Marvelous Marvin Hagler speaks out about the Sugar Ray Leonard fight ~ Listen In

[Boxing Girl]

In the clip from our Exclusive interview with Marvelous Marvin Hagler he discusses the controversial decison against Sugar Ray Leonard and what his feeling are on it today.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Full interview here

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Dr. Iron Fist]

"Leonard ran like a little girl" :lol:

[Addie]

I disagree with Marvin here. I think irrespective of who the champion is, the fight should be judged accordingly to what transpires over 12 rounds. I had Leonard up by a point, I can see how some people scored it otherwise. The big injustice in all this has how controversial the decision has been seen to be over the years. It was a fight that could have gone either way. Leonard got the nod. Considering his circumstances, it was a great achievement just to make it to the final bell.

[Dave's Top Ten]

I've heard Hagler say a lot of things eg Leonard ran away from him, or that the champ should always retain his title unless he gets beat up of KO'd. It's all BS.

The way he ended his career - in a very close and controversial fight against his long term rival who had avoided him for several years - you can understand his bitterness, but I do wish he'd give it a rest. And I'm a big Hagler fan by the way.

[PetethePrince]

Well he's right about wanting SRL for all that time in getting the fight. He had to give up a lot. His eagerness probably cost him.

[Boxing Girl]

Well he's right about wanting SRL for all that time in getting the fight. He had to give up a lot. His eagerness probably cost him.

What really cost him was the concession of the amount of rounds...the fight was going to happen regardless....but he was offered more money for the fight to be in the 12 round limit instead of 15 rounds and that was the difference IMO...cause Hagler gave away the first 2 rounds cause he came out fighting orthodox, and when Leonard was getting tired late he had that comfort of nothing the finish line was 3 rounds closer....if this fight was made for 15 rounds I believe Hagler would of end up winning by KO around the 14th round.

[road_warrior_99]

I agree with Hagler, after all Hagler had established himself as the long running undisputed champ and had a long distinguished reign as Middleweight champ. You have to give the close rounds to Hagler and give him the decision on such a close fight. Alternatively, if Leonard was the champ then you would have to give it to Leonard. Further, Leonard was a non-aggresor and ran away from Hagler the whole fight. I really can't see Leonard saying he was better than Hagler overall, but on this night it was too close to call and the deciding Judge gave the toss-up to the challenger.

[Duodenum]

Along with a shorter distance, I believe another concession Marv's camp allowed was the use of ten ounce gloves.

Regardless, Angelo Dundee was the perfect cheerleader in Ray's corner, pumping him up continuously, while the Petronellis behaved like undertakers to Hagler.

In Marv's draw with Antuofermo, his ten rounder with Geraldo, the 15 round decision over Duran, and then the showdown with SRL, he seemed to be lacking that mental edge usually prevalent. When under pressure, he didn't often perform at his best.

For Hagler and the Petronellis, Duran should have sent alarm lights spinning. Had that one been scheduled for 12 rounds, Duran would have beaten Ray to Marv's title, despite Hagler's better performance against Roberto. (Of course with Leonard, he seemed to be a detached sleepwalker. What I want to know is, what the hell the Petronellis were thinking while this was going on?)

[Rumsfeld]

In the clip from our Exclusive interview with Marvelous Marvin Hagler he discusses the controversial decison against Sugar Ray Leonard and what his feeling are on it today.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Full interview here

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Good job.
:thumbsup

[PetethePrince]

What really cost him was the concession of the amount of rounds...the fight was going to happen regardless....but he was offered more money for the fight to be in the 12 round limit instead of 15 rounds and that was the difference IMO...cause Hagler gave away the first 2 rounds cause he came out fighting orthodox, and when Leonard was getting tired late he had that comfort of nothing the finish line was 3 rounds closer....if this fight was made for 15 rounds I believe Hagler would of end up winning by KO around the 14th round.

This is exactly what I mean. The ring size, the gloves... he conceded all of this just to get at SRL.

