who had been out of the ring longer than Williams,had been brought up a weight class(Quite odd that Williams wouldn't want the fight to be at a weight class that he can make comfortably,where a title would have een at stake also).


How do you know Margarito had loaded gloves? Do you have proof of this lad? Margarito started slow but won the vast majority of the second half of that fight.He even rocked Williams.


Why would Mayweather want to call him out?






Pavlik's team offered Williams a fight in late 2008 and Williams was offered a million dollars and Williams turned it down,so Pavlik decided to fight Hopkins instead.


I see what we have here.We have a butt hurt Paul Williams fanboy who go's to bed every night crying himself to sleep over my criticism of the overrated Paul Williams.

Williams chin is suspect and he's never faced a puncher of Pavlik's class.Williams is easy to hit unlike Hopkins and is nowhere near as crafty as Hopkins is.


Get over yourself lad.

Donna- if you notice PW is not even among my top 15 fighters and I never said he was invincible. You claim he has been exposed. Yet nobody is jumping up and down to fight him. BTW, people keep talking about him not wanting to fight bigger fighters? He has said he is willing to fight at SMW, no problems with that. Also PW has actually moved up a few times. Yet nobody mentions why Caballero who is nearly 6 feet is fighting midgets at 122? Caballero has crazy height and reach advantages at 122 and still is in most P4P lists.

You mention his chin is suspect yet HE NEVER has been KOD. He had one flash KD. This after 39 fights. Amir Khan has a suspect chin since he already has been KOD. Does Manny Pacquiao have a suspect chin? He was KD 5 times and KOD twiced? But than you will say he was young and make excuses for him. Trolls will only point to trivial things in knocking guys they hate.

Margocheater followed the same trend. The plaster hardens toward the later rds and he makes a mini comeback. But PW did use the reach advantage and Jab. As a result, he kept the loaded gloves away and even won the 12th RD to seal the victory. If the gloves were loaded or not, he still beat Margocheater.

BHOP was hit and slapped around by Calzaghe. He is old and can be hit- even if they were pitty patt punches. You judge fighters as they are one dimensional. In SRL vs Hearns, the puncher became the boxer and the boxer became the puncher. PW is not going to fight Pavlik the way he fought martinez. Yes he has deficiencies, but he can work on those and get better. The fact is that Taylor beat Bhop twice and so did Slapzaghe. The mean invinvible Pavlik was more exposed than PW ever was. PW will give more angles and side to side movement against Pavlik. Pavlik has LESS handspeed than Martinez, so all that power will flush down the toilet against PW. I just trying to give the other side DonnA kin.

GJC
01-09-2010, 09:00 PM
I apologise for bumping a thread which has probably run his course but I was reading Hugh McIlvaney today and he quotes Budd Schulberg's reasoning and sums up my feelings on this fight far more eloquantly than I ever could:

"Budd's reasoning was that people were so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was. Similarly, having expected extreme destructiveness from Marvin, they saw anything less as faliure and refused to give him credit for the quiet beating he administered."

For those who do not know McIlvanney, whilst I don't believe that many of our U.K. boxers can compete historically I would put McIlvanney up against any boxing writer.

donkim
01-09-2010, 10:37 PM
Hugh McIlvaney's comments fall along the lines of every other cliche that has been used when to describe Leonard's tactics in this fight.


Apparently Hagler spent the whole night picking Leonard's combinations off with his gloves and arms.Those times where Leonard is bouncing Hagler's head side to side don't count apparently.


It's quite astonishing really the lengths Hagler fans will go to try and discredit the washed up,rusty welterweight's performance.


For such ineffective,pitty pat punches,Marvis sure didn't treat them as such.

sonnyboyx2
01-10-2010, 05:45 AM
I apologise for bumping a thread which has probably run his course but I was reading Hugh McIlvaney today and he quotes Budd Schulberg's reasoning and sums up my feelings on this fight far more eloquantly than I ever could:

"Budd's reasoning was that people were so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was. Similarly, having expected extreme destructiveness from Marvin, they saw anything less as faliure and refused to give him credit for the quiet beating he administered."

For those who do not know McIlvanney, whilst I don't believe that many of our U.K. boxers can compete historically I would put McIlvanney up against any boxing writer.

read Colin Hart the UKs No1 boxing reporter for over 40yrs and his articles on the Leonard vs Hagler fight... Hart sat ringside and had the fight 9-3 Leonard

BennyST
01-10-2010, 07:15 AM
Paul Williams isn't a good boxer at all.


