Leonard v Hagler at 160 in the early-mid 80s - please vote and comment

[DINAMITA]

Who would've won, and how do you see that fight going?

:bbb

[Flea Man]

A Hagler with less wars in him beats Leonard. IMO, he might even stop him.

[Azumah1]

A Hagler with less wars in him beats Leonard. IMO, he might even stop him.

Take that might and turn it inot a would!

[Flea Man]

Azumah1, agreed :good

[Longhhorn71]

Hagler wins ......there was a reason SRL did not want to fight him early 80's.

[turpinr]

Take that might and turn it inot a would!

:goodindeed

[the cobra]

Hagler takes a decision, he's not stopping Leonard.

[PowerPuncher]

Leonard still wins because he was further past prime than Hagler. Everyone acts like Leonard had some big advantage from not fighting in 3years and not fighting at world level for 5years. I suppose the detached retina also gave him some advantage, perhaps X 'Ray' vision? Hagler had the advantage of being active, which is a massive advantage and being the natural 160lber, Leonard was fighting at 160 for the first time.

What evidence other than outboxing Hagler was there that Leonard was nearer to prime? Was it life and death struggles with Lalonde and Hearns in his subsequent fights?

Leonard would always have been the better boxer, the faster, the smarter fighter plus he would have been able to dance and move for longer. But it always would have been close fight

[DINAMITA]

Leonard still wins because he was further past prime than Hagler. Everyone acts like Leonard had some big advantage from not fighting in 3years and not fighting at world level for 5years. I suppose the detached retina also gave him some advantage, perhaps X 'Ray' vision? Hagler had the advantage of being active, which is a massive advantage and being the natural 160lber, Leonard was fighting at 160 for the first time.

What evidence other than outboxing Hagler was there that Leonard was nearer to prime? Was it life and death struggles with Lalonde and Hearns in his subsequent fights?

Leonard would always have been the better boxer, the faster, the smarter fighter plus he would have been able to dance and move for longer. But it always would have been close fight

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that 3 years of inactivity was an advantage. What sort of moron would say that??

Leaving comparisons/contrasts between the two aside, it is clear that the Hagler of the Mugabi and Leonard fights had noticeably declined, even from the time of the Sibson and Scypion fights.

The Hagler of those fights ('83) vs the Leonard of 1980-1?

Hagler would have that little bit more speed, that little bit more energy to sustain his aggression, and that little bit more venom in his punches (than he had in the actual fight in '87).

I lean towards Hagler on points. Not with much confidence though. IMO Leonard was perhaps the best fighter of all-time h2h.

[Flea Man]

I still think Hagler would stop Ray. Ray was getting hit more and more as he moved against the ropes in the latter part of their fight, and I think Hagler, who seemed almost timid in comparison to how he was in the Mugabi fight, would've made Ray pay a few years earlier.

Yes, Ray would've been faster, fresher; but people also forget that he stayed in great shape in his yers off playing Tennis and still training. Hagler had some absolute wars, including one with 28-0 (28) Mugabi! I for one know who was fresher, and that was Leonard, even if he wasn't quite as sharp as he had been.

To be honest I scored the fight for Hagler anyways, but I think Ray would always win on points against most fighters due to being a Judge-Fave, having great punch resistance,and for being a last minute flurry king!

[GPater11093]

I still think Hagler would stop Ray. Ray was getting hit more and more as he moved against the ropes in the latter part of their fight, and I think Hagler, who seemed almost timid in comparison to how he was in the Mugabi fight, would've made Ray pay a few years earlier.

Yes, Ray would've been faster, fresher; but people also forget that he stayed in great shape in his yers off playing Tennis and still training. Hagler had some absolute wars, including one with 28-0 (28) Mugabi! I for one know who was fresher, and that was Leonard, even if he wasn't quite as sharp as he had been.

To be honest I scored the fight for Hagler anyways, but I think Ray would always win on points against most fighters due to being a Judge-Fave, having great punch resistance,and for being a last minute flurry king!

that honour is reserved for Kid Gavilan

[Flea Man]

that honour is reserved for Kid Gavilan

Gavilan did that when he thought he was losing a round. He didn't avoid engaging for the whole round and steal at the last moment!


On another point, who do you think has the better chin; Ray Leonard or Kid Gavilan????

[GPater11093]

Gavilan did that when he thought he was losing a round. He didn't avoid engaging for the whole round and steal at the last moment!


On another point, who do you think has the better chin; Ray Leonard or Kid Gavilan????

thats easy Gavilan he had a grnite chin.

[Flea Man]

I think Leonard had a pretty dench chin as well to be honest....but I guess he slipped a lot more than Gavilan, which gives the Cuban Hawk the de facto better chin. I wonder what others think, I might start up a thread??????

[GDG]

Although Hagler was past his best when he fought SRL (as was Ray), I think his loss was more to do with the way he approached the fight then any physical decline. He started out orthodox, and I think he showed SRL far too much respect early on. His head didn't seem right to me, it's almos as if he wanted the win too much!!

I see no reason to believe an earlier fight would have been any different....I can see exactly how Hagler beats SRL, but I'm not sure Hagler would've fought the right fight!!!

Just my opinion though

[booradley]

I'd need answer to two questions before I would come to a conclusion.

Before or after Mugabi?

Does Marvin wise up, or does he still come out orthodox and give away the first 3-4 rounds?

[robert ungurean]

Hagler in a very tight UD.

[Mr Butt]

hagler hunts him down and takes his head off around the 13th or 14th round

[redrooster]

IMO this isnt even a fair fight so no dishonor to the great leonard.

I dont see any way Leonard survives if Marvin goes into destruct and destroy mode.

If he slows the pace to that which Leonard is comfortable with and pulls his punches then it goes the distance and Leonard wins a close decision.

If marvins guns it as he did with Minter, Lee and Hearns, then he hurts leonard quickly with leonard losing heart. Hagler then grants him a quick and merciful death.

[JohnThomas1]

IMO this isnt even a fair fight so no dishonor to the great leonard.




The actual matchup they did have wasn't going to be, either ;)

I dont see any way Leonard survives if Marvin goes into destruct and destroy mode.

As sooo many said prior to the actual match they did have.

If he slows the pace to that which Leonard is comfortable with and pulls his punches then it goes the distance and Leonard wins a close decision.

Um, what else is new?? ;)

If marvins guns it as he did with Minter, Lee and Hearns, then he hurts leonard quickly with leonard losing heart. Hagler then grants him a quick and merciful death.

Even given your pure hatred of Leonard and all encompassing love for Hagler your post is still full of soooooooooo many i'f, isn't it!

Which says it all, really.

Better luck next time ;)

[redrooster]

John please dont start with me-it's not worth all the animosity.

[JohnThomas1]

John please dont start with me-it's not worth all the animosity.


Well control your bad loser syndrome for once :good

[redrooster]

Well control your bad loser syndrome for once :good


You could always meet me on youtube for a lively debate but I promise you, it can become quite frustrating for the other side.:pc

[Dave's Top Ten]

Still a wonderful fight and the first 6-8 rounds would be just awesome as these two greats trade skills. The intensity of Hagler would get to the smaller man down the stretch though. A younger Hagler would have the energy to take better advantage of a hurt Leonard. Even an old Hagler had Leonard badly stung on three or four occasions. You'd better believe Leonard will get hurt a few times in this fight. But he might make it through. Leonard was a tiger and he could well make it to the end of 15 but I think he'd have his lumps. A mid 80s Hagler would be more aggressive than the 87 Hagler that fought what many say was a stupid fight early. I rather think that Hagler's tactics in those round were due to his arrogance having been champ for such a long time, and Leonard having the audacity to challenge him at that stage. Again, it reminds me of Holmes Spinks I - Holmes fought with a similar attitude and blew the fight - he did much better in the rematch, starting out with the proper aggression.

Hagler wins, say 10-5, but the rounds would be very competitive.

[redrooster]

Dave, I wish i had the confidence you did in Ray's chin. how do you figure this fight going the distance? Rays' been dumped by even club fighters-fighters of little class and skill in a diminutive form.

He's even been hurt by Geraldo, Duran, dropped by Hearns 2x, Norris 2x, and even Howard and it's hard to blame his age for that knockdown. And :lol: DON Lalonde! I think it's a short fight. A fast hard right to the temple and he's a goner

[Dave's Top Ten]

Dave, I wish i had the confidence you did in Ray's chin. how do you figure this fight going the distance? Rays' been dumped by even club fighters-fighters of little class and skill in a diminutive form.

He's even been hurt by Geraldo, Duran, dropped by Hearns 2x, Norris 2x, and even Howard and it's hard to blame his age for that knockdown. And :lol: DON Lalonde! I think it's a short fight. A fast hard right to the temple and he's a goner

I wouldn't rule out a KO, but Leonard has a fighting heart and great survival instincts.

[Bill Butcher]

Who would've won, and how do you see that fight going?

:bbb

Leonard is too tough to be stopped by Hagler, who was more an accumulation puncher & Ray doesnt take a lot of clean shots usually in fights & IMO always had the versatility & skills to outpoint Hagler.

[Bill Butcher]

Take that might and turn it inot a would!

If he didnt stop Duran, he sure as shit aint stopping Leonard, not a chance.

[Bill Butcher]

Leonard still wins because he was further past prime than Hagler. Everyone acts like Leonard had some big advantage from not fighting in 3years and not fighting at world level for 5years. I suppose the detached retina also gave him some advantage, perhaps X 'Ray' vision? Hagler had the advantage of being active, which is a massive advantage and being the natural 160lber, Leonard was fighting at 160 for the first time.

What evidence other than outboxing Hagler was there that Leonard was nearer to prime? Was it life and death struggles with Lalonde and Hearns in his subsequent fights?

Leonard would always have been the better boxer, the faster, the smarter fighter plus he would have been able to dance and move for longer. But it always would have been close fight

Good post for once PowerPuncher :D

[Dave's Top Ten]

Leonard is too tough to be stopped by Hagler, who was more an accumulation puncher & Ray doesnt take a lot of clean shots usually in fights & IMO always had the versatility & skills to outpoint Hagler.

Leonard, although a good defensive fighter, could be hit and did get hit. He was hit plenty by an old Hagler who was throwing punches like he was under water. Leonard was hit and hurt multiple times during his career. Hagler was a cumulative puncher rather than one punch KO guy, but remember, this is a welter fighting a middle, and Hagler's blows, at his peak, would be pretty devastating for Ray, although as I've said he might survive to the end.

[redrooster]

If he didnt stop Duran, he sure as shit aint stopping Leonard, not a chance.

You know that's not realistic.Ray leonard just does not take shots well enough to stand up to someone like Hagler. Just the fact that Geraldo staggered him the way he did and the much smaller Howard actually dropped him makes it unlikely he will last long with Hagler. Geraldo isnt even a puncher! With just a little snap on his shots he had Leonard backpeddling 3 times that round.

From what I've seen, Ray is soft in the head. Further proof is the way Lalonde sent him down hing on the head. Toughness doesnt prevent your legs from going out on you and you know you cant survive without wheels.

I also believe Nunn, and Jackson would have laid him out, to name a few.

[redrooster]

Can you imagine ray competing in the same ring against Nunn, and Jackson?

he's getting embarrassed

[The Predator]

Redrooster, if you don´t mind me asking. What is it you don´t like with Sugar Ray Leonard? I´ve never seen you write anything positive about him.
All the best
The Predator

[laxpdx]

The only way I see Ray lasting the distance is if Marvin tries to outbox him like he did Duran.

[birddog]

was RL ever stopped or close to it

[JohnThomas1]

Leonard still wins because he was further past prime than Hagler. Everyone acts like Leonard had some big advantage from not fighting in 3years and not fighting at world level for 5years. I suppose the detached retina also gave him some advantage, perhaps X 'Ray' vision? Hagler had the advantage of being active, which is a massive advantage and being the natural 160lber, Leonard was fighting at 160 for the first time.

What evidence other than outboxing Hagler was there that Leonard was nearer to prime? Was it life and death struggles with Lalonde and Hearns in his subsequent fights?

Leonard would always have been the better boxer, the faster, the smarter fighter plus he would have been able to dance and move for longer. But it always would have been close fight

Missed this earlier. You hit some good home truths.

[Bokaj]

What speaks for Hagler is really the 15 rounds distance. That might make a difference. Otherwise, as Power Puncher stated, Leonard lost more during that 5 year period than Hagler did. So the only reason why the outcome perhaps would be different, is the 15 rounds. A case could possibly also be made that Hagler underestimated Leonard in their actual fight and that he would be less prone to do so in this case.

But I'll go with Leonard in any case. He was further from his prime when they met and still pulled it off.

[Olu G. Rotimi]

Hagler would definitely have won in 1982 early mid 80's. Truth be known I gave the 1987 fight to Marvelous Marvin as well but unfortunately 2 of the judges were either drunk or blinded by the Hollywood razzmatazz supporting Leonard that night.

[GDG]

Can you imagine ray competing in the same ring against Nunn, and Jackson?

he's getting embarrassed


Sorry if I've misunderstood, but you think Julian Jackson would beat SRL at LMW!?!?!

[redrooster]

Sorry if I've misunderstood, but you think Julian Jackson would beat SRL at LMW!?!?!

Shit yeah! He'd lay that sucker out cold! Ray would be lucky if he could walk again after that.

[redrooster]

Redrooster, if you don´t mind me asking. What is it you don´t like with Sugar Ray Leonard? I´ve never seen you write anything positive about him.
All the best
The Predator

I will answer your question if you tell me why a man cannot fight some real competition at the age of 26 but is still fighting at age 40?

Why does a man avoid defending his WBC title, claiming that was it for him and then come back months later so that he can step in the ring with someone named Lalonde?

I know the answer but I want to see who else is honest enough to admit it. Those carefully selected opponents at carefull selected times only back the claims of those that have labelled him a media creation since he won the title.

I dont believe in this phony the way the rest of you do. His schooling by Norris is more evidence as to what happens if he can't get the right opponent in front of him.

[ramalinga]

Leonard had an amazing ability to come up with a gameplan to win against the odds. How he reinvented himself mid - fight against Hearns and outsmarted Hagler in their fight was amazing. Halger was a beast is he could fight his type of fight. Against Leonard, he complained to him about fighting like a girl instead of finding a way to enforce his kind of fight. Hagler claimed afterwards that Leonard never hurt him. Then why did he not walk through Leonards flurries when he had him agains the ropes and knock him out? If you watch the fight you can see several occasions where Leonard is right where Hagler wanted him, then Leonard flurries and backs up Hagler. Incredible toughness and heart are not the only attributes of mental strength and in terms of ring smarts, Leonard is right up there with Ali.

[Dave's Top Ten]

Leonard still wins because he was further past prime than Hagler. Everyone acts like Leonard had some big advantage from not fighting in 3years and not fighting at world level for 5years. I suppose the detached retina also gave him some advantage, perhaps X 'Ray' vision? Hagler had the advantage of being active, which is a massive advantage and being the natural 160lber, Leonard was fighting at 160 for the first time.

What evidence other than outboxing Hagler was there that Leonard was nearer to prime? Was it life and death struggles with Lalonde and Hearns in his subsequent fights?

Leonard would always have been the better boxer, the faster, the smarter fighter plus he would have been able to dance and move for longer. But it always would have been close fight


If there hadn't been an advantage to the timing of Leonard coming back, he wouldn't have come back. Do you think Leonard came back to fight Hagler in 87 because it was going to be harder than fighting him in 83?? Take your sugar colored glasses off. Ray was too smart to go anywhere near Hagler until he was over the hill in terms of speed and timing. Props to his savvy.

[PopeJackson]

Leonard had an amazing ability to come up with a gameplan to win against the odds. How he reinvented himself mid - fight against Hearns and outsmarted Hagler in their fight was amazing. Halger was a beast is he could fight his type of fight. Against Leonard, he complained to him about fighting like a girl instead of finding a way to enforce his kind of fight. Hagler claimed afterwards that Leonard never hurt him. Then why did he not walk through Leonards flurries when he had him agains the ropes and knock him out? If you watch the fight you can see several occasions where Leonard is right where Hagler wanted him, then Leonard flurries and backs up Hagler. Incredible toughness and heart are not the only attributes of mental strength and in terms of ring smarts, Leonard is right up there with Ali.