[Schmapps]

It's pretty sad that all these years later he just can't let go and face facts. I'd like to see someone ask him straight up, or better yet actually sit down and watch the fight with him, and ask Hagler to explain how he thinks he won any of the first 4 rounds, for starters. Then, watch him follow Leonard around the ring and not get his punches off like he should be.

Leonard may not have hurt Hagler, Haglers face may not have been marked, but so what? Fact is he landed alot of shots whether they hurt Hagler or not. And Leonards ring generalship that night was better than Marvins, and I beleive thats what won him the day in the end.

[natonic]

I haven't had the chance to listen yet, but let me go out on a limb and assume he remains bitter about it and thinks he was robbed and gives Leonard absolutely zero credit for a remarkable effort?

[Schmapps]

I haven't had the chance to listen yet, but let me go out on a limb and assume he remains bitter about it and thinks he was robbed and gives Leonard absolutely zero credit for a remarkable effort?


:lol: Pretty much.

[PowerPuncher]

"Leonard ran like a little girl" :lol:

Translation: Leonard was a better boxer and athlete, I couldn't land on him and he beat me to the punch time and again, I Marvin Hagler concede I lost to the better boxer on the night :D

[Duodenum]

It's pretty sad that all these years later he just can't let go and face facts. I'd like to see someone ask him straight up, or better yet actually sit down and watch the fight with him, and ask Hagler to explain how he thinks he won any of the first 4 rounds, for starters.Marv should be asked why Ray was still on his feet at the end of 12. He saw how SRL performed against Kevin Howard, so he had to have been fully aware of how he'd have to catch him to win.

The decision to start off boxing from an orthodox stance was simply batty. Ray just got inside his head and stayed there.

[Axl_Nose]

People always describe this as a 'controversial' fight and it really wasnt .. Marvin is bitter that he waited for Leonard for so long and then got beat, its as simple as that .. Leonard stole rounds, not because he manipulated the judges but because Hagler was slow and didnt land enough through the whole of the fight .. Leonard wins this fight by 2 rounds every time i watch it. Hagler was past his very best and he got edged out by the quicker, slicker Leonard, you cant win a fight just because you push the action, you have to land shots too and Marvin didnt land enough ..

As for this argument that Poor Marvin had to give up so much to land this fight, well nobody forced him to take the fight. He knew he Sugar Ray Leonard was the guy bringing 'the money' to the fight and he got paid the best purse of his career .. Marvin and his fans have been bleating about this decision for 20 years and it gets boring, it could of gone to Marvin but it could have gone to Leonard, in the end it went to Leonard and people need to get over it ....

If Marvin wants to see what real controversial decisions are then he really needs to watch,

Lewis v Holyfield
Whitaker v Chavez
Pintor v Zarate

Maybe then he'll understand that he got edged out in a very close fight, nothing more, nothing less, zero controversy ..

[Bokaj]

Is this what it means to be a tough guy? To bitch about a decision oneself made (concede the 12 rounds limit). He let Leonard get away with those things because he saw it as an easy pay-day, and when it comes back to bite him in the ass he whines about it 22 years later. What a man.

I know who "the little girl" is and it sure isn't the one who did the running in that ring, it's the one running his mouth off still.

[My dinner with Conteh]

My feelings are that the fight must be controversial because too many really good judges who were in attendance on the night scored it for Marv (McIlvanney, Harry Mullan, etc) but from a TV perspective I've always seen it as a Leonard win.

[Vanboxingfan]

People always describe this as a 'controversial' fight and it really wasnt .. Marvin is bitter that he waited for Leonard for so long and then got beat, its as simple as that .. Leonard stole rounds, not because he manipulated the judges but because Hagler was slow and didnt land enough through the whole of the fight .. Leonard wins this fight by 2 rounds every time i watch it. Hagler was past his very best and he got edged out by the quicker, slicker Leonard, you cant win a fight just because you push the action, you have to land shots too and Marvin didnt land enough ..

