Srl Goat

[wpink1]

Am I saying that Hagler fought the best fight of his career that night. NO

Am I saying that Hagler of 87 would have beaten hagler of 80, NO

All I am saying, give the same standard that we apply to others when we refer to them as slipping. Never heard of a fighter on a ko streak no loses in 10years, and beating his best grup of 3 fighters in his career, as Slipping.

[wmute]

Funny that you call quotes and facts hyperbola if they don't come from you. that's all I am tempted to say. But I will get on some of the points you make.

1. He was not in danger of losing any fight because he was a great fighter. Roy Jones at 175 over 30 years old was not the same 27 year old at 168. Did he risk losing any fight until Traver 1? No
Just look at Hagler fight and you see a fighter who is losing finesse and sharpness, just like Roy was losing his legs but still dominating.

Leonard says Hagler was slipping, but you say no... who should I listen to???

2. Leonard said what Manchine reported, that means “Hagler was not the same because of all the fights he had”, not that “he was geting outboxed”. What are you referring to. Also Mugabi wasnt doing any outboxing in the sense of the Hagler-Duran fight

3. Sorry but losing something means you are worse off. Some ppl can compensate better than others. Hagler compensated with aggression, that was not his best. Counterpunching had been his thing for years. The fact that Leonard lost stamina with his inactivity does not MEAN in any way that prime for prime he would have beaten Hagler. It means that he lost stamina.

Not to mention that the “loss of stamina” might have said something on the effect Hagler punches were landing. As Leonard said Hagler was landing hard punches, he was scoring.

4. you didnt disprove anything so... let's go on with this one too.
Hagler and Leoanrd and their handlers sit down to make the fight.
Leonard's team know damn well they can do better in a 12 rounder. Hagler's team know just as well that they can do better in a 15 rounder. WBC only sanctions 12 rounders, IBF and WBA still sanction 15 rounders. The norm doesnt matter. What matters is that both options were available and the one favorable to Leonard was chosen.

Do you think that what happened was

Hagler: “hey I want 15”
Leonard: “the “norm” is 12”
Hagler: “ok let's do 12, sorry... I really want to go with the norm even if it's against my best interest”

Or was it more like

Hagler: “I want 15”
Leonard: “I want 12 you get an extra 2% of the share more of the split”
Hagler: ”make it 3% and i't a deal. I'll beat your ass anyways” (silly marvin)

I dont have many doubts on which is more likely. As dumb as Hagler was in the occasion the first one sounds a bit ridiculous.

People bash Leonard and other modern fighters, because they could have given the fans more fights. After 66 pro fights are a lot of fights.

Isnt it funny how saying 32 is almost 33 (what I did) is being a hater, whereas changing 66 to 60 (what you did) is objective...

Also the Duran example is very unfortunate to backup your (wrong) point, because those 71 fights included many soft non title-fights and the equivalent of his amateur career as it is usually the case for central/south-american fighters.

I am not making excuses for Hagler. He said it himself long before tha Leonard fight, he started going for stoppages instead of decisions to avoid being screwed. That does not mean he was better. It means he tried to KO the other guy instead of winning rounds. Boxing is about winning, not KOing people.

Again. Mugabi hit him a lot more than Antuofermo or anyone did before. This did not escape Leonard's or anyone else's eye, but it did escape yours. Go watch those fights again. Even against Hearns... do you see ANY kind of defense, or even movement not finalized to hurt and stop Hearns? Go look at older fights of Hagler against tall boxers and you won't see the same tactics, I promise.

As you can conclude from my previous post, I agree on Hagler throwing away those 4 rounds.

Wmute, and the Machine.

Questions that you will not answer. You want to run on Hyperbola and theory. I run on Fact.

1. Based on what fight(s) did hagler show signs of slipping. Did he lose any fights. Was he in jeapordy of losing any fights. How about did any go the distance since 83?

2. Leonard said Mugabi outboxed him as did Duran, and he knew Mugabie was not the fighter he was.

3. Also Leonard and other may have observed that Hagler SLOWED, a bit. However, hagerl was not a leonard, jones, mayweather, Ali. He was not solely based on speed. I ask you this, Duran was 73 fights into his career when he moved up and fought what many call the best fight of his career. He was slower at Welter, but for that fight he was better. Leoanrd when he first came into boxing from the olympics was much faster his first 15 fights than he was later on. He learned to put leverage on his punches, and traded off speed with more power. Dundee wanted him to be more professional than Amateur. My point with this is Slower does not mean slippage. It could for a fighter that is based solely on speed and instincts, but hagler was not.