I love Hagler, my favorite fighter of all time. But no excuses he deserved to lose. SRL was just better than night. And he had the greater career.

[Gesta]

If Leonard could have beaten Hagler a few years before hand he would of, there is a reason he waited so long.

Ray's career was carefully planned out, he was a smart man that knew his limits. Ray always had one eye on his legacey, so the only reason he did not challenge Marvin before hand was IMO that he thought he could not win.

Ray was one of the best, but how many times did he defend any of his titles?

[redrooster]

Leonard had an amazing ability to come up with a gameplan to win against the odds. How he reinvented himself mid - fight against Hearns and outsmarted Hagler in their fight was amazing. Halger was a beast is he could fight his type of fight. Against Leonard, he complained to him about fighting like a girl instead of finding a way to enforce his kind of fight. Hagler claimed afterwards that Leonard never hurt him. Then why did he not walk through Leonards flurries when he had him agains the ropes and knock him out? If you watch the fight you can see several occasions where Leonard is right where Hagler wanted him, then Leonard flurries and backs up Hagler. Incredible toughness and heart are not the only attributes of mental strength and in terms of ring smarts, Leonard is right up there with Ali.

Hagler was shot. They will even tell you this on the video. Tim Ryan to Clancy: "Sugar ray said marvin had lost a lot of speed and that he was counting on the slowness of hagler". In other words, he was waiting for a shot fighter-that was his gameplan.

I've always said this, otherwise there would never have been a Hagler-Leonard just as there was never a Nunn-Leonard

[The Predator]

I will answer your question if you tell me why a man cannot fight some real competition at the age of 26 but is still fighting at age 40?

Why does a man avoid defending his WBC title, claiming that was it for him and then come back months later so that he can step in the ring with someone named Lalonde?

I know the answer but I want to see who else is honest enough to admit it. Those carefully selected opponents at carefull selected times only back the claims of those that have labelled him a media creation since he won the title.

I dont believe in this phony the way the rest of you do. His schooling by Norris is more evidence as to what happens if he can't get the right opponent in front of him.

Well. I can´t give you the right answer, only Sugar Ray can, but I can give you my thought of it.
If I recall it right Sugar Ray said that the fight with Hagler was just one fight for him, so I think he wasn´t after the title, he was after Hagler and he won that. Then he goes after Lalonde who was Light heavyweight champion and he won that one to. I think Sugar Ray was after to take that title just so he would be the first fighter who won world titles in 5 different weightclasses. I don´t think Sugar Ray was after to win the title to just continue to defend it, I think he was after the different titles just to become the first one who had been a champion in five different weightclasses. I might be wrong but isn´t that a record that still stands?
I beleive That was Sugar Rays goal. But like I wrote only Sugar Ray can give you the answer.
Well Now I have given you my answer, now it´s your turn to give yours;)
All the best
The predator

[cuchulain]

Well. I can´t give you the right answer, only Sugar Ray can, but I can give you my thought of it.
If I recall it right Sugar Ray said that the fight with Hagler was just one fight for him, so I think he wasn´t after the title, he was after Hagler and he won that. Then he goes after Lalonde who was Light heavyweight champion and he won that one to. I think Sugar Ray was after to take that title just so he would be the first fighter who won world titles in 5 different weightclasses. I don´t think Sugar Ray was after to win the title to just continue to defend it, I think he was after the different titles just to become the first one who had been a champion in five different weightclasses. I might be wrong but isn´t that a record that still stands?
I beleive That was Sugar Rays goal. But like I wrote only Sugar Ray can give you the answer.
Well Now I have given you my answer, now it´s your turn to give yours;)
All the best
The predator


While I don't hold with Redrooster in the matter of Leonard, I don't accord him a title at LHW. He forced Lalonde to drop weight so that both SMW and LHW would be on the line.

Kinda like if Hagler had forced Spinks to drop to SMW and then claimed the LHW title upon beaing him.

Ray never beat a LHW at the weight.

Ergo, he was never a legit LHW.

He was however, a genuine ATG and a legend, based on his work at 147, 154 and 160.




As for the thread question, I believe the fight in 1981 results in a Hagler victory, probably by stoppage.

[redrooster]

Well. I can´t give you the right answer, only Sugar Ray can, but I can give you my thought of it.
If I recall it right Sugar Ray said that the fight with Hagler was just one fight for him, so I think he wasn´t after the title, he was after Hagler and he won that. Then he goes after Lalonde who was Light heavyweight champion and he won that one to. I think Sugar Ray was after to take that title just so he would be the first fighter who won world titles in 5 different weightclasses. I don´t think Sugar Ray was after to win the title to just continue to defend it, I think he was after the different titles just to become the first one who had been a champion in five different weightclasses. I might be wrong but isn´t that a record that still stands?
I beleive That was Sugar Rays goal. But like I wrote only Sugar Ray can give you the answer.
Well Now I have given you my answer, now it´s your turn to give yours;)
All the best
The predator

And the Howard fight? Too many holes in his story! :nono

That combined with the proclamation after the Mugabi fight that "I can beat him I want to fight him". It's easy to guess the right answer :yep if someone was able to follow the development of this fight from the start. Most people here are too young and dont know shit. But I tracked it from early on.

Ray had been doing commentary for Hagler's fights on HBO since his first defense - January 1981.

After 5 years and 12 defenses he's saying he "wants to fight him"? :lol:

Let's face it, he's lying! And then he's still fighting at age 34 and even age 40 which wouldnt make sense if his eye was really in jeopardy. No man who was so reluctant to fight in the first place would keep putting his sight in jeopardy this way- the reason he gave which prevented him (or so he says) from taking the Hagler fight in the first place.

Instead of a 1983 Hagler-srl fight, I find Leonard on some ocean liner punching it out some amateur who obviously he had been seeking out. That was real fighting right there but he's claiming an exhibition gone bad.


The Hagler fight came way too late. Do the words "thanks for softening him up for me buddy" mean anything to you? becuz that's what Leonard was heard telling Roldan who was on the undercard. I heard him myself

and his choice to face lalonde was an extreme dissapointment. It's insulting to peddle this farce to people like me. When the public calls for Hagler-Leonard 1983, we get it in 1987 with Hagler holding 1/3 the undisputed title and when ray Leonard does become active we have to watch Lalonde too?

The fans deserve a Nunn match or Jackson or better yet, both in title defenses. I dont see why he cant give it to us. What better way to go out than to make some defenses against some of the most formidable opposition since a young Hagler. Young, dangerous, multidimensional crushers, killers and with enough exposure on the networks to make into a megamillions superbout.

It would have been the right move. :yep

Then afterwards, move back down and beat Terry Norris. That's all he has to do

[redrooster]

That's right. Beat Terry Norris, the man on my avatar. All you got to do is go up into the ring and walk right thru him!

[The Predator]

Like Julian Jackson did.
Well, redrooster, thanks for your answer, I understand why you don´t like SRL now, I don´t agree with you, SRL is one of my all time favourites, but we both are right to have our own opinions, no one is more right than the other. Terry Norris was good but not one of my favourites so it would be easy to find stuff to write him down as well, but I aint gonna do that. I respect any fighter who goes into that ring, Norris, Leonard, Hagler or any names, I might not like them all but I do respect them.
All the best
The Predator

[redrooster]

Like Julian Jackson did.
Well, redrooster, thanks for your answer, I understand why you don´t like SRL now, I don´t agree with you, SRL is one of my all time favourites, but we both are right to have our own opinions, no one is more right than the other. Terry Norris was good but not one of my favourites so it would be easy to find stuff to write him down as well, but I aint gonna do that. I respect any fighter who goes into that ring, Norris, Leonard, Hagler or any names, I might not like them all but I do respect them.
All the best
The Predator


Terry was a lot better than good :yep and got the results to prove it. But most people for some reason seem to underestimate him.

This was something Ray leonard found out ther hard way when he dared challenge him. And although his accomplishments, experience were enormous with his five championships, and unbeaten in 11 years, he was no match for the speed and telent of Norris.

In addition to being blessed with the power to put opponents in their place, was the hand and foot speed that always seemd to put victory out of the opponent's reach.

Terry Norris-he made it look easy.

[The Predator]

You really like Terry Norris, right? Nothing wrong with that, he was good. He won over Sugar Ray, but remember it was an OLD Sugar Ray. It´s always sad that we can´t get the best boxers in their prime to fight each other, it would have been great fight´s to watch.
Both Sugar Ray and Terry Norris are great fighters, that´s for sure. However none of them come close to the greatest of all time- Muhammad Ali:yep
but you know I really like Muhammad Ali, my favourite boxer.
All the best
the Predator

[redrooster]

You really like Terry Norris, right? Nothing wrong with that, he was good. He won over Sugar Ray, but remember it was an OLD Sugar Ray. It´s always sad that we can´t get the best boxers in their prime to fight each other, it would have been great fight´s to watch.
Both Sugar Ray and Terry Norris are great fighters, that´s for sure. However none of them come close to the greatest of all time- Muhammad Ali:yep
but you know I really like Muhammad Ali, my favourite boxer.
All the best
the Predator


Fu** yeah I like Norris! Who DONT like Norris! I could tlk about Norris all day. Terry doesnt just beat the opponent, he annihilates them, embarrasses them, humiliates them, dominates them.

I really enjoy that video Iceveins put up a while back where it shows Norris' fists lighting up with energy rings just before connecting. :lol: He added that in but I thought it was a nice touch

I bet his opponents felt like screaming in pain and terror under Terry's assault-YAAAAHHHHH!!!! I'm dying!

Like that time he drove Gatti thru the ropes after a good strong start. Terry responded with a lightning left hook putting the tough Gatti on the floor-WHAP!

And the Curry fight. Terry looked like he was nailing Curry's head into the canvas.

The thing I liked about Terry is that whenever an opponent came on strong, Terry raised his performance to the next level, putting the fight hopelessly out of reach. After giving their best, opponents realized they could no longer win.

Terry's only drawback was his tendency to foul opponents. But Leonard fouled hagler repeatedly so it's okay for Terry too.

Ray Leonard never faced anyone like Terry. back in his days everyone was slow. All they had back then were guys like Kalule, Hope, Bushy Bester, Wilfred Benitez. They were okay fighters but too slow. Then came Moore then Hearns who improved then McCallum then Jackson; one superstar after another. And finally, Terry Norris.

Even after Terry punched out the puncher Mugabi, there were doubters but I knew Terry was a true up and cumer. Leonard thought he could simply box Terry and eventually break him down to the body. But Terry was the new breed of fighter that Ray had never experienced. Terry started the saying that "you can't hit what you can't touch" and Ray Leonard found it impossible to touch him let alone hit with combinations

It was the speed!

Only a couple of times did Ray reach Terry. His best chance came late in the 11th when he caught Terry with 6 straight shots (I counted them) but Terry like the true champ he was took it without blinking. Every other time Ray got close enough Terry would smartly and professionally tie him up, styming his momentum and there was nothing he coud do. That's ring intelligence right there!

I have even momorized certain parts of this fight because when seeing it I would wonder "how did he do that?". For instance, in round 6 ray tries for a big right and Terry instantly ducks under Ray's haymaker. The instant Ray tried to break away, Terry slams one to the ribs and Ray had no defense for it. Ray just never seen anything like it.

Then my favorite part when Terry has Ray hypnotized with his footspeed. he hypnotized him into following him around the ring to the ropes where he wanted him when Terry came off the ropes with a thudding left that had Ray's head recoiling from the impact. But Ray doesnt discourage easily. Even though hopelessly outclassed he still displayed the championships heart that made him a legend. Once more he attempted to measure Terry for his right but Ray Leoanrd move in slow motion next to Terry and Terry snake bits Ray on the hin. Down he go!

The rest of the fight too gruesome to talk about.

Terry norris, he made it look easy.

[Robbi]

And the Howard fight? Too many holes in his story! :nono

That combined with the proclamation after the Mugabi fight that "I can beat him I want to fight him". It's easy to guess the right answer :yep if someone was able to follow the development of this fight from the start. Most people here are too young and dont know shit. But I tracked it from early on.

Ray had been doing commentary for Hagler's fights on HBO since his first defense - January 1981.

After 5 years and 12 defenses he's saying he "wants to fight him"? :lol:

Let's face it, he's lying! And then he's still fighting at age 34 and even age 40 which wouldnt make sense if his eye was really in jeopardy. No man who was so reluctant to fight in the first place would keep putting his sight in jeopardy this way- the reason he gave which prevented him (or so he says) from taking the Hagler fight in the first place.

Instead of a 1983 Hagler-srl fight, I find Leonard on some ocean liner punching it out some amateur who obviously he had been seeking out. That was real fighting right there but he's claiming an exhibition gone bad.


The Hagler fight came way too late. Do the words "thanks for softening him up for me buddy" mean anything to you? becuz that's what Leonard was heard telling Roldan who was on the undercard. I heard him myself

and his choice to face lalonde was an extreme dissapointment. It's insulting to peddle this farce to people like me. When the public calls for Hagler-Leonard 1983, we get it in 1987 with Hagler holding 1/3 the undisputed title and when ray Leonard does become active we have to watch Lalonde too?

The fans deserve a Nunn match or Jackson or better yet, both in title defenses. I dont see why he cant give it to us. What better way to go out than to make some defenses against some of the most formidable opposition since a young Hagler. Young, dangerous, multidimensional crushers, killers and with enough exposure on the networks to make into a megamillions superbout.

It would have been the right move. :yep

Then afterwards, move back down and beat Terry Norris. That's all he has to do

Why was Leonard such a massive underdog for the Hagler fight? The betting certainly never said that Hagler was shot. Leonard was dropped by a journeyman 3 years earlier and had never fought at the weight prior to fighting Hagler.

Give the man some credit.

[redrooster]

Why was Leonard such a massive underdog for the Hagler fight? The betting certainly never said that Hagler was shot. Leonard was dropped by a journeyman 3 years earlier and had never fought at the weight prior to fighting Hagler.

Give the man some credit.

Well from the various polls I read at the time it seemed that almost as many people had leonard favored over Hagler. Hagler was great at one time but his time was certainly over. I watched marvin in the sessions with the Weaver triplets and could see that. As for the betting who knows how that works? The same bettors had Ray a massive favorite over Norris and look what happened.

By the way, where you been?

[Beatle]

Simply put, Hagler in his prime is the best MW of all time. Even if you put him up against Harry Greb or Sugar Ray Robinson, I would favor Hagler. Of course, all three match-ups would be great and close.

[Robbi]

Well from the various polls I read at the time it seemed that almost as many people had leonard favored over Hagler. Hagler was great at one time but his time was certainly over. I watched marvin in the sessions with the Weaver triplets and could see that. As for the betting who knows how that works? The same bettors had Ray a massive favorite over Norris and look what happened.

By the way, where you been?

Hiding from you.

[Robbi]

Simply put, Hagler in his prime is the best MW of all time. Even if you put him up against Harry Greb or Sugar Ray Robinson, I would favor Hagler. Of course, all three match-ups would be great and close.

Hopkins would have beaten Hagler. It's such a close fight on paper, but it's one I'm confident of if it had happened.

[redrooster]

You really like Terry Norris, right? Nothing wrong with that, he was good. He won over Sugar Ray, but remember it was an OLD Sugar Ray. It´s always sad that we can´t get the best boxers in their prime to fight each other, it would have been great fight´s to watch.
Both Sugar Ray and Terry Norris are great fighters, that´s for sure. However none of them come close to the greatest of all time- Muhammad Ali:yep
but you know I really like Muhammad Ali, my favourite boxer.
All the best
the Predator

I liked Ali too but more becuz his charisma than his fighting. There had never been anyone like Ali in the sport and may nver be again. Ali made boxing popular to the average guy on the street. He was so right when he said just before his retirment in 67 that he wasnt going to miss boxing, but that boxing was going to miss him. What was boxing without ALI?

Jack Johnson opened the door for Joe louis just like Ali opened the doors for people like Leonard who would otherwise never stand to make those millions. Who would ray have to remind the people of?

[redrooster]

Hopkins would have beaten Hagler. It's such a close fight on paper, but it's one I'm confident of if it had happened.