As for this argument that Poor Marvin had to give up so much to land this fight, well nobody forced him to take the fight. He knew he Sugar Ray Leonard was the guy bringing 'the money' to the fight and he got paid the best purse of his career .. Marvin and his fans have been bleating about this decision for 20 years and it gets boring, it could of gone to Marvin but it could have gone to Leonard, in the end it went to Leonard and people need to get over it ....

If Marvin wants to see what real controversial decisions are then he really needs to watch,

Lewis v Holyfield
Whitaker v Chavez
Pintor v Zarate

Maybe then he'll understand that he got edged out in a very close fight, nothing more, nothing less, zero controversy ..

I pretty much agree with everything you said. My only comments are that I think if you're the champ you should be the one dictating terms, and if not, there should be standard size gloves, ring size, and rounds, for championship fights. Otherwise you have a situation where it starts out on an uneven playing field simply because of economics. And that really shouldn't influence a fight of this magnitude. (I know it does all the time, but I don't particularly like that aspect of boxing)

[MrMarvel]

People aren't listening to the man's argument.

Hagler is arguing that you can't take it away from the champion under these circumstances because that's what everybody told him after the Antuofermo fight. Remember that? It was a draw because Hagler didn't do enough to take the title. Hagler is wondering, as he has in so many previous interviews, "Why doesn't that argument work for me?" As somebody who always had to worry when fights went the distance, wondering whether a double standard is being applied is hardly an illegitimate question. Like Holmes, Hagler didn't get the respect he deserved. That always seemed to be reserved for the glamour boys like Leonard.

Hagler made the fight with Leonard. He was aggressor. He threw many more punches and landed the harder shots. Leonard ran, clowned, and fouled. Some people like that shit, but it's not boxing. Furthermore, in a fight with that much controversy, a real champion fights a rematch to clear up the matter. Hagler makes this argument, too. And he's right again. No fight in history screamed rematch more than this one. But Leonard knew he lucked out the first time around. He was the news and he (and Dundee) gave a good enough performance to convince some people he had done enough to win. The second time around he knew the novelty of it wouldn't fly. Leonard needed the Hagler win on his record to make the historical case, especially after getting overwhelmed by Duran and looking so bad against Hearns. Having Hagler erase the win makes the reality of record all the more apparent.

Hagler is making the same arguments that a lot of us make, and we can't all be bitter, can we? Of course not. How can you be bitter for another person? You can't attribute Hagler's argument to bitterness, then. Especially when it's so logical. The Associated Press scored the fight for Marvin by an overwhelming majority. Contrast that with the score of that joke-of-a-paper the New York Daily News and we can see were the gravity lies. The best that Leonard nut huggers over at the New York Times and the Washington Post could do for their man was give him a draw, which means Hagler keeps the title. Go back and check the Associated Press score for the Antuofermo-Hagler fight. Now that was a close fight. Antuofermo did much better against Hagler than did Leonard and look where the controversy goes. Hagler recognizes the significance of the Antuofermo fight to this whole matter. He even acknowledges in the interview the problem with that fight.

Why this controversy about Hagler-Leonard persists is because people who side with Leonard have to keep putting out the idea that it was close and therefore a Leonard victory plausible. One of the dead giveaways is this qualification: "I thought Leonard won the fight and I am a huge Hagler fan." Right. Sure. That's the same qualifier we see on CSPAN when liberals call on the conversative line saying, "I'm a Republican, but I believe Obama is right for our country right now." We are on to this trick, folks. We get it. Another dead giveaway is that any score in which Leonard wins several more rounds that Hagler is a problem because "admittedly the fight was so close." They admit that Guerra's score was absurd. Yet Leonard-loving boxing publications in the aftermath of the fight extolled the virtues of his scoring. Why? Because they wanted the make the miracle as big a possible. But the people didn't buy it. The more time passed, the more people saw the fight beyond the hype the more they said, "What a second, who was pressing, who threw the most punches, who hurt who?" So people on the Leonard side have over time backed off the Guerra score and made up this myth about "it was anybody's fight."