Well, he is a champion in two divisions, or was. That means he is pretty good. I don't think Williams was exposed as such because anyone who had seen him fight knew he had those flaws in his game. They were exploited by good fighters who could do so, but they were never exposed because there was nothing to expose.

You could see all his flaws in all of his fights. You're right though. He doesn't tall, he fights too much in, he doesn't use his jab enough and doesn't snap it out enough either but none of that means he has been exposed because he has still been able to become a champion and is obviously very, very difficult to beat even with those flaws.

While you may not think so, he is a champion, which makes him one of the best fighters in the world.

In his only loss, a close twelve round decision, his flaws were exploited but in the rematch he learned and exploited his opponents so much that he avenged that only loss with a rather brutal first round KO. That's about as good as it gets against a guy that's beaten you and you need to show the world that it was a fluke. Not that is was a fluke as Quintana is a great fighter but he got badly beaten in the rematch.

sonnyboyx2
01-10-2010, 08:25 AM
[QUOTE]


From the Washington post, March 31, 1991.

Sugar Ray Leonard said yesterday that he used cocaine from 1983 to 1986 and also drank alcohol heavily during those three years following surgery for a detached retina that threatened to end his boxing career. An emotional Leonard attributed his failed marriage to his behavior, and said he stopped using drugs because he wanted to be a better father to his two sons.

It says here he only used cocaine from 1983 to 1986. Nothing about being dependent or having some extreme habit. Care to refute?

Maybe this link will shine some light on his drug problem.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/sugar-ray-leonard-hearns-seemed-indestructible-so-to-beat-him-was-my-defining-moment-418860.html

GJC
01-10-2010, 09:40 AM
read Colin Hart the UKs No1 boxing reporter for over 40yrs and his articles on the Leonard vs Hagler fight... Hart sat ringside and had the fight 9-3 Leonard
Sonny you misunderstand me, I'm not using the quote to reinforce my opinion as we have done all that, I just thought i'd share it as it was beautifully written.
Think you'll find McIlvaney and Schulberg were ringside too, personally i'd always back Mac's judgement over Colin Hart's who I think opinion's are coloured by how much access he gets to a particular fighter as is the way generally with The Sun which I believe he still writes for.

sonnyboyx2
01-10-2010, 10:57 PM
Sonny you misunderstand me, I'm not using the quote to reinforce my opinion as we have done all that, I just thought i'd share it as it was beautifully written.
Think you'll find McIlvaney and Schulberg were ringside too, personally i'd always back Mac's judgement over Colin Hart's who I think opinion's are coloured by how much access he gets to a particular fighter as is the way generally with The Sun which I believe he still writes for.

GJC.. thats fare enough, you prefer to listen to McIlvanney, i have a one hour documentary with McIlvanney interviewing Ray Leonard in the mid-90s it is quite awhile since i have watched it but i am quite positive they will be talking about the Hagler v Leonard fight at some stage during the interview.. i will try to view it again this week and get back to you on it...

GJC
01-11-2010, 09:22 AM
GJC.. thats fare enough, you prefer to listen to McIlvanney, i have a one hour documentary with McIlvanney interviewing Ray Leonard in the mid-90s it is quite awhile since i have watched it but i am quite positive they will be talking about the Hagler v Leonard fight at some stage during the interview.. i will try to view it again this week and get back to you on it...
Yes I have seen it, I think it was the maestro series or something. McIlvanney was a huge fan of SRL but didn't think he beat Hagler. I would hold my opinion anyway but I'm pleased to have Mac for company :). Colin Hart has been around for years but he has never been one I have warmed too. Don't like his style and find him a bit too, well, Sun

sonnyboyx2
01-11-2010, 10:22 AM
just watched this fight again today... Leonard was a clear winner

GJC
01-11-2010, 10:56 AM
just watched this fight again today... Leonard was a clear winner
I only argue with the word clear :)

Ziggy Stardust
01-11-2010, 12:33 PM
I only argue with the word clear :)

I had Leonard by a single point. If someone has Hagler by a point or two or scored it a draw it's well within reason: It was hardly a fight with a CLEAR winner as you say :)

Poet

sonnyboyx2
01-11-2010, 02:28 PM
I only argue with the word clear :)

after 6rds Leonard could not lose, Hagler needed to KO him to win

sonnyboyx2
01-11-2010, 02:29 PM
I only argue with the word clear :)

GJC... can i ask who was commentating on the fight when you watched it?

GJC
01-11-2010, 02:35 PM
GJC... can i ask who was commentating on the fight when you watched it?
God only knows. I generally watch fights 1st time without commentary as frankly they drive me mad, and if/when I re-watch them with commentary.