You really believe Hopkins to be in Hagler's class?
he couldnt even beat a one handed Roy Jones. My favorites always seem to beat your favorites in real life

[MrMarvel]

The answer is Hagler, of course. He was as close to unbeatable in those years as any fighter I have ever seen. I rewatched the Hagler-Duran fight the other night and as outstanding an effort as Duran put forth, Hagler wins nearly every round. Nobody ever outboxed a sharp Duran that cleanly. It was pure science. Hagler would pick Leonard apart.

But I am commenting in this thread today to correct a myth that many cite uncritically. In fact, Hagler does not fight the first four rounds in the orthodox stance. He fights most of the first four rounds as a southpaw. Get out a stopwatch and calculate it yourself. Have a friend note the switches and you note the time.

Hagler was actually more successful in the orthodox stance during the first four rounds than he was as a southpaw. For example, he is more effective in the orthodox stance in round two than he is as a southpaw in round four. But this only party explains why Leonard wins two of the first four rounds.

This myth is interesting because of it has become for many people the core explanation for why Leonard won the fight (accepting the decisions of two of the judges). The chant is that "Hagler gave away the first four rounds." He certainly could have done more in those rounds, but a fresh Leonard on his bicycle is difficult to deal with. After the fourth, though, it mostly all Hagler, so this cannot be the explanation for why the judges voted the way they did.

[Robbi]

You really believe Hopkins to be in Hagler's class?
he couldnt even beat a one handed Roy Jones. My favorites always seem to beat your favorites in real life

Hopkins wasn't the finished article. Anyone with half a brain knows that he was years away from being what he'd eventually become. Hopkins primed late.

[Bill Butcher]

You know that's not realistic.Ray leonard just does not take shots well enough to stand up to someone like Hagler. Just the fact that Geraldo staggered him the way he did and the much smaller Howard actually dropped him makes it unlikely he will last long with Hagler. Geraldo isnt even a puncher! With just a little snap on his shots he had Leonard backpeddling 3 times that round.

From what I've seen, Ray is soft in the head. Further proof is the way Lalonde sent him down hing on the head. Toughness doesnt prevent your legs from going out on you and you know you cant survive without wheels.

I also believe Nunn, and Jackson would have laid him out, to name a few.

YOU cant be taken serious when discussing Ray Leonard tho, too much history of ludicrous comments aimed against him as if he`s no higher calibre than Arturo Gatti.

[Robbi]

My favorites always seem to beat your favorites in real life

Name my favourites. I bet you can't name them.

[Bill Butcher]

Hagler would definitely have won in 1982 early mid 80's. Truth be known I gave the 1987 fight to Marvelous Marvin as well but unfortunately 2 of the judges were either drunk or blinded by the Hollywood razzmatazz supporting Leonard that night.

Defence, ring generalship, clean punching, more shots landed..... all in Leonard`s favour.

Your in the minority, most agree Leonard won, even Hagler knows this but he`s still raging with himself so will likely go to his grave denying what he knows in his heart - Leonard beat him.

Your right tho... 2 judges were blind or drunk, the judge that gave SRL the fight 118-110 & the judge that gave MMH the fight 115-113.

The judge that scored 115-113 for SRL was pin point accurate. :good

[Bill Butcher]

The answer is Hagler, of course. He was as close to unbeatable in those years as any fighter I have ever seen. I rewatched the Hagler-Duran fight the other night and as outstanding an effort as Duran put forth, Hagler wins nearly every round. Nobody ever outboxed a sharp Duran that cleanly. It was pure science. Hagler would pick Leonard apart.

But I am commenting in this thread today to correct a myth that many cite uncritically. In fact, Hagler does not fight the first four rounds in the orthodox stance. He fights most of the first four rounds as a southpaw. Get out a stopwatch and calculate it yourself. Have a friend note the switches and you note the time.

Hagler was actually more successful in the orthodox stance during the first four rounds than he was as a southpaw. For example, he is more effective in the orthodox stance in round two than he is as a southpaw in round four. But this only party explains why Leonard wins two of the first four rounds.

This myth is interesting because of it has become for many people the core explanation for why Leonard won the fight (accepting the decisions of two of the judges). The chant is that "Hagler gave away the first four rounds." He certainly could have done more in those rounds, but a fresh Leonard on his bicycle is difficult to deal with. After the fourth, though, it mostly all Hagler, so this cannot be the explanation for why the judges voted the way they did.

Please tell me your not saying that Leonard did not win the 1st 4 rds vs Hagler. Its plain as day & Hagler never overtook SRL in rds for the rest of the fight.
I`ll admit, it ended up a close fight after a one sided beginning but SRL did enough to keep his lead in rds 5-12, no doubt about it.

:good

[MrMarvel]

Please tell me your not saying that Leonard did not win the 1st 4 rds vs Hagler. Its plain as day & Hagler never overtook SRL in rds for the rest of the fight.
I`ll admit, it ended up a close fight after a one sided beginning but SRL did enough to keep his lead in rds 5-12, no doubt about it.

:good

Leonard did not win the first four rounds. Hagler wins round 2. He catches Leonard coming in several times. He rips uppercuts in close. Pounds the body with his free hand. Leonard clutches and makes noise with an amateurish overhand right. Leonard's only moments come at the very end of that round. The first half and then some of the 3rd round is completely Hagler's. Leonard lands only one meaningful shot, another amateurish overhand right. Leonard does well over the second third of that round, holding and hitting while shutting down Hagler's offense somewhat, but it's not enough to win the round. He mostly accomplishes this by a clutching style (a lot like Angott). The 1st round can be score for Leonard if you refuse to score even rounds. Not much happens in that round. The 4th round is close, but Leonard might have edged it with his ability to control much of the action and a big combination at the end. Two low blows, though, and lots of holding. Steele could have done more to stop Leonard's fouling. Being generous, Leonard wins two of the first four rounds.

But this is boring really. What I am interested in here is debunking the incessant repetition of a clearly false argument, namely that Hagler boxed the first four rounds as a righty and that that's what costs him those rounds. Just observe the fight and count the minutes in each stance and Hagler's success in each stance. The claim is simply not true.

[Robbi]

Hagler could hardly put 2-3 shots together. To make matters worse, he couldn't even land more than one shot a time during the full fight. That what his problem was - couldn't land combinations. Always one punch at a time. He worked gears in the fight, but was mainly one dimensional and lacked fire.

[DINAMITA]

I honestly don't know how anyone can feel certain over who won Leonard v Hagler. I think it's more or less the most difficult fight to score I've ever seen. If I watch it and don't write down scores but just make a decision at the end of the fight on who I think got the better of it, I say Hagler. For me he did work of more substance in the fight. However, the last time I watched it and scored it round by round, I think Leonard shaded it by a point - but his work was of less substance, he merely sneaked rounds with whirls of pitty-pats while on the rare occasions Hagler backed SRL up and unloaded, he managed to make some progress with some clean chopping blows.

But did Hagler do enough of that to merit a points decision?
Did Leonard deserve a win for a performance which was so engineered to sneaking rounds - all calculated flurries to score points and very little attempt to produce clean and effective penetrative work?

As I said, I dunno how anyone can be certain. I can never come down on one side and feel solid about it.

[Bill Butcher]

Leonard did not win the first four rounds. Hagler wins round 2.

No disrespect but I only read this far :verysad

[redrooster]

YOU cant be taken serious when discussing Ray Leonard tho, too much history of ludicrous comments aimed against him as if he`s no higher calibre than Arturo Gatti.

what ludicrous comments? When Ray faced an opponent who had little in the way of speed he could get by. But when the opponent was mobile and fast on his feet, quick reflexes he got slammed and took a beating. it's that simple

he wasnt even in Norris' class as a fighter. his reign at 154 was non existent but I assume since you being a leonard fan thinks less is more, you'll put him ahead of Norris anyways. leave it to the imagination of Leonard fans and they'll find a way.

I've even seen comments that leonard had an impeccable chin. Do two trips to the canvas make an impeccable chin?

[Robbi]

what ludicrous comments? When Ray faced an opponent who had little in the way of speed he could get by. But when the opponent was mobile and fast on his feet, quick reflexes he got slammed and took a beating. it's that simple

he wasnt even in Norris' class as a fighter. his reign at 154 was non existent but I assume since you being a leonard fan thinks less is more, you'll put him ahead of Norris anyways. leave it to the imagination of Leonard fans and they'll find a way.

I've even seen comments that leonard had an impeccable chin. Do two trips to the canvas make an impeccable chin?

Rooster. Awnser my question.

[Addie]

he wasnt even in Norris' class as a fighter.

:patsch

[redrooster]

:patsch

there you go doing it too. youre telling me ray leonard as good or better than terry when he crushed him completely in the ring?


Terry Norris hurt Ray. Ray never hurt Terry. and Terry won every round

and then to further prove my case Terry has made the record for defenses. Ray leonard has none. even at 147 I only see four.

Terry Norris has beaten just as many name fighters as Ray, only he beat his opposition in convincing fashion. Terry never had to come from behind or rely on judges help


You see? You dont even HAVE a case! that's why didnt bother to elaborate and let your icons speak for you to let you off the hook becuz you dont know shit

[redrooster]

Rooster. Awnser my question.


you like ray leonard. leonard okay with me too but he fights too many stiffs. he really had no business being in the ring with Howard, and lalonde. that's stiffing the public and I dont pay to look at shit.

My favorite is Terry becuz Terry knows how to win.

Your other favorite is Hopkins. he's good also but too conventional and his abilities are nothing great.

You dont really have a case claiming inexperience Roy since both Roy and X turn pro same year! That just mean that Roy advanced much faster. It also accounts for the vast difference in talent.

If anything, Roy Jones is the one with the excuse except that Roy won the fight :p

Broken hand and weight drained.

seems you dont know much about Roy. I highly reccomend Roy Jones' body shots to improve your limited knowledge. I dont even waste my time looking at X fights

[Bill Butcher]

there you go doing it too. youre telling me ray leonard as good or better than terry when he crushed him completely in the ring?

And Ali aint in Berbick`s class either I suppose, or Whitaker in Trinidad`s, Robinson in Archer`s, Chavez is wise`s, Morales in Diaz`s, Barrera in Kahn`s ? :nut

Behave yourself !

[Robbi]

you like ray leonard. leonard okay with me too but he fights too many stiffs. he really had no business being in the ring with Howard, and lalonde. that's stiffing the public and I dont pay to look at shit.

Leonard wouldn't make my personal top 10 favs, Rooster.

[Bill Butcher]

I honestly don't know how anyone can feel certain over who won Leonard v Hagler. I think it's more or less the most difficult fight to score I've ever seen. If I watch it and don't write down scores but just make a decision at the end of the fight on who I think got the better of it, I say Hagler. For me he did work of more substance in the fight. However, the last time I watched it and scored it round by round, I think Leonard shaded it by a point - but his work was of less substance, he merely sneaked rounds with whirls of pitty-pats while on the rare occasions Hagler backed SRL up and unloaded, he managed to make some progress with some clean chopping blows.

But did Hagler do enough of that to merit a points decision?
Did Leonard deserve a win for a performance which was so engineered to sneaking rounds - all calculated flurries to score points and very little attempt to produce clean and effective penetrative work?

As I said, I dunno how anyone can be certain. I can never come down on one side and feel solid about it.

I think the big myth about this fight is that Leonard was all style & no substance, that he never landed anything hard on Hagler... thats complete bullshit, Hagler was the bigger man & even with that aside had 1 of the best chins in boxing history in any division.
Leonard hit Hagler with some cracking shots & Marvin smiled, so what ?... we know what that usually means, that he connected very well.

If Leonard landed half of those punches even on another elite, like a Hearns, he would have rocked him big time.

Marvin knows he lost that fight, he should man up & admit it, its been 22 yrs fuck sake.

:good

[redrooster]

And Ali aint in Berbick`s class either I suppose, or Whitaker in Trinidad`s, Robinson in Archer`s, Chavez is wise`s, Morales in Diaz`s, Barrera in Kahn`s ? :nut

Behave yourself !

That's funny how everything ray did always gets compared to everything Ali did, right down to his last fight.

But there are some key differences. Ali had lost to Young, Norton, Shavers, Spinks, and Holmes going into the Berbick while Leonard was unbeaten the last 11 years.

Berbick was favored over Ali while Norris was given virtually no chance against Leonard

Ali was a punching bag while Leonard was congradulated by Ryan (Uno mas) what he called "an absolutely magnificent performance"

Let's not forget Farhood's commentary "Ray leonard fought the perfect fight"

Keep it up Bill. You are so easy

[redrooster]

Leonard wouldn't make my personal top 10 favs, Rooster.

and he sure as hell doesnt make mine. A win over Terry Norris is all that seperates him from greatness

[DINAMITA]

I think the big myth about this fight is that Leonard was all style & no substance, that he never landed anything hard on Hagler... thats complete bullshit, Hagler was the bigger man & even with that aside had 1 of the best chins in boxing history in any division.
Leonard hit Hagler with some cracking shots & Marvin smiled, so what ?... we know what that usually means, that he connected very well.

If Leonard landed half of those punches even on another elite, like a Hearns, he would have rocked him big time.

Marvin knows he lost that fight, he should man up & admit it, its been 22 yrs fuck sake.

:good

Nah, I just can't see how you can be so certain. It was a horrible fight to score. I don't really rate ineffective flurrying and IMO that was what Leonard did for the majority of the fight, but nor did I think Hagler done enough. I wish they hd fought 1980-83 when they were both capable of so so much more than they gave in that fight. It would've been an all-time classic match-up.

[redrooster]

Personally I scored rounds 1 and 3 even becuz neither did enough to win the round outright and hence, leaving it open for debate. That's pretty much how the whole fight went

I think Bill is one of those people that gets excited whenever he sees Ray throw 3 or 4 shots even tho its grazes an arm or something and then begins imagining the round went to leonard. He's one of those types

[Robbi]

you like ray leonard. leonard okay with me too but he fights too many stiffs. he really had no business being in the ring with Howard, and lalonde. that's stiffing the public and I dont pay to look at shit

You said "you like Ray Leonard". See, thats what seperates fairness from being biased. Anyone on here who talks sense about Leonard, you automatically assume them to be a fan. I'm certainly not a fan as such, thats for sure. However, that doesn't mean I should be biased towards him and talk utter nonsense like yourself.

[Outboxer]

It's actually scary just how much Rooster hates Leonard. Even if you completely stay away from ESB, you still encounter endless waves of his anti-Leonard rhetoric on virtually every Leonard video on Youtube, under the name of Piglatinsuperstar: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Kinda creepy, but whatever.

In answer to this thread, I would naturally favour Hagler, as he was (by Leonard's own admission) faster before his decline, and I think he would have just been much sharper overall. He looked really sloppy at points in their actual fight, and although some of this was due to Leonard's fancy footwork and slipping, I think it was also due to Hagler's decline. Of course, Leonard wasn't exactly in his prime at the time either, and people who say that he invented the detached retina as a device to dodge fighters just come across as silly, in my opinion. Leonard WAS very calculating, and very careful about his matchups, but he wouldn't invent a bloody eye condition to duck someone, eesh.

[Addie]

I think the big myth about this fight is that Leonard was all style & no substance, that he never landed anything hard on Hagler... thats complete bullshit, Hagler was the bigger man & even with that aside had 1 of the best chins in boxing history in any division.
Leonard hit Hagler with some cracking shots & Marvin smiled, so what ?... we know what that usually means, that he connected very well.

If Leonard landed half of those punches even on another elite, like a Hearns, he would have rocked him big time.

Marvin knows he lost that fight, he should man up & admit it, its been 22 yrs fuck sake.

:good

Amen.

When Ray leonard let his hands go in that fight, he was landing on Hagler more often than not. He wasn't throwing wildly and missing.

Everybody masturbates over Duran for going the distance with Hagler, yet all we can talk about over this fight is whether or not Leonard deserved the win.

All-time great win, legitimately close fight, no robbery in place.

[Bill Butcher]

Personally I scored rounds 1 and 3 even becuz neither did enough to win the round outright and hence, leaving it open for debate. That's pretty much how the whole fight went

I think Bill is one of those people that gets excited whenever he sees Ray throw 3 or 4 shots even tho its grazes an arm or something and then begins imagining the round went to leonard. He's one of those types

Bill is one of those types that puts both clean punching & amount of punches landed compared to the other fighter high on the list when judging... if a rd is very close but one fighter landed a good solid clean punch & the other did not, I`ll give him the rd.
Leonard plain outlanded him, a lot hit arms but a lot hit the face too, Hagler rarely landed anything close to devastating while being outlanded in almost every rd.