Hagler is perfectly justified in making his points. And, truthfully, he doesn't sound bitter to me at all. He waited for Leonard to give him a rematch. When he realized Leonard wasn't going to do it, he retired. He didn't have anything left to prove. He wasn't going to break Monzon's record, so there was no need in continuing. It was time to move on to what he was planning on doing: acting. Hagler is a very reasonable fellow. And he was in great spirits for the interview. I appreciate the man for his down-to-earthness. He worked his tail off to give us a great ride. The man's got my respect.

[PetethePrince]

Is this what it means to be a tough guy? To bitch about a decision oneself made (concede the 12 rounds limit). He let Leonard get away with those things because he saw it as an easy pay-day, and when it comes back to bite him in the ass he whines about it 22 years later. What a man.

I know who "the little girl" is and it sure isn't the one who did the running in that ring, it's the one running his mouth off still.

Let's be honest, this is above you. Saying this about Hagler on ESB makes you look like a little girl. You should just leave it at bitter, I doubt you'd be saying this to Hagler if the opportunity ever came with him going on about SRL. You would be standing there smiling and nodding your head. Of course, it's Hagler who's the little girl. :rofl The man and guy that gave his heart, blood, and soul in the ring.

[PetethePrince]

People aren't listening to the man's argument.

Hagler is arguing that you can't take it away from the champion under these circumstances because that's what everybody told him after the Antuofermo fight. Remember that? It was a draw because Hagler didn't do enough to take the title. Hagler is wondering, as he has in so many previous interviews, "Why doesn't that argument work for me?" As somebody who always had to worry when fights went the distance, wondering whether a double standard is being applied is hardly an illegitimate question. Like Holmes, Hagler didn't get the respect he deserved. That always seemed to be reserved for the glamour boys like Leonard.

Hagler made the fight with Leonard. He was aggressor. He threw many more punches and landed the harder shots. Leonard ran, clowned, and fouled. Some people like that shit, but it's not boxing. Furthermore, in a fight with that much controversy, a real champion fights a rematch to clear up the matter. Hagler makes this argument, too. And he's right again. No fight in history screamed rematch more than this one. But Leonard knew he lucked out the first time around. He was the news and he (and Dundee) gave a good enough performance to convince some people he had done enough to win. The second time around he knew the novelty of it wouldn't fly. Leonard needed the Hagler win on his record to make the historical case, especially after getting overwhelmed by Duran and looking so bad against Hearns. Having Hagler erase the win makes the reality of record all the more apparent.

Hagler is making the same arguments that a lot of us make, and we can't all be bitter, can we? Of course not. How can you be bitter for another person? You can't attribute Hagler's argument to bitterness, then. Especially when it's so logical. The Associated Press scored the fight for Marvin by an overwhelming majority. Contrast that with the score of that joke-of-a-paper the New York Daily News and we can see were the gravity lies. The best that Leonard nut huggers over at the New York Times and the Washington Post could do for their man was give him a draw, which means Hagler keeps the title. Go back and check the Associated Press score for the Antuofermo-Hagler fight. Now that was a close fight. Antuofermo did much better against Hagler than did Leonard and look where the controversy goes. Hagler recognizes the significance of the Antuofermo fight to this whole matter. He even acknowledges in the interview the problem with that fight.

Why this controversy about Hagler-Leonard persists is because people who side with Leonard have to keep putting out the idea that it was close and therefore a Leonard victory plausible. One of the dead giveaways is this qualification: "I thought Leonard won the fight and I am a huge Hagler fan." Right. Sure. That's the same qualifier we see on CSPAN when liberals call on the conversative line saying, "I'm a Republican, but I believe Obama is right for our country right now." We are on to this trick, folks. We get it. Another dead giveaway is that any score in which Leonard wins several more rounds that Hagler is a problem because "admittedly the fight was so close." They admit that Guerra's score was absurd. Yet Leonard-loving boxing publications in the aftermath of the fight extolled the virtues of his scoring. Why? Because they wanted the make the miracle as big a possible. But the people didn't buy it. The more time passed, the more people saw the fight beyond the hype the more they said, "What a second, who was pressing, who threw the most punches, who hurt who?" So people on the Leonard side have over time backed off the Guerra score and made up this myth about "it was anybody's fight."

