Tweet
How would a fight have gone between Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler in 1981. Leonard had beaten Duran at the end of 1980, and both Ayub Kalule and Tommy Hearns in 1981. Hagler had stopped both Vito Antufermo and Mustapha Hamso that same year. Same size ring as they fought in in 1987, same gloves, same 12 rounds. Does Hagler win this time? Or is REay even more slick and elusive as many would suggest this was his finest year as a pro. Who wins and how would it go?
-
-
Hagler; too large, too aggressive, impossible to KO. By the time the fight occurred he had slowed down considerably. -
Originally posted by Tengoshi View Post
Ray leonard wins by much easier decision than in 87. Hagler in 83 could barely outbox a overblown Duran at middleweight. Hagler was never a great boxer. He was great when you came directly forward and led, allowing him to counter punch, and if your right there he could rip those powerful very powerful counter hooks and uppercuts
I ask people to point out what fight had hagler ever shown the ability to box whit a leonard. Also, to cut of the ring...Hmmmm
I offer this. In 1987 we always here about this supposed hagler had slowed etc.. Ok. My quesiton is WHAT ABOUT RAY? I never ever hear anyone talk about how in 1987 that Ray Leonard abilties had seriously eroded. He looked fast somewhat in that fight only because he was facing a Middleweight. When he fought Norris, you could see just how much his reflexes and speed had slowed down.
Look at Ray leonard that fought Hearns, and Duran, and Kalule (leonard walked right through the Jr middlweight champion, but he would not dare fight Hagler this way). Did he tire vs Duran or Hearns? But he was shot come round 7 inthe Hagler fight. He was much much faster, more accurate, had more zip on his punches, better defensivley. Had leonard not lost his legs and was peak, Haglr would have had to cut off the ring to catch Ray, and he never ever did this before. Hagler had issues with Boxing Duran, what do you think would happen when he fought Ray who outboxed Duran soo bad Duran quit. Hmmmm
Hearns reach was the factor in their 1st fight, Hagler had no such advantage. Hagler also had issues with other fighters earlier on in is career. He also had a glaring weakness. he could not lead, and he could not deal with mobility. Dundee pointed ths out in the Duran fight, and told ray to simply move laterally and when Hagler stepped to punch which i a dead give away that a punch was coming when he led, (sort of like Trinidad dippig before he threw his left hook) Leonard would eaither move away, dip to his right or tie hagler up...Worked like a charm.
I think people once again dont ever look at styles, just say this figher can beat this fighter. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT STYLES. Leonard movment poses a style that NOONE ON HERE HAS EVER SEEN HAGLER HAVE SUCCESS WITH. Even slight movment (duran) gave hagler issues and forced him to box. A prime leonard either outboxed Hagler thorougly or gets stopped, and Prime leonard had never even hit the canvass. Hagler would not outbox Ray.Comment
-
I think Hagler would have been too much for Leonard at that point, just too big, too motivated, too hungry and too aggressive for the 1981 Leonard.Comment
-
he was too big for duran too, but duran who is nowhere near the boxer leonard is, not as fast, older, was pretty much able box hagletr too a stand still.Originally posted by Silencers View Post
It's about stylesComment
-
I really want to say Hagler, but I can also envision Ray winning this fight. I'd like to hear more opinions.Originally posted by wpink1 View PostComment
-
Look to be honest, as a Leonard fan in 1981 i thought he would be crazy to step up and fight Hagler then as well. I remember many times in the ring I would box or spar vs bigger stronger fighters and my manager always told me TECHNIQUE AND STYLES AND HEART WIN. I would never have any issues vs the bigger opponet, it was the quicker ones that matched my speed that gave me issues. Based on Technique, and style you can exploit a bigger stalker that follows you around the ring, vs one that cuts off the ring. In essence other than power, it would be easier for Leonard when you think about it, to fight Hagler who in any era was slower than Duran, not the boxer that Duran is, and does not ever cut off a ring, and telegraphs his punch when forced to lead by stepping. It should be easier for Leoanrd to use his style vs Hagler than it would be vs a Duran, who was a great boxer/stalker with power and speed.