[Robbi]

Everybody masturbates over Duran for going the distance with Hagler, yet all we can talk about over this fight is whether or not Leonard deserved the win.

I don't masturbate over Duran going the distance with Hagler. Well, maybe I have once or twice if I'm honest :lol: The facts are highly evident. Duran fought a prime Hagler, or very close to his prime. He was a far better physical specimen when Duran fought him, compared to the slowed down version that Leonard fought 4 years later. Thats not being biased or taking credit away from Leonard. It's what you call "facing the truth".

With that said, Duran lost to Hagler and Leonard beat him.

And you seem to be very sensitive with the following "all we can talk about is whether or not Leonard deserved to win" It was a controverisal fight afterall. It doesn't matter if me or you thinks Leonard clearly won the fight or not. The fight was reasonably close, and no fighter won the fight by a landslide.

It's one of the most controversial fights in the history of the sport.

[Bill Butcher]

Amen.

When Ray leonard let his hands go in that fight, he was landing on Hagler more often than not. He wasn't throwing wildly and missing.

Everybody masturbates over Duran for going the distance with Hagler, yet all we can talk about over this fight is whether or not Leonard deserved the win.

All-time great win, legitimately close fight, no robbery in place.

Definitely.

For Hagler to claim robbery for a fight this close for as long as he has is borderline shameful, I think he aimed to take the shine off Leonard`s biggest moment but its kinda backfired because the majority think Leonard won... that will kill MMH & he kinda deserves it (I actually like Hagler TBH) because he just wont let it go.

[Bill Butcher]

It's one of the most controversial fights in the history of the sport.

Yes it is... but a fight this close shouldnt be, its Hagler`s inability to accept this fight & let it go that has made it contraversial.
Most people have Leonard a close winner, that should be that, Marvin has severe problems with this shit & I bet he hasnt even had any sort of help, psychological or whatever.

[DINAMITA]

I don't masturbate over Duran going the distance with Hagler. Well, maybe I have once or twice if I'm honest :lol: The facts are highly evident. Duran fought a prime Hagler, or very close to his prime. He was a far better physical specimen when Duran fought him, compared to the slowed down version that Leonard fought 4 years later. Thats not being biased or taking credit away from Leonard. It's what you call "facing the truth".

With that said, Duran lost to Hagler and Leonard beat him.

And you seem to be very sensitive with the following "all we can talk about is whether or not Leonard deserved to win" It was a controverisal fight afterall. It doesn't matter if me or you thinks Leonard clearly won the fight or not. The fight was reasonably close, and no fighter won the fight by a landslide.

It's one of the most controversial fights in the history of the sport.

Good post :good

[Robbi]

Yes it is... but a fight this close shouldnt be, its Hagler`s inability to accept this fight & let it go that has made it contraversial.
Most people have Leonard a close winner, that should be that, Marvin has severe problems with this shit & I bet he hasnt even had any sort of help, psychological or whatever.

Hagler is, and continues to be a very sore loser. What he said after the fight is worth a chuckle "Leonard fought like a girl. His punches never hurt me, etc". Hagler has said many times that Leonard should have stood and fought him, thus giving him what he wanted. He never dealt with Leonard's tactics and overall approach. If Hagler was awarded the decision he wouldn't have complained about how Leonard fought him, thats for sure.

[DINAMITA]

Definitely.

For Hagler to claim robbery for a fight this close for as long as he has is borderline shameful, I think he aimed to take the shine off Leonard`s biggest moment but its kinda backfired because the majority think Leonard won... that will kill MMH & he kinda deserves it (I actually like Hagler TBH) because he just wont let it go.

It may have been Leonard's biggest moment, as his performance (whether you think he won, lost, or like me are not sure) considering his lay-off was nothing short of sensational, but it was most certainly not Leonard's greatest moment. The 1987 versions of Leonard and Hagler were both pale imitations of the early 80s versions, and the 1987 fight was a pale imitation of the fight they could have had.

The more I watch of him, the more I am convinced that Leonard was in the very, very top niche of the elite all-time greats in terms of ability. The 1987 version scored a great achievement with his performance against Hagler because of the circumstances, but the win is a little diluted for me because both men were well past it.

[Robbi]

One thing about Leonard throughout the fight, he should have been deducted points for holding. After around the 5th round onwards, he was holding often. I don't think anyone can remotely disupute this at all. Anyone who doubts my stance only needs to watch the fight again.

[Bokaj]

It may have been Leonard's biggest moment, as his performance (whether you think he won, lost, or like me are not sure) considering his lay-off was nothing short of sensational, but it was most certainly not Leonard's greatest moment. The 1987 versions of Leonard and Hagler were both pale imitations of the early 80s versions, and the 1987 fight was a pale imitation of the fight they could have had.

The more I watch of him, the more I am convinced that Leonard was in the very, very top niche of the elite all-time greats in terms of ability. The 1987 version scored a great achievement with his performance against Hagler because of the circumstances, but the win is a little diluted for me because both men were well past it.

Good post.

It's too bad that Leonard had his prime cut short like that. It's like with Ali - sure, their subsequent achievements took on that greatness very much because they were past their primes, but still one cannot help but feel that there were some truly amazing perfomances we never got to see.

[itrymariti]

When Hagler fought SRL, he was very, very, very slow and let SRL stand in front of him and throw without reacting, as well as not trading when he had the chance. A real Hagler would have beaten Sugar than night - convincingly.

[itrymariti]

One thing about Leonard throughout the fight, he should have been deducted points for holding. After around the 5th round onwards, he was holding often. I don't think anyone can remotely disupute this at all. Anyone who doubts my stance only needs to watch the fight again.

Yep. Holding round the back of the head continually, and the ref warned him for it several times but neglected to penalize...

[Robbi]

Yep. Holding round the back of the head continually, and the ref warned him for it several times but neglected to penalize...

Yep. He should definitely have been deducted points. No question about it whatsoever.

[redrooster]

Bill is one of those types that puts both clean punching & amount of punches landed compared to the other fighter high on the list when judging... if a rd is very close but one fighter landed a good solid clean punch & the other did not, I`ll give him the rd.
Leonard plain outlanded him, a lot hit arms but a lot hit the face too, Hagler rarely landed anything close to devastating while being outlanded in almost every rd.

terrible explanation. as if Leonard had ever clearly won any of the early rounds. You dont sweep four rounds straight by running in circles and tossing flurries here and there

most of the rounds are close enough to go one way or the other so what you are really saying is that you will score most of them for ray and just enough of them for Hagler to keep you from looking like the biased fan that you are. i know your type.

[redrooster]

Yep. He should definitely have been deducted points. No question about it whatsoever.


Ref steele is a big leonard fans the way Bill Butcher is so naturally he will look the other way. Fout? What foul? I didnt see any foul! Groin shot? What groin shot? Hitting after the bell? When did this happen? :lol:

[redrooster]

Good post.

It's too bad that Leonard had his prime cut short like that. It's like with Ali - sure, their subsequent achievements took on that greatness very much because they were past their primes, but still one cannot help but feel that there were some truly amazing perfomances we never got to see.

I dont recall leonard being drafted or sent to prison. wasnt that him i saw in his old age in the ring with Camacho?

[Robbi]

Ref steele is a big leonard fans the way Bill Butcher is so naturally he will look the other way. Fout? What foul? I didnt see any foul! Groin shot? What groin shot? Hitting after the bell? When did this happen? :lol:

You had to get your "tuppence worth" in didn't you. :D

[redrooster]

You had to get your "tuppence worth" in didn't you. :D

Butcher is so full of bias he cant even post straight. Even that referee is looking out for ray leonard. the ref I thought did a good job was referee Mercante Jr. Why dont he get more jobs?

[Murali]

Good to see the majority of people on here recognise that Hagler probably would have beaten Leonard at 160 in the early to mid 80s when his footwork was faster and better. A focused Hagler - like the one that beat Minter - wins a UD over Ray imo.

I remember Leonard saying after the Hagler-Hearns fight that Hagler was the sort of individual that made it easy for him to stay retired. Then he saw the Mugabe fight and the rest is history...

[Bill Butcher]

It may have been Leonard's biggest moment, as his performance (whether you think he won, lost, or like me are not sure) considering his lay-off was nothing short of sensational, but it was most certainly not Leonard's greatest moment. The 1987 versions of Leonard and Hagler were both pale imitations of the early 80s versions, and the 1987 fight was a pale imitation of the fight they could have had.

The more I watch of him, the more I am convinced that Leonard was in the very, very top niche of the elite all-time greats in terms of ability. The 1987 version scored a great achievement with his performance against Hagler because of the circumstances, but the win is a little diluted for me because both men were well past it.

It was still a good fight tho, as in very enjoyable.
I agree it would have been better in 1982-4 in a 15 rd bout but Im just glad we got it at all, it was the last piece of the fab 4 puzzle & the most important piece as those 2 were the best (h2h)

I know it wasnt Ray`s peak but for me it WAS his finest moment, Hagler was the man in boxing, he had beat Hearns & Duran (Leonard`s best victories with Benitez) & everyone he faced for 11 yrs, 7 yrs as champion.
This was Leonard`s `icing on the cake` moment

Ps. I agree with your assessment of SRLs ability, thats why Im in the minority of having him in my top 10 p4p.

Out of curiosity... were do you have Leonard ? because I know you rank `resume` extremely high & Ray has one of the best in history !

:thumbsup

[redrooster]

It was still a good fight tho, as in very enjoyable.
I agree it would have been better in 1982-4 in a 15 rd bout but Im just glad we got it at all, it was the last piece of the fab 4 puzzle & the most important piece as those 2 were the best (h2h)

I know it wasnt Ray`s peak but for me it WAS his finest moment, Hagler was the man in boxing, he had beat Hearns & Duran (Leonard`s best victories with Benitez) & everyone he faced for 11 yrs, 7 yrs as champion.
This was Leonard`s `icing on the cake` moment

Ps. I agree with your assessment of SRLs ability, thats why Im in the minority of having him in my top 10 p4p.

Out of curiosity... were do you have Leonard ? because I know you rank `resume` extremely high & Ray has one of the best in history !

:thumbsup

it sucked like all of srls other fights. a 1983 blowout wouldve been better for the public.

top 10 p4p :lol:

try # 49 . I managed to find a spot for him out of the goodness of my heart :good

[Robbi]

it sucked like all of srls other fights. a 1983 blowout wouldve been better for the public.

top 10 p4p :lol:

try # 49 . I managed to find a spot for him out of the goodness of my heart :good

Don't forget, a prime Hagler went the distance with a natural lightweight in 1983. :good

[Bill Butcher]

it sucked like all of srls other fights. a 1983 blowout wouldve been better for the public.

Nah, cant see even a prime Leonard stopping prime Hagler, Id say 8-6-1 UD.

Now your OVERrating Leonard, rooster :rofl

[PopeJackson]

Damn this guy is biased.

[Bill Butcher]

terrible explanation. as if Leonard had ever clearly won any of the early rounds. You dont sweep four rounds straight by running in circles and tossing flurries here and there

most of the rounds are close enough to go one way or the other so what you are really saying is that you will score most of them for ray and just enough of them for Hagler to keep you from looking like the biased fan that you are. i know your type.

This fuckin guy :rofl :lol:

Im not saying Leonard dominated those rds but you`d have to be a complete biased moron (no offence) to give any of those 4 rds to Hagler.
Every rd has a clear enough winner except 6,9,10 & 12... I gave MMH 9 & 10, SRL the other two.

There is a thread on the British forum & just about every person gives SRL 5 of the 1st 6 rds with Hagler winning rd 5.... surely the overwhelming majority has a better chance of being right than you, especially a non-Leonard fan (to keep it mild)

[redrooster]

This fuckin guy :rofl :lol:

Im not saying Leonard dominated those rds but you`d have to be a complete biased moron (no offence) to give any of those 4 rds to Hagler.
Every rd has a clear enough winner except 6,9,10 & 12... I gave MMH 9 & 10, SRL the other two.

There is a thread on the British forum & just about every person gives SRL 5 of the 1st 6 rds with Hagler winning rd 5.... surely the overwhelming majority has a better chance of being right than you, especially a non-Leonard fan (to keep it mild)

i didnt say dominate, i said sweep you dummy! dont you know the difference? Damn!!

They use the term in basketball championship games. i used it as an analogy for rounds 1-4 which you keep referring to

you want to refer to specifics? I will. Dynamita herself (himself?) even say the rounds are too close but I see the way you just give her (him) the brushoff with your EXCUSES/ Bullshit

I got to go the classic forum posters photo section just to get a look at you

[Bill Butcher]

Butcher is so full of bias he cant even post straight.

All Ive done is score the fight for Leonard 115-113, most people do, I think even you did at one point, saying its Leonards best ever performance or some shit (you know what Im talking about)

I also picked Leonard in a primes match, most people dont, not a problem, they could well be right but your more biased AGAINST Leonard than I am FOR ANY fighter, not just Leonard.

I might have SRL in my top 10 p4p & most might not agree with that but seriously... what sort of guy has him at 49 :-( thats beyond mental & a prime example why your opinion matters less than every other poster when Leonard is concerned.

Its all good fun tho, keep it up.


Botswana :smoke

[Bill Butcher]

i didnt say dominate, i said sweep you dummy! dont you know the difference? Damn!!

They use the term in basketball championship games. i used it as an analogy for rounds 1-4 which you keep referring to

you want to refer to specifics? I will. Dynamita herself (himself?) even say the rounds are too close but I see the way you just give her (him) the brushoff with your EXCUSES/ Bullshit

I got to go the classic forum posters photo section just to get a look at you

I know you said SWEEP, I was just letting you know that IM not saying Leonard dominated the rds, Im merely saying that its NOT HARD to pick a winner in those rds, simple.

Also... at least spell the guys name right, its DINAMITA... I never gave any bs/excuses, I agreed with some points but just let him know where I seen it different in some parts.

Take care now :thumbsup

[redrooster]

All Ive done is score the fight for Leonard 115-113, most people do, I think even you did at one point, saying its Leonards best ever performance or some shit (you know what Im talking about)

I also picked Leonard in a primes match, most people dont, not a problem, they could well be right but your more biased AGAINST Leonard than I am FOR ANY fighter, not just Leonard.

I might have SRL in my top 10 p4p & most might not agree with that but seriously... what sort of guy has him at 49 :-( thats beyond mental & a prime example why your opinion matters less than every other poster when Leonard is concerned.

Its all good fun tho, keep it up.


Botswana :smoke

I said the Hagler fight is his best performance.

as for the bias that people claim I dont really care what people think. I'm a debater-that's what I do. so naturally when you got posters on a boxing forum you will get into discussions and debates if need be. sometimes I agree and sometimes I dont.

But it seem alot of times people here to afraid too get into it. If the detail too mcu for them they get uncomfortable and back out by shutting up. That is my complaint about the posters here-that they just believe what they want to believe

people here know I seen Hagler sparring the month before the leonard fight. They know all that. just the fact that they all keep quiet when it comes to that discussion tells me they are too afraid to call me out on it. John Thomas called me out one night becuz he didnt think I could but I put up the photo he asked for. that photo shows Marvin right infront of the Hotel name I mentioned years before when I was describing it.

I took care of that clown, at least for one night.

[Robbi]

I said the Hagler fight is his best performance.

as for the bias that people claim I dont really care what people think. I'm a debater-that's what I do. so naturally when you got posters on a boxing forum you will get into discussions and debates if need be. sometimes I agree and sometimes I dont.

But it seem alot of times people here to afraid too get into it. If the detail too mcu for them they get uncomfortable and back out by shutting up. That is my complaint about the posters here-that they just believe what they want to believe

people here know I seen Hagler sparring the month before the leonard fight. They know all that. just the fact that they all keep quiet when it comes to that discussion tells me they are too afraid to call me out on it. John Thomas called me out one night becuz he didnt think I could but I put up the photo he asked for. that photo shows Marvin right infront of the Hotel name I mentioned years before when I was describing it.

I took care of that clown, at least for one night.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[redrooster]

^ Oh is that John at work?