Hagler is perfectly justified in making his points. And, truthfully, he doesn't sound bitter to me at all. He waited for Leonard to give him a rematch. When he realized Leonard wasn't going to do it, he retired. He didn't have anything left to prove. He wasn't going to break Monzon's record, so there was no need in continuing. It was time to move on to what he was planning on doing: acting. Hagler is a very reasonable fellow. And he was in great spirits for the interview. I appreciate the man for his down-to-earthness. He worked his tail off to give us a great ride. The man's got my respect.

Pretty solid post. Offers an important perspective. I have to admit that I'm generally disagreeing with you and I can't say I agree with all your points. Really, what SRL did was "box" and it is boxing whether you're view is a different novelty on whole subject. You make a good point about one specific dreadful scoring card and you make a good point about Hagler's thoughts on "taking it to the champ" and how he got the raw end of the deal of a possible double standard. This all fair and I really don't think Hagler seems bitter he just seems completely genuinely honest. I do think he wanted Leonard so bad and believes he did win. The lack of the rematch intact with the consecutive requests before signing for the first fight should leave Hagler scratching his head and maybe not feeling that he can respect SRL. That's respectable and understandable.

I think from Hagler's view after giving up so much for the fight and waiting for so long only to lose a close fight and never get a rematch is tough. A SRL decision is completely fair and justified for me though. It's a close fight, though and one of the tougher ones to score (Can't remember how I scored it).

[teeto]

. I think irrespective of who the champion is, the fight should be judged accordingly to what transpires over 12 rounds. .

I agree with this completely.

[redrooster]

People aren't listening to the man's argument.

Hagler is arguing that you can't take it away from the champion under these circumstances because that's what everybody told him after the Antuofermo fight. Remember that? It was a draw because Hagler didn't do enough to take the title. Hagler is wondering, as he has in so many previous interviews, "Why doesn't that argument work for me?" As somebody who always had to worry when fights went the distance, wondering whether a double standard is being applied is hardly an illegitimate question. Like Holmes, Hagler didn't get the respect he deserved. That always seemed to be reserved for the glamour boys like Leonard.

Hagler made the fight with Leonard. He was aggressor. He threw many more punches and landed the harder shots. Leonard ran, clowned, and fouled. Some people like that shit, but it's not boxing. Furthermore, in a fight with that much controversy, a real champion fights a rematch to clear up the matter. Hagler makes this argument, too. And he's right again. No fight in history screamed rematch more than this one. But Leonard knew he lucked out the first time around. He was the news and he (and Dundee) gave a good enough performance to convince some people he had done enough to win. The second time around he knew the novelty of it wouldn't fly. Leonard needed the Hagler win on his record to make the historical case, especially after getting overwhelmed by Duran and looking so bad against Hearns. Having Hagler erase the win makes the reality of record all the more apparent.

Hagler is making the same arguments that a lot of us make, and we can't all be bitter, can we? Of course not. How can you be bitter for another person? You can't attribute Hagler's argument to bitterness, then. Especially when it's so logical. The Associated Press scored the fight for Marvin by an overwhelming majority. Contrast that with the score of that joke-of-a-paper the New York Daily News and we can see were the gravity lies. The best that Leonard nut huggers over at the New York Times and the Washington Post could do for their man was give him a draw, which means Hagler keeps the title. Go back and check the Associated Press score for the Antuofermo-Hagler fight. Now that was a close fight. Antuofermo did much better against Hagler than did Leonard and look where the controversy goes. Hagler recognizes the significance of the Antuofermo fight to this whole matter. He even acknowledges in the interview the problem with that fight.

