Hagler vs Leonard 1981

[wpink1]

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

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

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

[wmute]

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

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

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

[The Noose]

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

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

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

[wpink1]

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

[LondonRingRules]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorted.

[The Noose]

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

.

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

Very very different styles.


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

[Dan...]

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

[Silencers]

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

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

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

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

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

[wpink1]

Wow, lots to correct factually on here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Silencers]

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