[Bill Butcher]

I said the Hagler fight is his best performance.

as for the bias that people claim I dont really care what people think. I'm a debater-that's what I do. so naturally when you got posters on a boxing forum you will get into discussions and debates if need be. sometimes I agree and sometimes I dont.

But it seem alot of times people here to afraid too get into it. If the detail too mcu for them they get uncomfortable and back out by shutting up. That is my complaint about the posters here-that they just believe what they want to believe

people here know I seen Hagler sparring the month before the leonard fight. They know all that. just the fact that they all keep quiet when it comes to that discussion tells me they are too afraid to call me out on it. John Thomas called me out one night becuz he didnt think I could but I put up the photo he asked for. that photo shows Marvin right infront of the Hotel name I mentioned years before when I was describing it.

I took care of that clown, at least for one night.

Who did you score the Leonard-Hagler fight for (& which rds if you can remember) ?

Just to see how different our cards are.

[Robbi]

^ Oh is that John at work?

It's guess who..................you.

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[DINAMITA]

Ps. I agree with your assessment of SRLs ability, thats why Im in the minority of having him in my top 10 p4p.

Out of curiosity... were do you have Leonard ? because I know you rank `resume` extremely high & Ray has one of the best in history !

:thumbsup

I do indeed consider resume to be the most important single factor when evaluating greatness, and we have already established that I think Leonard is one of a very select few at the absolute pinnacle of the sport in terms of ability.

However, it is resume which precludes me from having SRL in my top 10. I think when I did my last list last year, Ray was 14th or something like that. His best wins are AMAZING! Some of the best wins in history. However, if you are evaluating his career:

- Won 36 fights in a 40-fight career
- Won 12 world titles fights and lost 2
- His peak lasted three years, '79-'82
- OK, there is Duran II, Hearns I, Benitez and Hagler. 4 incredible wins. What else is there?? Decent wins over Kalule and Lalonde, a draw with Hearns that he did not deserve, and nothing else of note really


Ray is IMO probably top 5, maybe even top 3, ever in terms of ability. However, is 12 world title wins, a 3 year peak period, and a resume which has a few stunning wins but not much else - is that sufficient achievement to be considered top 10 of all-time, alongside guys like Langford and Robinson, and even Ali and Duran, who went to the well again and again and again for years and years and years, spanning several eras?

Ray just doesn't make it IMO. But that doesn't mean he wasn't as good as anyone else to ever lace them up. Just wish he had had more time at the top so he could proved it over time and nailed himself into that top 3-5 bracket.


PS: For instance, Leonard had Duran II, Hearns, Benitez and Hagler (4 landmark wins).

Ali had Liston I and II, Frazier II and III, Foreman (5 landmark wins).

But then, Ali also had these wins across two decades:

Moore, Cooper I and II, Patterson I and II, Chuvalo I and II, Quarry I and II, Foster, Bugner, Norton II and III, Lyle, Young, Shavers.... and more.

See my point kinda? SRL can't be ranked in the same bracket as Ali for this reason IMO.

[MrMarvel]

Duran-Leonard II is not an incredible win. Duran quit in the ring in a fight that was pretty much even up that point (which was remarkable given that Duran spent the night in the hospital from a stomach he developed before entering the ring).

Leonard-Hearns I was not an incredible win. Hearns was winning the fight going away, outpunching and outboxing Leonard. He gassed in a fight with an overeager referee.

Benitez was an interesting fight. Benitez hardly trained for it, so we didn't get anywhere near his best effort. The stoppage was total bullshit. Leonard was winning by a fair margin. Unremarkable contest.

Hagler beat Leonard, so there is nothing incredible about that win. The judging? That was incredible.

Duran beat the crap out of Leonard the first time they met. Duran was incredible. Leonard hanging on for dear life. (I can't believe people actually think that was a close fight.)

Hearns floored Leonard twice and outpointed him in the rematch. Nothing incredible about that.

And Leonard was decked twice and carried by Terry Norris.

And here we are seriously debate whether he should be given a spot among the best fighters of all time? Describing Leonard as "amazing" and so forth?

[Robbi]

Duran-Leonard II is not an incredible win. Duran quit in the ring in a fight that was pretty much even up that point (which was remarkable given that Duran spent the night in the hospital from a stomach he developed before entering the ring).

Leonard-Hearns I was not an incredible win. Hearns was winning the fight going away, outpunching and outboxing Leonard. He gassed in a fight with an overeager referee.

Benitez was an interesting fight. Benitez hardly trained for it, so we didn't get anywhere near his best effort. The stoppage was total bullshit. Leonard was winning by a fair margin. Unremarkable contest.

Hagler beat Leonard, so there is nothing incredible about that win. The judging? That was incredible.

Duran beat the crap out of Leonard the first time they met. Duran was incredible. Leonard hanging on for dear life. (I can't believe people actually think that was a close fight.)

Hearns floored Leonard twice and outpointed him in the rematch. Nothing incredible about that.

And Leonard was decked twice and carried by Terry Norris.

And here we are seriously debate whether he should be given a spot among the best fighters of all time? Describing Leonard as "amazing" and so forth?

If you can't see you're biased, god help you.

[Robbi]

MrMarvel. Never forget that Hagler was taken 15 rounds by a natural lightweight. No use making excuses about that one. It's a tough one to swallow, I know.

While Leonard was also beaten by Duran, he faced a far better version than Hagler did. Duran moved up further out his comfort zone and stepped up another two divisions post Leonard I and II. Hagler was made to look pretty basic and unconvincing. :good

[Addie]

I don't masturbate over Duran going the distance with Hagler. Well, maybe I have once or twice if I'm honest :lol: The facts are highly evident. Duran fought a prime Hagler, or very close to his prime. He was a far better physical specimen when Duran fought him, compared to the slowed down version that Leonard fought 4 years later. Thats not being biased or taking credit away from Leonard. It's what you call "facing the truth".

With that said, Duran lost to Hagler and Leonard beat him.

And you seem to be very sensitive with the following "all we can talk about is whether or not Leonard deserved to win" It was a controverisal fight afterall. It doesn't matter if me or you thinks Leonard clearly won the fight or not. The fight was reasonably close, and no fighter won the fight by a landslide.

It's one of the most controversial fights in the history of the sport.

Roberto Duran is given a free pass in the fight game on Eastside Boxing. Evert single loss he ever received has an excuse to back it up. He was drained against Hearns and Benitez, he didn't train for Leonard II. Give me a break.

Duran did okay to go the distance against a bigger man, but he lost the fight quite clearly.

Leonard beat the same man, a few years later, albeit a slightly faded one, despite having a lay off and also being naturally smaller.

Let's give Ray his due.

[Robbi]

Roberto Duran is given a free pass in the fight game on Eastside Boxing. Evert single loss he ever received has an excuse to back it up. He was drained against Hearns and Benitez, he didn't train for Leonard II. Give me a break.

Duran did okay to go the distance against a bigger man, but he lost the fight quite clearly.

Leonard beat the same man, a few years later, albeit a slightly faded one, despite having a lay off and also being naturally smaller.

Let's give Ray his due.

I'm giving Leonard credit. Where haven't I given him credit?. Well, I had him beating Hagler for starters. I'm simply stating that Duran fought a better verision than Leonard did. I even backed up Leonard on my last reply to MrMarvel.

You and Leonard is "touche" subject. Duran is a favourite with many ESB's members, unlike Leonard. However, I give them both credit where it's due and like to think I'm fair and balanced when it comes to both.

[Robbi]

Let's give Ray his due.

I think every has apart from Rooster and MrMarvel. :D

[Bokaj]

I'm giving Leonard credit. Where haven't I given him credit?. Well, I had him beating Hagler for starters. I'm simply stating that Duran fought a better verision than Leonard did. I even backed up Leonard on my last reply to MrMarvel.

You and Leonard is "touche" subject. Duran is a favourite with many ESB's members, unlike Leonard. However, I give them both credit where it's due and like to think I'm fair and balanced when it comes to both.

I think you are, even though Duran's your favourite. That speaks to your credit.

It continues to amaze me how infected this subjected is, though. Leonard didn't do everything perfect in his career, but who did? Dempsey had a pretty disgraceful career in some aspects, but he's still revered by many. Leonard took on some tough dudes and always performed well (even in Montreal), but the hatred some here have for him...

Well, that's what happens when you beat fighters that many have as their favourites I suppose. Fuck, I think more hatred and contempt has gone Leonard's way for exposing Duran in a way in the "no mas"-thing than has gone the way of Duran. Weird.

[Bill Butcher]

I do indeed consider resume to be the most important single factor when evaluating greatness, and we have already established that I think Leonard is one of a very select few at the absolute pinnacle of the sport in terms of ability.

However, it is resume which precludes me from having SRL in my top 10. I think when I did my last list last year, Ray was 14th or something like that. His best wins are AMAZING! Some of the best wins in history. However, if you are evaluating his career:

- Won 36 fights in a 40-fight career
- Won 12 world titles fights and lost 2
- His peak lasted three years, '79-'82
- OK, there is Duran II, Hearns I, Benitez and Hagler. 4 incredible wins. What else is there?? Decent wins over Kalule and Lalonde, a draw with Hearns that he did not deserve, and nothing else of note really


Ray is IMO probably top 5, maybe even top 3, ever in terms of ability. However, is 12 world title wins, a 3 year peak period, and a resume which has a few stunning wins but not much else - is that sufficient achievement to be considered top 10 of all-time, alongside guys like Langford and Robinson, and even Ali and Duran, who went to the well again and again and again for years and years and years, spanning several eras?

Ray just doesn't make it IMO. But that doesn't mean he wasn't as good as anyone else to ever lace them up. Just wish he had had more time at the top so he could proved it over time and nailed himself into that top 3-5 bracket.


PS: For instance, Leonard had Duran II, Hearns, Benitez and Hagler (4 landmark wins).

Ali had Liston I and II, Frazier II and III, Foreman (5 landmark wins).

But then, Ali also had these wins across two decades:

Moore, Cooper I and II, Patterson I and II, Chuvalo I and II, Quarry I and II, Foster, Bugner, Norton II and III, Lyle, Young, Shavers.... and more.

See my point kinda? SRL can't be ranked in the same bracket as Ali for this reason IMO.

I agree, Ali has to be above Leonard.... the retirements severely hurt Leonard`s legacy, shame really, brilliant fighter.

[Bill Butcher]

Duran-Leonard II is not an incredible win. Duran quit in the ring in a fight that was pretty much even up that point (which was remarkable given that Duran spent the night in the hospital from a stomach he developed before entering the ring).

Leonard-Hearns I was not an incredible win. Hearns was winning the fight going away, outpunching and outboxing Leonard. He gassed in a fight with an overeager referee.

Benitez was an interesting fight. Benitez hardly trained for it, so we didn't get anywhere near his best effort. The stoppage was total bullshit. Leonard was winning by a fair margin. Unremarkable contest.

Hagler beat Leonard, so there is nothing incredible about that win. The judging? That was incredible.

Duran beat the crap out of Leonard the first time they met. Duran was incredible. Leonard hanging on for dear life. (I can't believe people actually think that was a close fight.)

Hearns floored Leonard twice and outpointed him in the rematch. Nothing incredible about that.

And Leonard was decked twice and carried by Terry Norris.

And here we are seriously debate whether he should be given a spot among the best fighters of all time? Describing Leonard as "amazing" and so forth?

Mesmerising :nut

[redrooster]

I agree, Ali has to be above Leonard.... the retirements severely hurt Leonard`s legacy, shame really, brilliant fighter.

i will testify to that!

[redrooster]

Who did you score the Leonard-Hagler fight for (& which rds if you can remember) ?

Just to see how different our cards are.

rounds 1, 3, 7 even.

rounds 2, 4 - leonard.

rd 5 Hagler

rd 6 leonard

rd 8 hagler

rds 9, 10, 11 Hagler

rd 12 Leonard

[redrooster]

Roberto Duran is given a free pass in the fight game on Eastside Boxing. Evert single loss he ever received has an excuse to back it up. He was drained against Hearns and Benitez, he didn't train for Leonard II. Give me a break.

Duran did okay to go the distance against a bigger man, but he lost the fight quite clearly.

Leonard beat the same man, a few years later, albeit a slightly faded one, despite having a lay off and also being naturally smaller.

Let's give Ray his due.

you're ignorant! Telling people he was given a free pass when he's already had a career's worth by 1978. You want to say he's given a free pass for the loss to leonard, here's his pass--> [Only registered and activated users can see links]

You seem to have a free pass for leonard every time he loses but WITHOUT the back up

[Addie]

you're ignorant! Telling people he was given a free pass when he's already had a career's worth by 1978. You want to say he's given a free pass for the loss to leonard, here's his pass--> [Only registered and activated users can see links]

You seem to have a free pass for leonard every time he loses but WITHOUT the back up

I'm not ignorant, I just call it how I see it.

Every single time a Duran loss is brought up, the excuses come flooding in. Is anybody about to dispute that here?

[Robbi]

rounds 1, 3, 7 even.

rounds 2, 4 - leonard.

rd 5 Hagler

rd 6 leonard

rd 8 hagler

rds 9, 10, 11 Hagler

rd 12 Leonard


:blood

[redrooster]

I'm not ignorant, I just call it how I see it.

Every single time a Duran loss is brought up, the excuses come flooding in. Is anybody about to dispute that here?

You mean you see it how you want to see it.

You are one of those types I was talking about just yesterday. because I know that you know who Randy is.

Do you? You think he lacks credentials and just making the whole thing up? I bet you dont even read it and won't bother reading it. Or at least you wont bother commenting on it. what would you want to do that for?

[redrooster]

:blood

:blood

[GDG]

There's some serious hate for Leonard in this thread!!!

Haglers problem when fighting Leonard was much to do with his mentality...he wanted to win soooo much that he wasn't quite himself in the fight!!! People talk about how faded he was, and this is of course true, but I honestly think he struggles with Ray at any point because of his apparent disdain for him!!! It would always have been a close fight for me.

What I find a little frustrating about this debate is how much Haglers decline is brought up...when it was Ray who had only fought once in 5 years (and had looked awful at that)!!!

[Robbi]

What I find a little frustrating about this debate is how much Haglers decline is brought up...when it was Ray who had only fought once in 5 years (and had looked awful at that)!!!

After reading the above, Rooster will be saying to himself "thats true, but I need to find a way to turn things around and make it unreal and biased to favour my man Hagler".

[brownpimp88]

rounds 1, 3, 7 even.

rounds 2, 4 - leonard.

rd 5 Hagler

rd 6 leonard

rd 8 hagler

rds 9, 10, 11 Hagler

rd 12 Leonard
It was a pretty close fight buddy i scored it a draw, but we all know the prime Hagler would have iced him.

[Addie]

There's some serious hate for Leonard in this thread!!!

Haglers problem when fighting Leonard was much to do with his mentality...he wanted to win soooo much that he wasn't quite himself in the fight!!! People talk about how faded he was, and this is of course true, but I honestly think he struggles with Ray at any point because of his apparent disdain for him!!! It would always have been a close fight for me.

What I find a little frustrating about this debate is how much Haglers decline is brought up...when it was Ray who had only fought once in 5 years (and had looked awful at that)!!!

There's some serious hate for Leonard in the majority of threads that bring him up. Duran is the purists favorite, and anybody who is on the Classic forum is a purist.

It's a damn shame there is so much controversy over the Hagler vs Leonard fight. We're missing the point. Ray had no business going the distance, even with that version of Hagler. This wasn't pristine Leonard, the evidence is there that shows he was inactive, rusty, and it's also factual that he was operating above his best weight. Ray fought he would beat Hagler, but nobody else did.

[GDG]

There's some serious hate for Leonard in the majority of threads that bring him up. Duran is the purists favorite, and anybody who is on the Classic forum is a purist.

It's a damn shame there is so much controversy over the Hagler vs Leonard fight. We're missing the point. Ray had no business going the distance, even with that version of Hagler. This wasn't pristine Leonard, the evidence is there that shows he was inactive, rusty, and it's also factual that he was operating above his best weight. Ray fought he would beat Hagler, but nobody else did.


You make an interesting point and it a condition that a rival website i used to be on suffered with. There are some fighters that it has become unreasonable to have any criticism of (Duran, Pea)...and that it has equally become fasionable to discredit (Leonard being the prime example).