Why this controversy about Hagler-Leonard persists is because people who side with Leonard have to keep putting out the idea that it was close and therefore a Leonard victory plausible. One of the dead giveaways is this qualification: "I thought Leonard won the fight and I am a huge Hagler fan." Right. Sure. That's the same qualifier we see on CSPAN when liberals call on the conversative line saying, "I'm a Republican, but I believe Obama is right for our country right now." We are on to this trick, folks. We get it. Another dead giveaway is that any score in which Leonard wins several more rounds that Hagler is a problem because "admittedly the fight was so close." They admit that Guerra's score was absurd. Yet Leonard-loving boxing publications in the aftermath of the fight extolled the virtues of his scoring. Why? Because they wanted the make the miracle as big a possible. But the people didn't buy it. The more time passed, the more people saw the fight beyond the hype the more they said, "What a second, who was pressing, who threw the most punches, who hurt who?" So people on the Leonard side have over time backed off the Guerra score and made up this myth about "it was anybody's fight."

Hagler is perfectly justified in making his points. And, truthfully, he doesn't sound bitter to me at all. He waited for Leonard to give him a rematch. When he realized Leonard wasn't going to do it, he retired. He didn't have anything left to prove. He wasn't going to break Monzon's record, so there was no need in continuing. It was time to move on to what he was planning on doing: acting. Hagler is a very reasonable fellow. And he was in great spirits for the interview. I appreciate the man for his down-to-earthness. He worked his tail off to give us a great ride. The man's got my respect.

Good call.

Hagler has always gotten my respect as a fan; much more so than Leonard who was only interested in leftover scraps then getting full recognition for the win.


Boxing never had anything to do with the outcome. Hagler would rather face a boxer but this business that Leonard's boxing was the cause for Hagler's downfall at long last is pure bs.

You could certainly make that case for Norris' landslide win over Leonard but for a split decision? As poorly as Hagler performed and with the open confession over the kind of condition how much he had lost? His fans are just asking for us to swallow too much cock at one time.

Anyone who tells me that Leonard's style had anything to do with it, I just refer them to the audio portion of round 6 and that stops all the bullshit immediately.

Throw in the Antuofuermo fight fight of 79 and the fact he snuffed the great boxer Hearns in 3, rendering his boxing approach as useless, and that stops the idiots dead in their tracks.

I also agree that Leonard wasnt a real champion over the fact that he feared taking the challenge of a younger, faster opponent. he was afraid he'd get shown up and have his head handed to him but he liked to fight but would only pick fights he felt he could win so of course he's going to pick someone like Lalonde over Nunn. He knew he couldnt hang with the better fighters in his own weight class so he bailed out looking for easy prey. He just wasnt my idea of a real champion. Bottom of the list in my book

[redrooster]

People always describe this as a 'controversial' fight and it really wasnt .. Marvin is bitter that he waited for Leonard for so long and then got beat, its as simple as that .. Leonard stole rounds, not because he manipulated the judges but because Hagler was slow and didnt land enough through the whole of the fight .. Leonard wins this fight by 2 rounds every time i watch it. Hagler was past his very best and he got edged out by the quicker, slicker Leonard, you cant win a fight just because you push the action, you have to land shots too and Marvin didnt land enough ..

As for this argument that Poor Marvin had to give up so much to land this fight, well nobody forced him to take the fight. He knew he Sugar Ray Leonard was the guy bringing 'the money' to the fight and he got paid the best purse of his career .. Marvin and his fans have been bleating about this decision for 20 years and it gets boring, it could of gone to Marvin but it could have gone to Leonard, in the end it went to Leonard and people need to get over it ....

If Marvin wants to see what real controversial decisions are then he really needs to watch,

Lewis v Holyfield
Whitaker v Chavez
Pintor v Zarate

Maybe then he'll understand that he got edged out in a very close fight, nothing more, nothing less, zero controversy ..

