If Hagler didn't fight orthodox early on vs Leonard, would he have won?

[{Darko}]

And why did he do it?

same reason he agreed to a larger ring and 12 rounds instead of 15 arrogance perhaps

[Sugar Adam Ali]

This is a very good assessment, I'm not sure what you thought when you saw the Hagler/Hearns bout, but at the time, I remember thinking neither man can be the same again. Hagler's subsequent fight with Mugabi showed us that he was no longer the same fighter but and this is important, Mugabi was a terrific fighter himself and gave Hagler fits.

I don't think Hagler was shot or anywhere near against Leonard but he had slowed a tad. He could easily have continued post Leonard and in my opinion beaten everyone in the division till at least 1990 but Leonard humiliated Hagler that night. What we must remember is that Leonard himself was almost done, physically he had gone through hell in the years previous, not to mention various drug related issues. But what he did that night was equal to Ali beating Foreman or Douglas beating Tyson, fighting through many physical disadvantages to beat a fighter, who at that stage, was considered better.

It truly is one of boxing's greatest achievements.

Im not so sure he would have continued success in the division.. There was alot of young guns establishing themselves at the time, Tate, nunn, mccallum, even a hearns rematch instead of hearns-leonard 2, would have been very difficult at that time...
I think hagler left at the perfect time, he may have beaten leonard in a rematch, but im not so sure about that or any other top mw fighters..
Had Hagler hung around, i wouldnt like his chances vs mccallum, tate, nunn, hearns, and i dont even want to think about hagler fighting a young prime toney,, it would probably look like the toney-holyfield fight, with toney just putting a beating on an old hagler

[Sugarj]

Agreed about Leonard overall having the heart of a champion. I just meant in the case of Hagler. Yes, the timing wasn't right, but the drug problems were his fault. That's my point though, for someone to really be a great, they should fight an opponent at their peak, not wait around until they start to decline. Not saying Leonard isn't great, but he'd be even greater if he could've fought and beaten Hagler a little sooner and would've been a better win for his resume. Even if he had fought him after Hearns it would've been a better win for him in 1986 rather than in 1987.

Agreed, the drugs issues were all Leonard's fault.

And yea, if Leonard would have met Hagler after the Hearns fight it would have been a better win. But possibly a win that he may not have been capable of achieving.

[Anthony342]

He might've been, if he had gotten and stayed on his bike for 12 rounds, like he did in some rounds in their fight.

[MisterHardtop]

Im not so sure he would have continued success in the division.. There was alot of young guns establishing themselves at the time, Tate, nunn, mccallum, even a hearns rematch instead of hearns-leonard 2, would have been very difficult at that time...
I think hagler left at the perfect time, he may have beaten leonard in a rematch, but im not so sure about that or any other top mw fighters..
Had Hagler hung around, i wouldnt like his chances vs mccallum, tate, nunn, hearns, and i dont even want to think about hagler fighting a young prime toney,, it would probably look like the toney-holyfield fight, with toney just putting a beating on an old hagler

Toney rose to prominence in 1991 with his title win, I believe Hagler could have carried on till 1990 and then retired. He was far from shot and still the leading middleweight on the planet. I can't see Barkley beating him, no way does Hearns beat him now and neither could Nunn or McCallum. The new breed of middleweights were could but were nowhere near Hagler's level.

Marvelous was in a league of his own and exceptionally fit. He was slipping but slipping does not equate to being shot. I can't see how good, solid performers like Nunn and McCallum, often overrated in hindsight, could have beaten Hagler unless he was completely shot. Toney is the only one with a chance.

[Scott9945]

Toney rose to prominence in 1991 with his title win, I believe Hagler could have carried on till 1990 and then retired. He was far from shot and still the leading middleweight on the planet. I can't see Barkley beating him, no way does Hearns beat him now and neither could Nunn or McCallum. The new breed of middleweights were could but were nowhere near Hagler's level.

Marvelous was in a league of his own and exceptionally fit. He was slipping but slipping does not equate to being shot. I can't see how good, solid performers like Nunn and McCallum, often overrated in hindsight, could have beaten Hagler unless he was completely shot. Toney is the only one with a chance.

I can't see anyway that Hagler could have stayed on top until 1990. He was probably older than listed, and his last two fights indicated a decline in his skills. If he continued, Hagler would have lost to Nunn/McCallum level talent.

[BattlingNelson]

Leonard was retired, removed from the ring for the better part of five years and had a dependency on coke and alcohol. Being past your prime isn't a valid excuse for the supposed best fighter on the planet to being losing to that calibre of opposition.

Agreed. I cannot understand why people would say that Leonard caught Hagler at the perfect time. Leonard came out of retirement and moved up one and a half division against one of the very best MWs of all time! Leonard did what shouldn't be possible regardless of Hagler being past his best. It's one of boxings all time best wins.

As for the OP question, I dont think Hagler would have done better going southpaw. He clearly went orthodox to surprise Leonard and surely Leonard would have been ready for him as a rightie. It just might have resulted in Leonard winning clearer.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Toney rose to prominence in 1991 with his title win, I believe Hagler could have carried on till 1990 and then retired. He was far from shot and still the leading middleweight on the planet. I can't see Barkley beating him, no way does Hearns beat him now and neither could Nunn or McCallum. The new breed of middleweights were could but were nowhere near Hagler's level.

Marvelous was in a league of his own and exceptionally fit. He was slipping but slipping does not equate to being shot. I can't see how good, solid performers like Nunn and McCallum, often overrated in hindsight, could have beaten Hagler unless he was completely shot. Toney is the only one with a chance.

True about toney,,, I just would hate to imagine what had happened had hagler hung on too long... There was alot of good middleweights rising in the sport at the time...
Hagler from early 80s would have beaten these guys, but not hagler post hearns fight,,, He clearly slowed down alot, never had that extra gear anymore, and reflexes were not sharp, especially getting his shots off..

He probably would have had limited success, but i honestly dont see him beating any of the guys previously mentioned.. Hagler could barely track down an old SRL, I dont think his chances are very good in 88, 89, 90