Every fighter in history has their fallabilities...and I think you have to try and recognise these and detatch yourself from who you personally "dislike" when evaluating a fighter or a hypothetical match-up.

[Addie]

There are some fighters that it has become unreasonable to have any criticism of (Duran, Pea)...and that it has equally become fasionable to discredit (Leonard being the prime example).

:good That's the bottom line.

[redrooster]

There's some serious hate for Leonard in the majority of threads that bring him up. Duran is the purists favorite, and anybody who is on the Classic forum is a purist.

It's a damn shame there is so much controversy over the Hagler vs Leonard fight. We're missing the point. Ray had no business going the distance, even with that version of Hagler. This wasn't pristine Leonard, the evidence is there that shows he was inactive, rusty, and it's also factual that he was operating above his best weight. Ray fought he would beat Hagler, but nobody else did.

You two. Selfkill and GDG sure sound similar to one another. you both make sure to start out with your favorite opener "There's some serious hate for leonard"

How about that? Word for word! I might just take you both for the same poster under different names. IS there any truth to that?

Maybe one identity feels he cant put forth a forth a strong enough argument, that he isnt persuasive enough so he brings in his other identity for backup. only thing is you used the same opener word for word. you blew it buddy!

[Addie]

You two. Selfkill and GDG sure sound similar to one another. you both make sure to start out with your favorite opener "There's some serious hate for leonard"

How about that? Word for word! I might just take you both for the same poster under different names. IS there any truth to that?

Maybe one identity feels he cant put forth a forth a strong enough argument, that he isnt persuasive enough so he brings in his other identity for backup. only thing is you used the same opener word for word. you blew it buddy!

You have no credibility. Shush. :good

[GDG]

You two. Selfkill and GDG sure sound similar to one another. you both make sure to start out with your favorite opener "There's some serious hate for leonard"

How about that? Word for word! I might just take you both for the same poster under different names. IS there any truth to that?

Maybe one identity feels he cant put forth a forth a strong enough argument, that he isnt persuasive enough so he brings in his other identity for backup. only thing is you used the same opener word for word. you blew it buddy!


Anyone that has done that or would consider doing that on a boxing website, should just end it all!!!

[redrooster]

You have no credibility. Shush. :good

What's that? you say you want to discuss this with me?

give it up. you already showed you dont have the heart when you passed up the article. I even gave you the link knowing you arent going anywhere near it. In fact you replied to everyone but me.

just like I said you going to pass up making comments on the article. just go talk to your make believe friend and pretend the rest of the world is hating ray leonard and wont give him his due

[JohnThomas1]

You two. Selfkill and GDG sure sound similar to one another. you both make sure to start out with your favorite opener "There's some serious hate for leonard"

How about that? Word for word! I might just take you both for the same poster under different names. IS there any truth to that?

Maybe one identity feels he cant put forth a forth a strong enough argument, that he isnt persuasive enough so he brings in his other identity for backup. only thing is you used the same opener word for word. you blew it buddy!

Isn't it a shame for you that selfkill was actually answering to and addressing that particular phrase at the start of his post.

You silly chook :lol:

[redrooster]

Anyone that has done that or would consider doing that on a boxing website, should just end it all!!!

I've had the same charges thrown at me, GDG.

You really believe it's just pure hate? Anyways I think its foolish to get too serious about these p4p rankings but to see someone talk about ray leonard being in the top 3-5 ever is ludicrous

[redrooster]

Isn't it a shame for you that selfkill was actually answering to and addressing that particular phrase at the start of his post.

You silly chook :lol:


hey John i see you been working on your tan! :lol:

[JohnThomas1]

hey John i see you been working on your tan! :lol:

You too, by the looks :good

[Robbi]

Rooster. You're some case. One of the finest fruitcakes around these shores. Your opinions and arguements are as a weak as a 70 year old's erection.

[Addie]

I've had the same charges thrown at me, GDG.

You really believe it's just pure hate? Anyways I think its foolish to get too serious about these p4p rankings but to see someone talk about ray leonard being in the top 3-5 ever is ludicrous

Not half as ludicrous as claiming "Leonard isn't in Norris' class".

Norris' best wins came against fighters past their peak. How ironic that you worship him.

[Robbi]

Not half as ludicrous as claiming "Leonard isn't in Norris' class".

Norris' best wins came against fighters past their peak. How ironic that you worship him.

Norris, at the age of only 30, crumbled like a cheap tent against a journeyman. :lol:

[Robbi]

Terry was only 30 and going along nicely until this happened........

[Only registered and activated users can see links] (%3Ca%20href=)

Going into the fight Mullings had a record of 14-4-1, and finished his career with 16-8-1.


:lol:

[brownpimp88]

Not half as ludicrous as claiming "Leonard isn't in Norris' class".

Norris' best wins came against fighters past their peak. How ironic that you worship him.
Really, so whats your defintion of being past your peak? Having 1 or 2 losses, lol. Ray Leonard was favoured to beat Norris. Meldrick Taylor was beating guys like Aaron Davis and Glenwood Brown prior to getting smashed by Taylor and that fight was ta 149 by the way. Whe he soundly outboxed Simon Brown in the re-match, simon brown is past it too right. Maurice Blocker, Vincent Pettway, and the 10 other world champs that he beat, they were all past it right. John Mugabi was on a 12 fight win streak, but o wait Terry Norris slaughters him and now he's 'washed up', lol.

[redrooster]

Not half as ludicrous as claiming "Leonard isn't in Norris' class".

Norris' best wins came against fighters past their peak. How ironic that you worship him.

he isnt and he proved it where it counts-in the ring. not on paper or in my imagination the way you do.

now, to use your own brand of logic, Terry had no business going the distance with leonard. Terry thought he would beat Leonard, but nobody else did.

I just replaced the words Leonard with Norris as underdogs and Leonard with Hagler as favorites and now your resoning becomes my reasoning. And what even makes it more impressive is the degree by which Terry won!

We're not talking no split decision here.

Ray leonard - winner of 5 championships, unbeaten in 11 years, no ring rust to speak of, no carrying extra weight to slow him down, and that means no excuses... and an ass kicking on top of it... Terry beat winning regardless without the controversy. How I loved this fight!

by the way, have you read the article yet?

[brownpimp88]

he isnt and he proved it where it counts-in the ring. not on paper or in my imagination the way you do.

now, to use your own brand of logic, Terry had no business going the distance with leonard. Terry thought he would beat Leonard, but nobody else did.

I just replaced the words Leonard with Norris as underdogs and Leonard with Hagler as favorites and now your resoning becomes my reasoning. And what even makes it more impressive is the degree by which Terry won!

We're not talking no split decision here.

Ray leonard - winner of 5 championships, unbeaten in 11 years, no ring rust to speak of, no carrying extra weight to slow him down, and that means no excuses... and an ass kicking on top of it... Terry beat winning regardless without the controversy. How I loved this fight!

by the way, have you read the article yet?
Which article are you talking about buddy, i would love to read it.:good

[Addie]

Really, so whats your defintion of being past your peak? Having 1 or 2 losses, lol. Ray Leonard was favoured to beat Norris. Meldrick Taylor was beating guys like Aaron Davis and Glenwood Brown prior to getting smashed by Taylor and that fight was ta 149 by the way. Whe he soundly outboxed Simon Brown in the re-match, simon brown is past it too right. Maurice Blocker, Vincent Pettway, and the 10 other world champs that he beat, they were all past it right. John Mugabi was on a 12 fight win streak, but o wait Terry Norris slaughters him and now he's 'washed up', lol.

Who had Mugabi defeated of note since losing to Hagler in 86?

What was Taylor's win-loss ratio after losing to Norris by stoppage?

...Donald Curry? Sugar Ray Leonard? Were those two at their peak?

[brownpimp88]

Who had Mugabi defeated of note since losing to Hagler in 86?

What was Taylor's win-loss ratio after losing to Norris by stoppage?

...Donald Curry? Sugar Ray Leonard? Were those two at their peak?
Why should it matter if Taylor was done after the Norris fight, he was the WBA welterweight champ of the world heading into the fight with Terry Norris. Their fight was basically at 149 and I dont need to hear the 'he was done after chavez' bullshit. A fighter like Aaron davis doesn't lose to shot fighters. If Meldrick Taylor was capable of winning belts from 1990-1992, he was still there.

It doesnt matter if Mugabi never beat greats, he was still good enough to hold a world title and then Norris slaughters him.

Didn't Curry give Nunn a hard fight prior to getting beat up Norris. Wasn't he a junior middleweight champ like 2-3 years before this fight.

If Terry Norris was beting nobides, then why was everyone ranking him top 3 p4p until his loss to Simon Brown. I guess boxing writers were just dumb right?

[redrooster]

Which article are you talking about buddy, i would love to read it.:good

Hi BP. I was referring to the article by Randy Gordon, Ring magazine correspondent. This man wrote in diary style behind the scenes infromation which is sure to be popular for any fight fan unless you are a ray leonard fan. It is at the link I put.

I think Duran has every reason for blaming his condition more than anything else for losing that fight. it's not that Ray Leonard wasnt good. It's just that he wasnt good enough to do it on his own

BTW, you made a tough case against anyone claiming Terry beat faded comp. they would love to say that becuz of him being the young upstart. Now I think Selfkill thinks anyone mentioning just the win streak alone is being disengenuous. But selfkill has yet to learn that two can play that same game

As for Ray, I feel bad for beating up on him the way i have these past few years. I almost wish I could switch allegiance to his side to appease his fans who I feel very sorry for.

His rep has REALLY taken a hit becuz of what I've said. Youtube with all it's millions of viewers is a great channel of communication and the opposition so witless.

The Hagler fight will always be bogus. Just as bogus as that lalonde fight and his numerous retirements which were supposed to keep him out of action,, but didn't. I will say this: on paper, Ray leonard has the greatest accomplishments of the four (on paper) but STILL...prime for prime, Terry Norris would have kicked that ass no matter the time and no matter the place!

:happy :bbb :good :toney

[redrooster]

Who had Mugabi defeated of note since losing to Hagler in 86?

What was Taylor's win-loss ratio after losing to Norris by stoppage?

...Donald Curry? Sugar Ray Leonard? Were those two at their peak?

here's one for you: Try answering it!

Who had Terry Norris beaten just prior to beating Ray Leonard?

[brownpimp88]

Hi BP. I was referring to the article by Randy Gordon, Ring magazine correspondent. This man wrote in diary style behind the scenes infromation which is sure to be popular for any fight fan unless you are a ray leonard fan. It is at the link I put.

I think Duran has every reason for blaming his condition more than anything else for losing that fight. it's not that Ray Leonard wasnt good. It's just that he wasnt good enough to do it on his own

BTW, you made a tough case against anyone claiming Terry beat faded comp. they would love to say that becuz of him being the young upstart. Now I think Selfkill thinks anyone mentioning just the win streak alone is being disengenuous. But selfkill has yet to learn that two can play that same game

As for Ray, I feel bad for beating up on him the way i have these past few years. I almost wish I could switch allegiance to his side to appease his fans who I feel very sorry for.

His rep has REALLY taken a hit becuz of what I've said. Youtube with all it's millions of viewers is a great channel of communication and the opposition so witless.

The Hagler fight will always be bogus. Just as bogus as that lalonde fight and his numerous retirements which were supposed to keep him out of action,, but didn't. I will say this: on paper, Ray leonard has the greatest accomplishments of the four (on paper) but STILL...prime for prime, Terry Norris would have kicked that ass no matter the time and no matter the place!

:happy :bbb :good :toney
For sure, its so easy to try and diminish the accomplishments of Terry Norris, as if anyone could have just beaten those 12-15 world champs that he beat, he is indeed an ATG.

[redrooster]

For sure, its so easy to try and diminish the accomplishments of Terry Norris, as if anyone could have just beaten those 12-15 world champs that he beat, he is indeed an ATG.

plus he holds the record for defenses at his weight but people talking like he's some bum. Here's a guy with all the defenses, dominating everyone but Jackson and they talk like Terry's a bum. some guy just said something like "Terry's alright i guess. But how about that prime leonard?"

I'm thinking that guy with no title defenses? becuz that what he has at- terry's weight of 154.

when it came down to the actual fight it wasnt like Ray was some immobile relic with no legs to move around. That was Hagler from the leonard fight.


Ray didnt really get caught with anything damaging in the first round so its not like he wasnt capable defending himself.

But seeing Terry's speed, he knew he had to put the pressured on. What he didnt count on was how damaging Terry can be. People also disregard that BrownPimp!

The terry norris power is too much for most fighters including Ray leonard. once he felt that power then he gained a healthy respect for him. And the SECOND TIME Terry hurt him, he took his heart. And once you take a fighter's heart, the fighter has conceded the contest.

[brownpimp88]

plus he holds the record for defenses at his weight but people talking like he's some bum. Here's a guy with all the defenses, dominating everyone but Jackson and they talk like Terry's a bum. some guy just said something like "Terry's alright i guess. But how about that prime leonard?"

I'm thinking that guy with no title defenses? becuz that what he has at- terry's weight of 154.

when it came down to the actual fight it wasnt like Ray was some immobile relic with no legs to move around. That was Hagler from the leonard fight.


Ray didnt really get caught with anything damaging in the first round so its not like he wasnt capable defending himself.

But seeing Terry's speed, he knew he had to put the pressured on. What he didnt count on was how damaging Terry can be. People also disregard that BrownPimp!

The terry norris power is too much for most fighters including Ray leonard. once he felt that power then he gained a healthy respect for him. And the SECOND TIME Terry hurt him, he took his heart. And once you take a fighter's heart, the fighter has conceded the contest.
Another thing is that Ray Leonard was going into that fight with a few wins and a draw in which he almost stopped hearns twice. It's not like Leonard was going into that fight as a severely battered and bruised fighter. Ray Leonard tried to 'cherry pick' Terry Norris just like he was handpicking all of his other opponents his whole career and it bit him in the ass.

[DINAMITA]

Duran-Leonard II is not an incredible win. Duran quit in the ring in a fight that was pretty much even up that point (which was remarkable given that Duran spent the night in the hospital from a stomach he developed before entering the ring).

Leonard-Hearns I was not an incredible win. Hearns was winning the fight going away, outpunching and outboxing Leonard. He gassed in a fight with an overeager referee.

Benitez was an interesting fight. Benitez hardly trained for it, so we didn't get anywhere near his best effort. The stoppage was total bullshit. Leonard was winning by a fair margin. Unremarkable contest.

Hagler beat Leonard, so there is nothing incredible about that win. The judging? That was incredible.

Duran beat the crap out of Leonard the first time they met. Duran was incredible. Leonard hanging on for dear life. (I can't believe people actually think that was a close fight.)

Hearns floored Leonard twice and outpointed him in the rematch. Nothing incredible about that.

And Leonard was decked twice and carried by Terry Norris.

And here we are seriously debate whether he should be given a spot among the best fighters of all time? Describing Leonard as "amazing" and so forth?

I'm going to bookmark this. It is very possibly the most biased post I've ever read.

This sort of thing is a shame, because it only serves to justify the ridiculous Duran-Leonard complex that people like Selfkill have built up in their minds.

Both fighters get their due, both fighters get criticized, and both are top 15 ATGs IMO. There's really no need for all this conspiracy bullshit. People may not like Ray's personality, they may not like his fighting style, they may (and it is a valid viewpoint) think he lost to Hagler and to Hearns the second time, but that doesn't mean his ATG standing suffers. It doesn't mean you hate or underrate Leonard to believe any of these things. He was still an amazing fighter, he just wasn't flawless that's all.

Just because extremists like Redrooster and MrMarvel hate on Leonard doesn't mean most do. I think Duran's win over Leonard was worth more than Leonard's win over Duran. I can't decide who won the Leonard-Hagler fight. But check back on this thread and see my opinion of SRL as a fighter. And see where most people on this forum rank Leonard on the rather slim basis of 12 world title wins, and 4 key victories. His rating is fair in general.

[GDG]

Redrooster,

You make some very well structured arguments, but in all honesty I think it's just as easy to take away the best wins of any fighter in history!!!

However, to say you don't have hate for Leonard is a lie...there's no 2 ways about it!!!