You call Pintor v Zarate a bad call? Carlos got his clock cleaned late in the fight and Pintor was much stronger in the end when it counted. So much so it was hard to shake the impresion of him as a beaten fighter. Neither man was any more impressive than the other and the tactics of Zarate were feeble and minimally effective. It was a good call

[Robbi]

In the clip from our Exclusive interview with Marvelous Marvin Hagler he discusses the controversial decison against Sugar Ray Leonard and what his feeling are on it today.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Full interview here

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

"I think a close fight should go to the champion" What a load of bollocks. So if a challenger comes out on the scorecards as the winner in a close fight, the commission then changes the decision in favor of the champion simply because it was close. Thats cheating and makes no sense.

This shows that Hagler is in denial 22 years later.

[teeto]

"I think a close fight should go to the champion" What a load of bollocks. So if a challenger comes out on the scorecards as the winner in a close fight, the commission then changes the decision in favor of the champion simply because it was close. Thats cheating and makes no sense.

This shows that Hagler is in denial 22 years later.
I know he really didn't hold back there did he.

[mjk612]

I completely disagree with the majority of posters. SRL did run. I do not give rounds for that any more than holding. These tactics are a sign of weakness, not strength. For this reason, I disagree with the general consensus that MMH lost the early rounds & the notion that his orthodox stance meant anything. The early rounds are the rounds that SRL ran the most. Please explain to me how SRL landed (exclude missed & blocked) better punches in those early rounds. When I listen with the sound off I don't see it. What is left is MMH looking to fight & SRL looking to avoid a fight in what I can only guess was an attempt to frustrate and tire MMH. Not a bad strategy, but I don't score rounds that way. Ali was also a mover & a master at frustrating his opponents, but no one can say he didn't come to fight. I also don't see the fault in MMH failing to cut off the gigantic ring. I'm not sure George Foreman could have cut off that ring. I'm left with an aggressor and a runner. I think SRL gave the performance of a life time, but it didn't win the fight in my mind.

[Longhhorn71]

I like Marvin....but he lost the fight at the negotiating table.

He made it a situation where he had to k.o. SRL...and when he didn't, then "Showboat Ray" won it on the cards.

Gene Fullmer, Rodrigo Valdez, or Tony Zale would have run Ray right out of the ring if he had pulled that pussy-foot stuff at Ray's age.

[mjk612]

Perhaps I should have done it before my last post, but I just watched the early rounds again. It did not change my opinion that MMH did not "give away" those rounds. I'm more than willing to credit a stick and move strategy, but SRL was almost all move with very little stick (that landed). If you watch without the sound and you forget who the boxers are, I fail to see how you come to the conclusion that SRL won the fight.

[Duodenum]

I like Marvin....but he lost the fight at the negotiating table.

He made it a situation where he had to k.o. SRL...and when he didn't, then "Showboat Ray" won it on the cards.Marv had to concede the negotiations just to get Ray in the ring to begin with.

I wonder if Hagler really lost it at the pre fight press conference where he held up his fists and said, "These are my judges. This is 'K,' and this is, 'O.'" As soon as he proclaimed that, he painted himself into a corner where he had virtually guaranteed that he could only win via stoppage.

[JohnThomas1]

People always describe this as a 'controversial' fight and it really wasnt .. Marvin is bitter that he waited for Leonard for so long and then got beat, its as simple as that .. Leonard stole rounds, not because he manipulated the judges but because Hagler was slow and didnt land enough through the whole of the fight .. Leonard wins this fight by 2 rounds every time i watch it. Hagler was past his very best and he got edged out by the quicker, slicker Leonard, you cant win a fight just because you push the action, you have to land shots too and Marvin didnt land enough ..

As for this argument that Poor Marvin had to give up so much to land this fight, well nobody forced him to take the fight. He knew he Sugar Ray Leonard was the guy bringing 'the money' to the fight and he got paid the best purse of his career .. Marvin and his fans have been bleating about this decision for 20 years and it gets boring, it could of gone to Marvin but it could have gone to Leonard, in the end it went to Leonard and people need to get over it ....