Roy jones suffered much more than Hagler did at a later age (key point). He suffered more because he was solely on instinct, and did not have the jaw Hagler did. His instinct had to be there. Same with Leonard, who by the way was not at his peak when he fought hagler. In fact the leonard that fought hagler would not have beaten the other top Middles in Nunn, and McCallum THAT NIGHT. However he had the style to beat hagler any day, any time.

Hagler struggle with Antefermo the 1st time, and with Duran who boxed him and made him lead. You really think Duran at 160 is a better boxer than a prime Leonard, who had his legs and speed and instinct, and that is exaclty what he had lost MOST OF by the time he came back and fought HAGLER. He was winded by round 6. Look at the 1st Duran fight, where he fought toe to toe, punch after punch for 15 rounds. This was not the same leoanrd. So if anyone noticeably slipped the most in those 5 years he was off, it was Leoanrd.

4. What else did Ray win in negotiations.. I already totally disproved your weak points about slippage and 12 rounds vs 15 rounds. You say there were some (minority of fights in 87) that went 15 rounds, BUT HOW IS IT RAY LEONARD ALONE OUT OF ALL THE FIGHTS FROM LIGHTWEIGHT TO HEAVYWEIGHT THAT WERE 12 ROUNDERS...RAY LEONARD ALONE IS GETTING CONCESSIONS....WOW!

On one hand people slam Ray for only having 40 fights as if it was not enough, then on he other hand you say 60 is shot! So I guess somewhere between 41-59 is optimal. Give me break. You look for signs, which hagler did not show. He got hit earlier in his fights, not just vs Mugabi. You make an excuse for him, hmmmm he elected to box earlier in his career vs go for the ko, and later he went for a ko...Wow....that is weak. The facts is he stopped every challenger for his title except for 1, and that was in 83 vs Duran a lightweight who moved up, and had a draw in 79. However, in the so called period of slippage he ko'd Hearns, Hamsho, and Mugabi. Wow!!! If that is slippage then everyone needs to slip

Yes I will concur Ray did negotiate a baseball field of a ring. However If hagler had learned to cut off a ring, vs follow it would not have mattered. That night all he had to do was pressure Ray from the outset. But he didn't, he gave up the 1st 4 rounds, and thus the fight.

[wmute]

Am I saying that Hagler fought the best fight of his career that night. NO

Am I saying that Hagler of 87 would have beaten hagler of 80, NO

All I am saying, give the same standard that we apply to others when we refer to them as slipping. Never heard of a fighter on a ko streak no loses in 10years, and beating his best grup of 3 fighters in his career, as Slipping.

How about a fighter on a 7 year winning sterak (15 if you take away a DQ loss), who just won a HW title who's slipping?

I think I heard about that one.

[wpink1]

Wmute. I will give you this, your not ignorant about boxing as are most of my debaters. but you do twist the facts..(Leonard's exact words I have the tape when Ray was recorded with a light brown members only jacket on standing at a fight looking around in amazement, he was also doing a interview and stated quote "I saw Hagler fight vs Mugabi, he was getting outboxed by Mugabi and also had issues boxing Duran, I know neither one of them can box with me" Quote... it is on You tube in the coverage of Hagler vs Leonard....Leonards own words..... Tell me where he said hagler Slipped....I want to hear the words where Leoanrd said Hagler slipped. I have pretty much heard all of his interviews..and never heard him say Hagler slipped. I have heard Hagler slowed.

1. You bring up 36 year old Roy to substantiate your point vs hagler.
2. You bring up a fighter who moved up to Heavy weight and then had to lose 20 pounds + in muscle mass in a short period of time, to correlate your pointless issue about hager at age 32.
3. You bring up a fighter that I already mentioned was based on instinct and timing vs a straight ahead warrior like hagler. A fighter like roy who used speed to avoid getting hit, and then be in a position to counter. You compare him to a fighter like Hagler or Duran who could avoid punches to, but could take punches and wear you down, not with speed but wth pressure and power punching. Major difference. When Roy lost his speed look what happened. When Leonard lost his speed and had to face a younger fighter look what happened. When Ali lost his speed look at how he had to then take punches, and use the rope a dope and we learned more about ali. That is why Ali is ranked higher IMO>. Now compare that to Chavez, Duran, hagler, Forement Hopkins, etc..fighters who may have been faster but their style and entire arsonel offensiv and defensive is not based on instinct and speed. They tend to be more successful for a longer period of time, because as you pointed out earlier and I have always known Speed and reflexes are the 1st to go.