Terry Norris...really!?!?!?!

[redrooster]

Terry Norris...really!?!?!?!


Just like I was telling BrownPimp

GDG you are trying to downplay this man's remarkable achievements like they never happened. I know you dont like to acknowledge the fact that Terry holds the record for title defenses

He has proven to be the champion of champions by beating 12 of them-all of them convincingly.

he whipped Ray leonard by winning every round at a time he wasnt supposed to even hear the final bell. At a time Leonard was most experienced, having won five titles and on an 11 year win streak and off his most dominating performance in years. And no layoffs. IMO, you could not beat a man more convincingly than what Terry Norris did to Ray leonard to win a decision

Look at you guys. You see ray get a split decision over Hagler then go all apeshit over it. I see the way the newspaper reporters celebrating over it. Just becuz he gets a split decision over some guy who is completely used up.

at least you people scale it down now to "Even if Hagler was past his best it was still a remarkable win" acting like Hagler could take any OTHER middleweight out there

That is not what Antuofuermo say on ESPN before the fight. Vito knows Hagler better than some stupid ray leonard fan trying to pass themself off as an expert. Vito knows exactly what Hagler have left. not like those ignorant leonard people who act like they know.

I dont need some ignorant ray leonard fan telling me what Hagler have left. I seen hagler in training before the fight and what Vito has said matches up with what i see happen. Vito, the man who has faced Hagler in the ring, unlike any ray Leonard fan you will ever meet, said before the fight that Hagler would have lost to any of the contenders he previously faced and that includes Hearns, Duran, Roldan, Sibson, Lee, Scypion, Obel, Vito, Hamsho

I bet a 35 year old Bennie Briscoe could have beat Hagler that night.

What does a Ray leonard fan know about Hagler? I know Hagler fans know about Leonard but I dont think Leonard fan really knows about Hagler. 2 fights and that's it.

they take the 4 fights leonard's been in and compare them with the 2 fights they seen Hagler in and say he's done more with his career :lol:

In reality tho, people like Hagler and Norris have done better and more with their careers than Ray leonard but some people dont want to face the facts so out of ignorance they keep making their ignorant statements

Ray leonard with his zero defenses at 154. :-( even at 147, Terry's accomplishments still exceed Ray's

If you think he is so terrible a fighter then why is he in the hall of fame?

[redrooster]

Which article are you talking about buddy, i would love to read it.:good

BrownPimp88:

Here is the link to the article you asked about

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Addie]

I'm going to bookmark this. It is very possibly the most biased post I've ever read.

This sort of thing is a shame, because it only serves to justify the ridiculous Duran-Leonard complex that people like Selfkill have built up in their minds.

Both fighters get their due, both fighters get criticized, and both are top 15 ATGs IMO. There's really no need for all this conspiracy bullshit. People may not like Ray's personality, they may not like his fighting style, they may (and it is a valid viewpoint) think he lost to Hagler and to Hearns the second time, but that doesn't mean his ATG standing suffers. It doesn't mean you hate or underrate Leonard to believe any of these things. He was still an amazing fighter, he just wasn't flawless that's all.

Just because extremists like Redrooster and MrMarvel hate on Leonard doesn't mean most do. I think Duran's win over Leonard was worth more than Leonard's win over Duran. I can't decide who won the Leonard-Hagler fight. But check back on this thread and see my opinion of SRL as a fighter. And see where most people on this forum rank Leonard on the rather slim basis of 12 world title wins, and 4 key victories. His rating is fair in general.

:verysad

[GDG]

Just like I was telling BrownPimp

GDG you are trying to downplay this man's remarkable achievements like they never happened. I know you dont like to acknowledge the fact that Terry holds the record for title defenses

He has proven to be the champion of champions by beating 12 of them-all of them convincingly.

he whipped Ray leonard by winning every round at a time he wasnt supposed to even hear the final bell. At a time Leonard was most experienced, having won five titles and on an 11 year win streak and off his most dominating performance in years. And no layoffs. IMO, you could not beat a man more convincingly than what Terry Norris did to Ray leonard to win a decision

Look at you guys. You see ray get a split decision over Hagler then go all apeshit over it. I see the way the newspaper reporters celebrating over it. Just becuz he gets a split decision over some guy who is completely used up.

at least you people scale it down now to "Even if Hagler was past his best it was still a remarkable win" acting like Hagler could take any OTHER middleweight out there

That is not what Antuofuermo say on ESPN before the fight. Vito knows Hagler better than some stupid ray leonard fan trying to pass themself off as an expert. Vito knows exactly what Hagler have left. not like those ignorant leonard people who act like they know.

I dont need some ignorant ray leonard fan telling me what Hagler have left. I seen hagler in training before the fight and what Vito has said matches up with what i see happen. Vito, the man who has faced Hagler in the ring, unlike any ray Leonard fan you will ever meet, said before the fight that Hagler would have lost to any of the contenders he previously faced and that includes Hearns, Duran, Roldan, Sibson, Lee, Scypion, Obel, Vito, Hamsho

I bet a 35 year old Bennie Briscoe could have beat Hagler that night.

What does a Ray leonard fan know about Hagler? I know Hagler fans know about Leonard but I dont think Leonard fan really knows about Hagler. 2 fights and that's it.

they take the 4 fights leonard's been in and compare them with the 2 fights they seen Hagler in and say he's done more with his career :lol:

In reality tho, people like Hagler and Norris have done better and more with their careers than Ray leonard but some people dont want to face the facts so out of ignorance they keep making their ignorant statements

Ray leonard with his zero defenses at 154. :-( even at 147, Terry's accomplishments still exceed Ray's

If you think he is so terrible a fighter then why is he in the hall of fame?


I never said I was a huge Leonard fan....nor did I say Norris was a terrible fighter!!

I would debate with you but if you're just going to put words in my mouth it's not really worth it is it!?!?!?

This is the first time I've spoken to you and somehow you've decided I love Leonard...hate Hagler...don't rate Norris...and have seen hagler fight only twice!!

I diagreed with you but respected your opinion before...now I just think you're a clown!!! People like you are the reason I left a different site I used to post on!!!

[redrooster]

I never said I was a huge Leonard fan....nor did I say Norris was a terrible fighter!!

I would debate with you but if you're just going to put words in my mouth it's not really worth it is it!?!?!?

This is the first time I've spoken to you and somehow you've decided I love Leonard...hate Hagler...don't rate Norris...and have seen hagler fight only twice!!

I diagreed with you but respected your opinion before...now I just think you're a clown!!! People like you are the reason I left a different site I used to post on!!!

alright well welcome to the forum

[Robbi]

[Only registered and activated users can see links] (%3Ca%20href=)

AND THE NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEW!!


[Only registered and activated users can see links] (%3Ca%20href=)

Rooster's reaction from his ringside seat, just seconds after the decision........................

[DINAMITA]

:verysad

:?

[Addie]

:?

My argument that Duran is given the benefit of the doubt more often than not has weight. If you don't believe it, that's your business, but this isn't something I've made up. Why would I? I like Duran as a fighter, but there's a lot of double standards going on in the Classic forum regarding the fab four.

[DINAMITA]

My argument that Duran is given the benefit of the doubt more often than not has weight. If you don't believe it, that's your business, but this isn't something I've made up. Why would I? I like Duran as a fighter, but there's a lot of double standards going on in the Classic forum regarding the fab four.

There's a lot of double standards going on in your skull because a few haters have pissed you off.

Ray Leonard had 12 world title fight wins, and he has 4 key wins after which his resume is very thin. And yet almost everyone I've ever seen on this forum ranks him top 15 ATG. If anything, the man is given more credit than he is due in a career sense because of the quality of those 4 wins and the quality he showed as a fighter in securing them. With such a short peak, an argument exists that he doesn't deserve to be ranked in the company of the Peps and the Charles's and the Ali's who put together enormous strings of great wins across decades and eras. But en masse this argument is rejected because of Leonard's quality.

Are excuses made for Duran? Perhaps. Are they legitimate? I believe yes, in the majority. Duran was not like Mayweather or Calzaghe, he wasn't micro-managed, he wasn't a zero-protector, he was like Toney in a way. A passion fighter, sometimes he came to the ring in great condition and won (Leonard I, Moore, DeJesus II and III), sometimes he came to the ring in good condition and lost (DeJesus I, Hagler). But often he came to the ring in a condition that guys like Mayweather and Calzaghe would never dream of, pretty demotivated and a little out of shape - like Toney has sometimes. It's up to you whether you choose to ignore that or not. Personally I don't, because I have an affinity with the Duran and Toney mindset, but it's what you believe personally I suppose.

Another thing you should perhaps take into consideration when you think allowances are made for Duran is that it shouldn't be ignored that he was always the older, smaller, slower man in the ring in the 1980s. The guy was a lightweight who won his first world title in 1972, he had already had his peak career in the 70s, fighting and beating the best lw's of that era. He had no business going in against the best welters, lightmiddles and middles of the 80s when he was the wrong side of 30. He was never on a level playing field. We were fortunate to have him in that era, and it was a brave and brilliant achievement that he actually managed it at all.

[DINAMITA]

My argument that Duran is given the benefit of the doubt more often than not has weight. If you don't believe it, that's your business, but this isn't something I've made up. Why would I? I like Duran as a fighter, but there's a lot of double standards going on in the Classic forum regarding the fab four.

And actually, the opposite to what you allege is true.

Duran secured one of the very best (IMO it is THE best) wins in the history of the sport when he beat Leonard, but this magnificent achievement is often completely discredited and devalued by the blunt and stupid assertion that: "Leonard would have won if he boxed".

It is Duran who does not get his due, if either of them don't.

[brownpimp88]

And actually, the opposite to what you allege is true.

Duran secured one of the very best (IMO it is THE best) wins in the history of the sport when he beat Leonard, but this magnificent achievement is often completely discredited and devalued by the blunt and stupid assertion that: "Leonard would have won if he boxed".

It is Duran who does not get his due, if either of them don't.
Whenever duran wins 'he's at his best', but when he gets embarassed by someone like Wilfredo Benitez he has 1 million excuses lined up. Not to mention that Benitez and Duran are pretty much the same size.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Duran secured one of the very best (IMO it is THE best) wins in the history of the sport when he beat Leonard.


Fuck me, the best in history! That Leonard geezer must have been some fighter then.

[Robbi]

Fuck me, the best in history! That Leonard geezer must have been some fighter then.

Yeah, must have been some geezer as well. :D

[Bill Butcher]

The terry norris power is too much for most fighters including Ray leonard.

You wont find too many fans agreeing with this but I know you know that & I know you likely dont care :D

[Robbi]

You wont find too many fans agreeing with this but I know you know that & I know you likely dont care :D

That kid's parents must have found him in a lucky bag. :lol:

[MrMarvel]

If Leonard couldn't beat Hagler in 1987, he couldn't have beaten him in 1983. Here is the way Hugh McIvanney encapsulated the injustice of the fight in an article for Sports Illustrated, aptly titled, "The illusion of Victory":
It is not only in Las Vegas that professional boxing's system of scoring shows all the intellectual consistency of a rolling pair of dice.

Don't blame the desert air for the rush of blood to the brain that caused Jose Juan (Jo Jo) Guerra, a WBC judge, to make Sugar Ray Leonard a winner by 10 rounds to 2 over Marvin Hagler while another official, Lou Filippo, was giving the April 6 fight at Caesars Palace to Hagler 7 rounds to 5. If the record of judges sanctioned by its State Athletic Commission is anything to go by, Nevada is a congenial environment for officials with the glorious eccentricity of mind brought to his work by Guerra. But bad decisions know no boundaries.

The simple truth is that at this stage of its long and erratic history, prizefighting is still nowhere near establishing any consistently accurate means of measuring performance. If the comparative effectiveness of two fighters is so difficult to calibrate (or so open to extravagantly subjective interpretations) that Guerra and Filippo can contradict each other as outrageously as they did, then even when everybody stays honest, boxing clearly carries a far higher risk of recurring injustice than any other sport.

When judges talk about focusing on paramount criteria—on identifying effective aggressiveness, clean punching, ring generalship and quality defense—they are merely emphasizing the complexity, perhaps the impossibility, of the exercise. Much of the time all they can do is review a fighter's performance, much as a theater critic would an actor's, making the pseudoscientific adjustment of putting their impressions into figures.

No one has ever understood the boxing judge as reviewer of theater better than Sugar Ray Leonard. Even Muhammad Ali, who substituted histrionics for real fighting often enough in the latter part of his career, was usually more concerned with disconcerting his opponent and getting the crowd on his side. Leonard sought those dividends too against Hagler. But the overriding priority for him appeared to be the manipulation of official minds.

Naturally, to achieve that end, Ray had to bring a lot to the party. Physically and mentally, he was astonishingly strong, sharp and resilient after what had been, essentially, a five-year layoff.

Thus, looking and moving so much better than anyone had a right to expect, Leonard was in a position to exploit the Schulberg Factor. This phenomenon—a compound optical illusion—may not have been discovered by Budd Schulberg, the novelist and fight aficionado, but he receives credit here for pointing it out to a few of us who were asking ourselves how Hagler came to be so cruelly misjudged. Budd's reasoning was that people were so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was.

Similarly, having expected extreme destructiveness from Marvin, they saw anything less as failure and refused to give him credit for the quiet beating he administered.

What Ray Leonard pulled off in his split decision over Hagler was an epic illusion. He had said beforehand that the way to beat Hagler was to give him a distorted picture. But this shrewdest of fighters knew it was even more important to distort the picture for the judges. His plan was to "steal" rounds with a few flashy and carefully timed flurries and to make the rest of each three-minute session as unproductive as possible for Hagler by circling briskly away from the latter's persistent pursuit. When he made his sporadic attacking flourishes, he was happy to exaggerate hand speed at the expense of power, and neither he nor two of the scorers seemed bothered by the fact that many of the punches landed on the champion's gloves and arms. This was showboating raised to an art form, and the brilliance with which it was sustained was a tribute to Leonard's wonderful nerve, which is cut from the same flawless diamond as Ali's.

But, however much the slick ploys blurred the perceptions of those on the fevered sidelines, they never broke Hagler. He has a different kind of spirit, but it is no less resolute than Leonard's. The hounding intensity that kept him unbeaten through 11 years from 1976 will soon be a memory, but he had enough left to press on through his early frustrations, throw the superior volume of hurtful punches. I'm convinced Hagler won the fight; a draw, and the retention of the title, was the very least he deserved.

"It's unfair, man, it's unfair," Hagler said helplessly to the master illusionist at the end. That's an old cry and—given the haphazard way boxing judges its heroes—all too often a true one.
Only six out of the thirteen major papers ringsiders thought Leonard won the fight. Had the scores reflected the majority who called it either a draw or a win for Hagler, the title would not have changed hands.

The Associated Press, which has been closer to actual scores of fights than any other source over the past several decades, had the fight for Hagler 117-112. That's closer to the truth than even Filippo had it.

[Dave's Top Ten]

Boxing is a much worse place without Hugh McIvanney around to analyze the madness of boxing and clarify it for us mere mortals. He saw beyond the hype and excitement of the Hagler Leonard event to lay out for the rest of us what really happened that night.

[COULDHAVEBEEN]

Who would've won, and how do you see that fight going?

As we know SRL was walking around at 145 in the early 80's so there's some hypothitical here.

Did SRL avoid Hagler in the early 80's because he didn't think he could beat him then - maybe?

IMO in the early 80's it would still have been a hell of a fight, like their later bout was.

It would've gone the distance IMO, and though most of the smart money here seems to be for Hagler, I can't split 'em. Commonsense does say Hagler, but let's not forget what Leonard was capable of and what he managed to acheived - one of the cleverest guys ever to pull gloves on.

[PbP Bacon]

"people were so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was.

Similarly, having expected extreme destructiveness from Marvin, they saw anything less as failure and refused to give him credit for the quiet beating he administered. "


For me, these two paragraphs are spot on. Best explanation ever on what happened in that fight.

Man, Hugh McIvanney was such a gifted writer.

[DINAMITA]

Fuck me, the best in history! That Leonard geezer must have been some fighter then.

:?

[Flea Man]

"people were so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was.

Similarly, having expected extreme destructiveness from Marvin, they saw anything less as failure and refused to give him credit for the quiet beating he administered. "


For me, these two paragraphs are spot on. Best explanation ever on what happened in that fight.

