Hagler's loss to Leonard

[VibesMan]

Big Hagler fan (and Leonard for that matter).

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

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

[mickey malone]

Big Hagler fan (and Leonard for that matter).

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

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

You and me both!

[Princemanspopa]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[blacklodge]

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

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

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