Based on that.....Speed and relexes being the first to go, who do you think lost more in those 5 years.

3. Obviously you never boxed, I have...Hagler did counter punch great. However Duran forced hagler way back in 83 to lead and showed movement a little. If you boxed you could review the tape and realize that when Hagler faced leoanrd it was not that his speed was not there. it was because when Hagler counter punches (listen up my friend) he has to step then punch. What Dundee did in his last 2 weeks in preparation for the fight as he always comes into leonard camp for strategy later. Dundee pointed out and had leonard employee the tactic of when hagler stepped he would move. Also here is quote from Dundee regarding strategy.

"Hagler was a right hander who had turned southpaw. He was a good right hand ****er but he had to take a step before he punched. Step and punch. Step and punch. The key was to break that rhythm. I had Ollie yell from the corner to Ray whenever Hagler started to come forward, 'Take a dip! Take a dip!' Marvin would step and Ray would hit him. Pop! That broke Marvin's rhythm.

It was leonards stategy that beat Hagler along with hagler ******ly not aggressivly coming right after ray in the 1st 4 rounds and even fighting orthodox.

4. STamina. Hagler landed very few punches by round 6 my friend. He didnt pick up the punch output until starting round 6. Leonard was winded in round 6. Go look at the tapes. He was dammn near ready to quit in round 9. It was a well timed miracle that he got a short 2nd wind in round 10, when he got back on his bike. How about looking at the action in 1980 when he went a sustained back and forth action packed fight with Duran in Montreal, where he took much more punishment, and was active.


5. No one is arguing that the fight could not have been 15 rounds, that clearly was an option. My point is that option existed for every title fight from 86, 87 and some additional years I think, but definately all of 86 and 87. The funny thing is you never hear any one saying Hearns got a gift because the fight was scheduled for 12 rounds vs 15, or Tysons opponents. or Hagler other opponents, or Chavez's opponents that had 12 round fights. Why are we bringing this up vs only 1 fighter. Sugar Ray Leoanrd. I will tell you why, cause people are haters, and they dont realize there are some out there that know the facts and will expose this biased reporting. I expect if you want to single out Ray for getting a 12 round fight, then list every other championshp fight in 87 that was only 12 rounds too!


6. Again you didnt do you homework. Anyone who knows me, knows I have alway pointed out that Duran had a very padded Lightweight resume. Of those 72 fights he had a lot of fights that were sparring level parnter level. I am not arguing that point. My point is that he still had 72 fights, dominated a entire division for a decade was boxing for 13 years at the time, moved up weight 2 weight classes and still pulled off his best fight ever. Yes he was not as fast as he was when he faced Ken Buchanon, but he was better. Slower does not mean worse. That was my point. Leonard was slower in 81 than in 78. What version do you think was better. Leonard was faster as an olympian, what version the professional or the olympian was better, Hmmmmm? By the way there was some cupcakes on Hagler resume also.

7. Mugabi did land good shots, but so did Antefermo. Mugabi was a very very good fighter, entering the fight he was 25-0 with 25 ko's. Was he simply supposed to get destroyed in 1 round. There were many fights that hagler had to fight hard in.


Finally. You still have not shown where Hagler Slipped. I asked you to point out factually where he slipped. Meaning loss, stoppage, barely won, upset, getting knocked down, draw, split decision, somehting.

Name one other fighter that was considered slipping at age 32 when he was riding a unbeaten in 10 year streak, and ko's of every challenger that decade except for one, and also just completed beating his beat group of 3 opponenents in his career. Name one fighter.!!!

[Dan...]

I am a Sugar Ray fan but no way in hell is he p4p the GOAT I don't think.

[wmute]

Me twisting facts? You are the one turning 66 fights into 60 and calling stating that saying that almost 33 is 33 is being a hater... anyways...

I trust you on seeing that. But from your previous post I thought you were referring to the quote from manchine.