Man, Hugh McIvanney was such a gifted writer.

:good:good:good

[GDG]

"people were so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was.

Similarly, having expected extreme destructiveness from Marvin, they saw anything less as failure and refused to give him credit for the quiet beating he administered. "


For me, these two paragraphs are spot on. Best explanation ever on what happened in that fight.

Man, Hugh McIvanney was such a gifted writer.


The same could be said of Durans fight with Hagler yet he never got the nod!!!

[Bill Butcher]

If Leonard couldn't beat Hagler in 1987, he couldn't have beaten him in 1983. Here is the way Hugh McIvanney encapsulated the injustice of the fight in an article for Sports Illustrated, aptly titled, "The illusion of Victory":
It is not only in Las Vegas that professional boxing's system of scoring shows all the intellectual consistency of a rolling pair of dice.

Don't blame the desert air for the rush of blood to the brain that caused Jose Juan (Jo Jo) Guerra, a WBC judge, to make Sugar Ray Leonard a winner by 10 rounds to 2 over Marvin Hagler while another official, Lou Filippo, was giving the April 6 fight at Caesars Palace to Hagler 7 rounds to 5. If the record of judges sanctioned by its State Athletic Commission is anything to go by, Nevada is a congenial environment for officials with the glorious eccentricity of mind brought to his work by Guerra. But bad decisions know no boundaries.

The simple truth is that at this stage of its long and erratic history, prizefighting is still nowhere near establishing any consistently accurate means of measuring performance. If the comparative effectiveness of two fighters is so difficult to calibrate (or so open to extravagantly subjective interpretations) that Guerra and Filippo can contradict each other as outrageously as they did, then even when everybody stays honest, boxing clearly carries a far higher risk of recurring injustice than any other sport.

When judges talk about focusing on paramount criteria—on identifying effective aggressiveness, clean punching, ring generalship and quality defense—they are merely emphasizing the complexity, perhaps the impossibility, of the exercise. Much of the time all they can do is review a fighter's performance, much as a theater critic would an actor's, making the pseudoscientific adjustment of putting their impressions into figures.

No one has ever understood the boxing judge as reviewer of theater better than Sugar Ray Leonard. Even Muhammad Ali, who substituted histrionics for real fighting often enough in the latter part of his career, was usually more concerned with disconcerting his opponent and getting the crowd on his side. Leonard sought those dividends too against Hagler. But the overriding priority for him appeared to be the manipulation of official minds.

Naturally, to achieve that end, Ray had to bring a lot to the party. Physically and mentally, he was astonishingly strong, sharp and resilient after what had been, essentially, a five-year layoff.

Thus, looking and moving so much better than anyone had a right to expect, Leonard was in a position to exploit the Schulberg Factor. This phenomenon—a compound optical illusion—may not have been discovered by Budd Schulberg, the novelist and fight aficionado, but he receives credit here for pointing it out to a few of us who were asking ourselves how Hagler came to be so cruelly misjudged. Budd's reasoning was that people were so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was.

Similarly, having expected extreme destructiveness from Marvin, they saw anything less as failure and refused to give him credit for the quiet beating he administered.

What Ray Leonard pulled off in his split decision over Hagler was an epic illusion. He had said beforehand that the way to beat Hagler was to give him a distorted picture. But this shrewdest of fighters knew it was even more important to distort the picture for the judges. His plan was to "steal" rounds with a few flashy and carefully timed flurries and to make the rest of each three-minute session as unproductive as possible for Hagler by circling briskly away from the latter's persistent pursuit. When he made his sporadic attacking flourishes, he was happy to exaggerate hand speed at the expense of power, and neither he nor two of the scorers seemed bothered by the fact that many of the punches landed on the champion's gloves and arms. This was showboating raised to an art form, and the brilliance with which it was sustained was a tribute to Leonard's wonderful nerve, which is cut from the same flawless diamond as Ali's.

But, however much the slick ploys blurred the perceptions of those on the fevered sidelines, they never broke Hagler. He has a different kind of spirit, but it is no less resolute than Leonard's. The hounding intensity that kept him unbeaten through 11 years from 1976 will soon be a memory, but he had enough left to press on through his early frustrations, throw the superior volume of hurtful punches. I'm convinced Hagler won the fight; a draw, and the retention of the title, was the very least he deserved.

"It's unfair, man, it's unfair," Hagler said helplessly to the master illusionist at the end. That's an old cry and—given the haphazard way boxing judges its heroes—all too often a true one.
Only six out of the thirteen major papers ringsiders thought Leonard won the fight. Had the scores reflected the majority who called it either a draw or a win for Hagler, the title would not have changed hands.

The Associated Press, which has been closer to actual scores of fights than any other source over the past several decades, had the fight for Hagler 117-112. That's closer to the truth than even Filippo had it.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, the fight was close after all, I thought Leonard won 7 rds with a decent argument that he should/could have gotten some Hagler rds too.
There was no robbery in this fight... that much I do know as fact.
Close fights are not robberies & Leonard won anyway... end of.

[PbP Bacon]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, the fight was close after all, I thought Leonard won 7 rds with a decent argument that he should/could have gotten some Hagler rds too.
There was no robbery in this fight... that much I do know as fact.
Close fights are not robberies & Leonard won anyway... end of.


I agree. This controversy will never be settled. It has become a true clash of religions: at the end of the day it is an issue of faith, either you believe or you don't :D

Anyway, opinions and perceptions can change with time.

I remember a very young myself watching the TV with a mixture of dissapointment and anger while thinking: "HAGLER, YOU $%@#&!!!!! YOU LET HIM WIN, YOU LET THAT $%@#& GIRL GET AWAY WITH THE FIGHT!!!!!" :twisted:

However, now, with the insight and wisdom that only time and maturity can give, I can analyse that fight free of passion, bias and prejudice, with true neutral perspective and give my educated opinion: "HAGLER, YOU $%@#&!!!!! YOU LET HIM WIN, YOU LET THAT $%@#& GIRL GET AWAY WITH THE FIGHT!!!!!" :twisted:

[laxpdx]

PbP Bacon, the Muslims sure won't go near you!

[PbP Bacon]

PbP Bacon, the Muslims sure won't go near you!

Good punchline :yep

In any case, if I ever box with a Muslim, at least I know he won't be pulling a Tyson on my ears :D

[MrMarvel]

"people were so amazed to find Sugar Ray capable of much more than they imagined that they persuaded themselves he was doing far more than he actually was.

Similarly, having expected extreme destructiveness from Marvin, they saw anything less as failure and refused to give him credit for the quiet beating he administered. "


For me, these two paragraphs are spot on. Best explanation ever on what happened in that fight.

Man, Hugh McIvanney was such a gifted writer.

Yep.

[Robbi]

Yep.

Nope.

[redrooster]

Nope.


yup

[Gesta]

Roberto Duran is given a free pass in the fight game on Eastside Boxing. Evert single loss he ever received has an excuse to back it up. He was drained against Hearns and Benitez, he didn't train for Leonard II. Give me a break.

Duran did okay to go the distance against a bigger man, but he lost the fight quite clearly.

Leonard beat the same man, a few years later, albeit a slightly faded one, despite having a lay off and also being naturally smaller.

Let's give Ray his due.

Yes, Duran get's a "free ride" because this was his "second" career, where Leonard only had "half" a career.

How many times did he defend any of his titles?.

[redrooster]

Yes, Duran get's a "free ride" because this was his "second" career, where Leonard only had "half" a career.

How many times did he defend any of his titles?.

This is what's always bothered me, leaving me with that ripped off feeling that I first felt in November 1982.

I was eagerly looking forward to a middleweight title defense now that he was "back" :rofl. A defense vs micheal Nunn would have been great in 88/89 but Rau just seemed to have no desire for certain opponents and the press never pressed him either :huh

I think it would have been interesting to see what would have transpired pitting Sugar against the young wiry middleweight with the killer left uppercut.

He was so fast and slick in there with Kalambay. I will never forget how Mike stepped in with that long left flush on the chin lf slick but not as quick Kalambay, landing with a loud thud.

Personally, I think a couple of quick Micheal Nunn lefts to the temple and he could dispose of leonard early.

[Gesta]

This is what's always bothered me, leaving me with that ripped off feeling that I first felt in November 1982.

I was eagerly looking forward to a middleweight title defense now that he was "back" :rofl. A defense vs micheal Nunn would have been great in 88/89 but Rau just seemed to have no desire for certain opponents and the press never pressed him either :huh

I think it would have been interesting to see what would have transpired pitting Sugar against the young wiry middleweight with the killer left uppercut.

He was so fast and slick in there with Kalambay. I will never forget how Mike stepped in with that long left flush on the chin lf slick but not as quick Kalambay, landing with a loud thud.

Personally, I think a couple of quick Micheal Nunn lefts to the temple and he could dispose of leonard early.

Yeah it's a great shame that some bout's are not made and that the fighters that take on all comers (abit sometimes lose) are somewhat punished for it and the fighters that "choose" who they fight are sometimes rewarded, as us the fans are the ones that lose out.

[ThinBlack]

Hagler wins on a good decison over 15.By the way, didn't Gavilan get dropped a couple of times at 147, while Leonard none?

[Robbi]

Hopkins would outpoint both Hagler and Leonard at middleweight. :good

I think if you were to make up a fighter with the attributes to beat Hagler, it would be Hopkins. While Hopkins doesn't have serious power, thats not going to matter anyway when it comes to Hagler's supreme durability.

Tall, rangey, counter-puncher, speedy, tactically tuned, good on the inside, quick feet and hands, and durable himself. B-Hop all the way.

[Addie]

Hopkins would outpoint both Hagler and Leonard at middleweight. :good

I think Hagler stops Taylor at middleweight. :good

[Robbi]

I think Hagler stops Taylor at middleweight. :good

Nice one. Same here. :good

[Bill Butcher]

Id pick both Hagler & Leonard over Hopkins personally, both on points.

[Robbi]

Id pick both Hagler & Leonard over Hopkins personally, both on points.

Leonard to beat Hopkins at middleweight. You're a brave man.

[redrooster]

guys like Hopkins were dime a dozen in Hagler's day-too average. Hagler would eat him alive. So would Thomas Hearns and every other top ranked middleweight. I'd give him a chance against Leonard though

[redrooster]

Micheal Nunn probably beats X. Kalmabay too. Those two were special

[Robbi]

guys like Hopkins were dime a dozen in Hagler's day-too average. Hagler would eat him alive. So would Thomas Hearns and every other top ranked middleweight. I'd give him a chance against Leonard though

Hagler would get eaten alive if he fought Hopkins like he did against Duran. Simply no realistic scenario conjures up to the conclusion that Hagler would've beat Hopkins.

[Robbi]

guys like Hopkins were dime a dozen in Hagler's day-too average. Hagler would eat him alive. So would Thomas Hearns and every other top ranked middleweight. I'd give him a chance against Leonard though

My guess is that you haven't seen a prime Hopkins at middleweight. Better than Minter, Roldan, Hamsho, etc, and certainly far better than the former lightweight who took Hagler the full distance as a middleweight.

[redrooster]

Hagler would get eaten alive if he fought Hopkins like he did against Duran. Simply no realistic scenario conjures up to the conclusion that Hagler would've beat Hopkins.

Hagler would handle him with ease, probably by tko. One handed weight drained Roy Jones had little problem

I scored it 9 rounds to 3 for Roy. How did you score it?

[Robbi]

Hagler would handle him with ease, probably by tko. One handed weight drained Roy Jones had little problem

I scored it 9 rounds to 3 for Roy. How did you score it?

The Hagler who was taken the distance and made to look ordinary against a former lightweight would have beaten Hopkins? You really need help. Seek medical attention sooner rather than later.

Hopkins was years away from his prime in 1993. The man never started to come into his own as a fighter until the very late 90's. Do you actually know when fighters are peaking and at their best? Next you'll be telling me that Hagler was at his best for the Leonard fight.

[redrooster]

My guess is that you haven't seen a prime Hopkins at middleweight. Better than Minter, Roldan, Hamsho, etc, and certainly far better than the former lightweight who took Hagler the full distance as a middleweight.

i seen him. In fact I chose him over Trinidad.

In Hagler's time tho I dont see him winning many matchups. Roldan would be too much for him. Sibson would outpoint him with ease. Hamsho would outpunch him the way he did Benitez. Obel would put him on the canvas a couple times en route to a decision win. Roy jones did it with one hand and weight drained. How hard can it be?

I'd give him a decent chance with minter though

[Robbi]

i seen him. In fact I chose him over Trinidad.

In Hagler's time tho I dont see him winning many matchups. Roldan would be too much for him. Sibson would outpoint him with ease. Hamsho would outpunch him the way he did Benitez. Obel would put him on the canvas a couple times en route to a decision win. Roy jones did it with one hand and weight drained. How hard can it be?

I'd give him a decent chance with minter though

Holy fuck. Does anyone else on planet earth agree with this fruicake's views on Hopkins against Sibson, Hamsho, and Obel? Hilarious. :lol:

[redrooster]

The Hagler who was taken the distance and made to look ordinary against a former lightweight would have beaten Hopkins? You really need help. Seek medical attention sooner rather than later.

Hopkins was years away from his prime in 1993. The man never started to come into his own as a fighter until the very late 90's. Do you actually know when fighters are peaking and at their best? Next you'll be telling me that Hagler was at his best for the Leonard fight.

The problem with that is you'd have to rely on Hagler coming down to that level. What if Hagler is pumped and in destruct and destroy mode the way he was for Minter or Lee or Hearns?

Nobody can fight like hagler when he's on the kill. Hagler is supernatural! hopkins is master of his division in his own time but Hagler is far far more! Hopkins would have to be insane to mess with hagler when he was the dominant force in boxing

[redrooster]

Holy fuck. Does anyone else on planet earth agree with this fruicake's views on Hopkins against Sibson, Hamsho, and Obel? Hilarious. :lol:

I'd give Animal Fletcher a good chance too. You know very little about hagler's opposition: Obel, Sibson, Hamsho, etc. Brush up on it will you?

[redrooster]

That's the advantage when you have actually SEEN the opponent; You KNOW that you know! Whereas people like you only THINK they know :yep

[Robbi]

That's the advantage when you have actually SEEN the opponent; You KNOW that you know! Whereas people like you only THINK they know :yep

I know enough about Rolden, Obel, Sibson, etc. Trust me, those guys were solid ranked middleweights. And if it weren't for Hagler, they would have shared a reign each at the top. But those fighters aren't on the same planet as Hopkins when it comes to intelligence, boxing ability, and defense.

Just ask old Don Familton about B-Hop.

[Robbi]

I'd give Animal Fletcher a good chance too. You know very little about hagler's opposition: Obel, Sibson, Hamsho, etc. Brush up on it will you?

Fletcher would go out on a stretcher against Hopkins.

[redrooster]

I know enough about Rolden, Obel, Sibson, etc. Trust me, those guys were solid ranked middleweights. And if it weren't for Hagler, they would have shared a reign each at the top. But those fighters aren't on the same planet as Hopkins when it comes to intelligence, boxing ability, and defense.

Just ask old Don Familton about B-Hop.

Intelligence, boxing ability-yeah, they all look good on paper, especially during an era of weak competition. no doubt you would have been arguing how X would have taken Roy in a fight had they just missed each other.

But they didn't.

It's like someone trying to tell me how much more infinitely better Ray Leonard was than Terry Norris :-( while getting his ass whipped

I'm betting someone like James Green, managed by the Duvas and who upset Wilford Scypion in 1982, could have gone in there and fearlessly taken the fight to X in a similar manner, and there's not a damn thing he could have done about it.

hopkins can't punch worth a shit anyways so what could possibly slow him down? Green would make his way inside and duck under Hops futile counters all night long and plug away. Green's workrate would have been superior to that of Hopkins. So he would have lost to James Green too! :lol:

I'm sorry bro but while X looks great in some other era removed from the Hagler, the Nunn's the Jackson's, I really dont have that high an opinion of your man X. He's just too average. Ask Roy Jones :yep

So forget about him beating the likes of MMH. Just imagining him making it to the tenth round is too much of a stretch.

[Robbi]

Rooster. You talk so much nonsense. :lol: