just for the record who won hagler or leonard ?

[Anthony342]

I'm still a proponent of the boxer that lands more punches in a round without a knockdown should win that round and if he does that for the majority of rounds should win the fight. I don't see the significance if one guy lands, say 10 clean punches and gets hit only maybe once or twice but he loses the round because he got hit harder? Sorry, don't agree. If that's how to score a fight, then punchstat numbers wouldn't be so important. So yeah, agree to disagree.

[Scott9945]

Yes, but not as frequently as Hagler.. Power did'nt come into it as neither man was knocked down, and imo that's exactly what Marvin needed in order to have won that dc convincingly..

This debate reminds me of the fight between Byrd and Golota about 10 years ago. The perception going in was that Byrd was the better boxer and Golota was the harder puncher. The fight was fought on even terms almost the whole way through. The decision was a draw, which I found reasonable. But a lot of people were saying that Golota was robbed because he was the harder puncher. Yet during the fight neither fighter was in any real trouble. So to give Golota more credit for power which was assumed rather than delivered was incorrect, imo. Obviously my point is that a similar standard could be applied to this fight as well.

[CHEECH]

crazy speed flurries that caught mostly haglers gloves arms n shoulders. imo those dont count in scoring but perhaps we have some referee's here on site who can give us the square biz on pro scoring

[Humean]

I'm still a proponent of the boxer that lands more punches in a round without a knockdown should win that round and if he does that for the majority of rounds should win the fight. I don't see the significance if one guy lands, say 10 clean punches and gets hit only maybe once or twice but he loses the round because he got hit harder? Sorry, don't agree. If that's how to score a fight, than punchstat numbers wouldn't be so important. So yeah, agree to disagree.

In this case I would agree with you, if fighter A lands 10 clean punches that have low to moderate power then that would probably still count more than 1 or 2 clean but powerful shots landed from fighter B. However if Fighter A landed 5 low to moderate power shots to Fighter B's 1 or 2 hard punches then things would be different. You cannot just count the number as that is only a quantitative judgment, surely a qualitative judgment is necessary? Punchstats numbers are not very important....unless you are Jim Lampley.

[Scott9945]

In this case I would agree with you, if fighter A lands 10 clean punches that have low to moderate power then that would probably still count more than 1 or 2 clean but powerful shots landed from fighter B. However if Fighter A landed 5 low to moderate power shots to Fighter B's 1 or 2 hard punches then things would be different. You cannot just count the number as that is only a quantitative judgment, surely a qualitative judgment is necessary? Punchstats numbers are not very important....unless you are Jim Lampley.

True. Those who know how to watch fights don't need to depend on punchstats. But Lampley does.

[mickey malone]

This debate reminds me of the fight between Byrd and Golota about 10 years ago. The perception going in was that Byrd was the better boxer and Golota was the harder puncher. The fight was fought on even terms almost the whole way through. The decision was a draw, which I found reasonable. But a lot of people were saying that Golota was robbed because he was the harder puncher. Yet during the fight neither fighter was in any real trouble. So to give Golota more credit for power which was assumed rather than delivered was incorrect, imo. Obviously my point is that a similar standard could be applied to this fight as well.

Good comparison..

[SBleeder]

I'm still a proponent of the boxer that lands more punches in a round without a knockdown should win that round and if he does that for the majority of rounds should win the fight. I don't see the significance if one guy lands, say 10 clean punches and gets hit only maybe once or twice but he loses the round because he got hit harder? Sorry, don't agree. If that's how to score a fight, than punchstat numbers wouldn't be so important. So yeah, agree to disagree.

So what about effective aggression and ring generalship?

[Anthony342]

I think those are important as well, but that Hagler didn't show enough of either to win against Leonard. Sure, Hagler was moving forward, but also getting hit as he was. I don't mind a fighter moving away or around if he's still landing more. And I like seeing numbers of punches landed in a fight, but only believe it's effective round by round, not for the whole fight and only if there is no knockdown in a round. Bottom line, I thought Leonard won.

[-Hyperion-]

people who think Hagler won=delusional....

[theproof]

as a fan of Raymond since we were kids I have to say he won. the problem is hagler was running his mouth from the beginning to the fight in the fight and just head hunting. where was the bodywork ? look at the fight against hearns. three rounds of hell he gave hearns. to me and you bros will tell me I am crazy. it was not a close fight. just look at the bodyshots marvin gave to tommy. it knocked him across the ring took his legs away. he should have hit sugar to the body and he would have quit after round 10.