Leonard said “slowed” but slowing means slipping in boxing. Sorry you won't convince me of anything other than that, and that's exactly because I boxed. When you have perfected all your skills, you have nothing left to learn (or you do, but you just don't learn it), and you lose a physical attribute, you are slipping. You mention examples of fighters who were better at points in their career when they were slower, but you are mentioning Duran and Leonard.
Leonard who got (a lot) better in other departments since his amateur days. Hagler did not get better at anything, he was just slower. I call that slipping, I dont know about you.
And I take 78 Duran (De Jesus 3) over 81 Duran. The Buchanan Duran was worse, but so was the 75 Hagler. They were both learning their trade. What did Hagler learn in the 80s?

I don't understand what's your point on Hagler. That he was not past it? that he was not shot? Because I agree with the second, but as you can see, certainly not the first.

1+2. You are twisting my words again, or I did not express myself clearly. My point is entirely in the long post, I brought up Roy BEFORE the 1st Tarver fight. My point would be the same if he retired after beating Ruiz. The 2000-2003 Jones was a worse fighter than the Roy Jones from 5 years before, say Toney to Hill.

3. Hagler was not ”a straight ahead warrior“. He was actually decently subtle when he moved, and had excellent timing. Things that were gone by the time he fought Leonard.

3. (again) You are quite a bit off about me never boxing, but whatever...

Leonard's plan was beautiful and Hagler was not at his best coming forward, but it does not mean it would have worked against 1980 Hagler. I am aware that Dundee was an excellent trainer and Leonard one of the smartest fighter to step in a ring. That doesnt mean that a younger Hagler would have been missing so many punches, and timing them so badly.

4. Never said Leoanrd did not have more stamina in 1980, just that what we saw was also caused by punches. From what you type I would guess that if Leonard was in the ring with someone else, he would have been in the exact same condition at the final bell?

5. Read my previous post again. Where do you see hating? One option was more favorable to a fighter, one to the other. One was chosen, the reason was money, not the norm. Hagler was ******. Leonard was smart.

6. see ”intro“ of this post. Duran fought his best fight because he had Leonard in front of him. He had incredible performances which rank with this one at other points in his career (De Jesus 3, Moore, Barkley), the only difference is the quality of the opponent.

7. Mugabi made Hagler fight harder than he would have had to earlier in his career. Not only Mugabi is not a great fighter, but there were no tricks in Mugabi, no puzzles to figure out, there was no hint of the outboxing and making Hagler lead, which provided different degrees on success to other fighters. It still took many rounds for Hagler to estabilsh himself. He was relying on aggression against a fighter which he could have broken down slowly (possibly winning more rounds in the process).

Finally. I think I gave you plenty of examples and explanations on why I (like many others) think Hagler was slipping. I dont understand why you want a boxrec type of explanation, when you clearly know that watching things going on is what matters, and that's exactly what I talked about.

LOL... I had to cut your post from the reply, we went overboard (1st time this happens to me)

“The text that you have entered is too long (10039 characters). Please shorten it to 10000 characters long.”

[wmute]

forgot about Duran.

Fighting slouches is less physically demanding than fighting top level opposition right.

and yes there are the occasional cans on hagler's record, but not nearly as many.

this is not very relevant to the conversation though.

[wpink1]

Okay. Wmute. I can see we are not that far apart. I think our definition of Slipping may be different, but we agree that Hagler was not garbage, but not at his peak either.

Sure he was not the best hagler ever, leoanrd was not the best he was vs Benitez or Hagler. I would rank Ray his best vs hearns, Duran I and II. Yes I said Duran I. I think the Ray that fought from the 5th round on, may have fought the wrong style, but he fought magnicficently off the ropes. Many miss this, since they simply see that he fought Durans fight. I see Duran being the effective aggressor, but meeting a fierce competitor that grew right before his eyes from great talent with no proven substance, to a great warrior that gained the confidence that enabed him to beat a Duran, Hagler, hearns..... With out the loss to Duran , I doubt if Ray would have had it to beat hearns or hagler.

I like debating with you, you know your stuff, even though your twist some things..haha. You know that the 12 round issue is weak. I have heard this for so long, and love to point out that most championship fights in 87 where 12 rounds.

What happens is that many hear a documentary like legendary nights, or beyound the glory and take it for fact. (Not you) Many do example. I hear some on here saying Ray ducked Aaron Pryor! I love to ask people to do a simple time line.

Ray was a welterweight - Pyror was a light welter who never once moved up til much later.
When Pyror approached ray at the podium ray was campaigning for his fight with hearns. Do people really think Ray should have fought Pryor over hearns.
At the time pryor approach ray, he had not beaten anyone but a shot Cervantez (he was truly shot 100 fights, 10 losses), He did not fight Arguello til 3 weeks after Ray had his 1st retirment ceremony.
At the time of Leonards retirment there was no Pyror leonard demand. It was as we have been debating, Hagler vs Leonard.