You look at Hagler devestating ko's they all came vs fighters that came straight ahead, had no movement, or came after him. Thus Hagler had a counterpunching cakewalk vs mugabi and hearns. One would ask why would it be easier for leonard to beat hagler, when he struggle with hearns, and hearns got stopped in 3 vs hagler. That person who thinks in that manner and uses that type of Analogy knows nothing about boxing. You have to study the fight itself. Hearns came right after Halger and never employed his fantastic height and reach advantage, as he did behind a great jab vs Leonard. Also, Hearns and everyone knew he was not going to stop hagler, thus hagler coud from the jump come right after a fighter that would come right back after him, thus no boxing no cutting off the ring, no dealing with angles, no tying up when hagler is about to unleash those powerful inside hooks and uppercuts. Just like Ali struglles and even loses the first fight to Frazier, Frazier get destroyed by Foreman, and hmmm that analogy has Forment destroying Ali...Hmmmm what happened.
Remember it is always about Style, Technique, and dedication and heart.....that is unless he catches a greeat Hagler hook and it ends all that, which is always possible. However we have to consider the fact that in 1981 Ray lenard had faced middleweights before, Duran, Hearns, southpaws, etc..and never ever touched the canvass, not til after his reflexes slowed and he came out of retirment. So that rational is completley fair to think Halger would catch up to him and stop him, but it not based on anything that ever happened between these two in the ring, so one would have to suggest that hagler would outpoing him then. Hmmmm did you see Duran vs Hagler in 1983. a PRIME Leonard is not a better boxer than Duran, who by little movements and forcign hagler to lead, made it a boxing match. I would suggest that Leonard was faster, bigger, and a better boxer ( not toe to toe warrior) than Duran was, and would give Hagler much more to think about in terms of movment and strategy.
Finally, I think what we would have seen in 1981 simply would be a much faster version of 1987, as many will say hagler slowed a bit, well Ray slowed also and whats even more telling is that Ray slowing down causes a much greater impact to his style than the slowing that Hagler experienced. Also ray was known for always being able to fight sustained15 round fight, example benitez, duran, heanrs. Well in 87 Hagler only stated landed punches when the slower than prime ray slowed down even more, and was visable tired and right in front of him. What if ray boxed him like he did Duran in New Orleans, with that stamina. These fighters that ray beat dd not pose the ko threat that hagler posed, but ray would have a much much easier time putting his punches together vs a middleweight Hagler. Much more stationary target, that is not as fast as the others, by a long shot.Comment
-
He gave Duran way too much respect though, he didn't fight the fight he should have fought, if he fights the right fight against Leonard, he would be too much for him.Originally posted by wpink1 View PostComment
-
major fallacy in thinking. Hagler was never a fighter that came roaring out after you likeca Tyson. To change his style vs a legend like duran would be foolish. Hagler was great being hagler. You just disrespect a gr duran or leonardvand just rush in on them, it's not that easy. If it was many would have done it before.
Hagler was not generally a fighter that liked to lead. He was at his best when he was counter punching. The reason why the duran fight was likecit was, was because duran is a very good boxer, and very smart. Instead of being the aggressor & meeting the fate that yearns met, he made hagler lead a lot. Also duran has very good defense & head movement.
I do agree hAgler be duran & Leonard could have been more aggressive, but vs these two great fighters who are smart enought to generally follow their game plan, this would not neccessarily lead to better results. Well let me be corrected, maybe vs duran it wouldn't, but anyone who saw the hagler Leonard fight knows Leonard ran short on stamina starting round 7. Had hAgler pressured the 87 version of ray from round 1, I don't think ray could have lasted. However the 81 version could have.Comment
-
wpink1, you make good points about styles. But look at the 87 fight and look at Hagler's timing! It was so off... that was not just Ray's excellent D and gameplan. It was Hagler who lost a lot of sharpness. Hagler in 1981 is a much sharper fighter. Some of those punches would land, and Leonard certainly had a less full body to take those punches. Note that I am mentioning the body, because a prime Leonard would certainly do great at evading headshots for the first part of the fight. But those bodyshots would not fail to get there IMO.
Not to mention that hopefully Hagler would not chase Leonard from an orthodox stance.Comment
Comment