Those people that watch a documentary created obviously biased towards the subject in the show, simply believed that Pryor actually made leonard duck him, when ray was fighting Benetiz, Duran, Hearns, then hagler....

People point out that Pryor was outboxing him in sparring because some guy on there said he heard so. When Pryor was asked on HBO where are they at now...He said clearly Ray use to lump me up, but I got some good licks in too. I used to spar with Jimmy Matz who did work with leonard up in MD early on, and he witnessed the Pryor - leonard sparring and he said leonard used to easily out box pryor,but he did say that Pryor would do good work on Ray against the ropes in Training, but they had head gear on. He also said Ray dropped Pryor several times, not from hurting him but because Pryors balance was bad, and they were working on that.

I point out these things because many simply dont know boxing, However i do recognize that you do...

Good debating with you my friend.

[wmute]

Okay. Wmute. I can see we are not that far apart. I think our definition of Slipping may be different, but we agree that Hagler was not garbage, but not at his peak either.

Sure he was not the best hagler ever, leoanrd was not the best he was vs Benitez or Hagler. I would rank Ray his best vs hearns, Duran I and II. Yes I said Duran I. I think the Ray that fought from the 5th round on, may have fought the wrong style, but he fought magnicficently off the ropes. Many miss this, since they simply see that he fought Durans fight. I see Duran being the effective aggressor, but meeting a fierce competitor that grew right before his eyes from great talent with no proven substance, to a great warrior that gained the confidence that enabed him to beat a Duran, Hagler, hearns..... With out the loss to Duran , I doubt if Ray would have had it to beat hearns or hagler.

I like debating with you, you know your stuff, even though your twist some things..haha. You know that the 12 round issue is weak. I have heard this for so long, and love to point out that most championship fights in 87 where 12 rounds.

What happens is that many hear a documentary like legendary nights, or beyound the glory and take it for fact. (Not you) Many do example. I hear some on here saying Ray ducked Aaron Pryor! I love to ask people to do a simple time line.

Ray was a welterweight - Pyror was a light welter who never once moved up til much later.
When Pyror approached ray at the podium ray was campaigning for his fight with hearns. Do people really think Ray should have fought Pryor over hearns.
At the time pryor approach ray, he had not beaten anyone but a shot Cervantez (he was truly shot 100 fights, 10 losses), He did not fight Arguello til 3 weeks after Ray had his 1st retirment ceremony.
At the time of Leonards retirment there was no Pyror leonard demand. It was as we have been debating, Hagler vs Leonard.

Those people that watch a documentary created obviously biased towards the subject in the show, simply believed that Pryor actually made leonard duck him, when ray was fighting Benetiz, Duran, Hearns, then hagler....

People point out that Pryor was outboxing him in sparring because some guy on there said he heard so. When Pryor was asked on HBO where are they at now...He said clearly Ray use to lump me up, but I got some good licks in too. I used to spar with Jimmy Matz who did work with leonard up in MD early on, and he witnessed the Pryor - leonard sparring and he said leonard used to easily out box pryor,but he did say that Pryor would do good work on Ray against the ropes in Training, but they had head gear on. He also said Ray dropped Pryor several times, not from hurting him but because Pryors balance was bad, and they were working on that.

I point out these things because many simply dont know boxing, However i do recognize that you do...

Good debating with you my friend.

I agree that the best Leoanrd was the one who fought Duran and Hearns (not in 89 of course).

Most aggressive fighters would have been picked apart by Leonard in Montreal. Unfortunately Duran was one of the most subtle and complete aggressive fighters, blending great D with his well known offense and being smart in the earthquake he created in the ring. I think fighting Duran taught him a lot. In the Hearns fight he knew when it was time to dog it out, and with Hagler he knew how to stay calm and keep his plan.

While saying Leonard ducked Pryor is off, it is certainly true that it was a good fight which did not happen and obivously because of Leonard (as anyone would have fought Ray given the money to be made, even if they were dead sure of losing. the timing and the economics did not make sense for Leonard to take the fight.

It makes me curious to see what is going to be made in 10 years of Jones and Mayweather's career in the future with respect to the fights which never happened.

[wmute]

Out of topic, how do you think think Hagler would have done against Nunn or McCallum?