If Marvin wants to see what real controversial decisions are then he really needs to watch,

Lewis v Holyfield
Whitaker v Chavez
Pintor v Zarate

Maybe then he'll understand that he got edged out in a very close fight, nothing more, nothing less, zero controversy ..

Can't add much to this.

[JohnThomas1]

Marv had to concede the negotiations just to get Ray in the ring to begin with.

I wonder if Hagler really lost it at the pre fight press conference where he held up his fists and said, "These are my judges. This is 'K,' and this is, 'O.'" As soon as he proclaimed that, he painted himself into a corner where he had virtually guaranteed that he could only win via stoppage.

How does that work tho? I've seen Hearns predict a KO in fights he won via decision.

If he would have fought like he meant this statement he may have won the fight. Certainly would have been a better strategy.

[Shake]

I don't count this match much -- I feel Leonard waited until Hagler was considerably past his best and then fought a great fight. Marvin was slowing down -- slightly quicker feet and hands and I feel Leonard loses via knockout over 12 even.

It's kind of like the second Leonard-Hearns fight -- it's great to have this film for entertainment purposes but not for assessing their ability in their prime.

[Rumsfeld]

People aren't listening to the man's argument.

Hagler is arguing that you can't take it away from the champion under these circumstances because that's what everybody told him after the Antuofermo fight. Remember that? It was a draw because Hagler didn't do enough to take the title. Hagler is wondering, as he has in so many previous interviews, "Why doesn't that argument work for me?" As somebody who always had to worry when fights went the distance, wondering whether a double standard is being applied is hardly an illegitimate question. Like Holmes, Hagler didn't get the respect he deserved. That always seemed to be reserved for the glamour boys like Leonard.

Hagler made the fight with Leonard. He was aggressor. He threw many more punches and landed the harder shots. Leonard ran, clowned, and fouled. Some people like that shit, but it's not boxing. Furthermore, in a fight with that much controversy, a real champion fights a rematch to clear up the matter. Hagler makes this argument, too. And he's right again. No fight in history screamed rematch more than this one. But Leonard knew he lucked out the first time around. He was the news and he (and Dundee) gave a good enough performance to convince some people he had done enough to win. The second time around he knew the novelty of it wouldn't fly. Leonard needed the Hagler win on his record to make the historical case, especially after getting overwhelmed by Duran and looking so bad against Hearns. Having Hagler erase the win makes the reality of record all the more apparent.

Hagler is making the same arguments that a lot of us make, and we can't all be bitter, can we? Of course not. How can you be bitter for another person? You can't attribute Hagler's argument to bitterness, then. Especially when it's so logical. The Associated Press scored the fight for Marvin by an overwhelming majority. Contrast that with the score of that joke-of-a-paper the New York Daily News and we can see were the gravity lies. The best that Leonard nut huggers over at the New York Times and the Washington Post could do for their man was give him a draw, which means Hagler keeps the title. Go back and check the Associated Press score for the Antuofermo-Hagler fight. Now that was a close fight. Antuofermo did much better against Hagler than did Leonard and look where the controversy goes. Hagler recognizes the significance of the Antuofermo fight to this whole matter. He even acknowledges in the interview the problem with that fight.

Why this controversy about Hagler-Leonard persists is because people who side with Leonard have to keep putting out the idea that it was close and therefore a Leonard victory plausible. One of the dead giveaways is this qualification: "I thought Leonard won the fight and I am a huge Hagler fan." Right. Sure. That's the same qualifier we see on CSPAN when liberals call on the conversative line saying, "I'm a Republican, but I believe Obama is right for our country right now." We are on to this trick, folks. We get it. Another dead giveaway is that any score in which Leonard wins several more rounds that Hagler is a problem because "admittedly the fight was so close." They admit that Guerra's score was absurd. Yet Leonard-loving boxing publications in the aftermath of the fight extolled the virtues of his scoring. Why? Because they wanted the make the miracle as big a possible. But the people didn't buy it. The more time passed, the more people saw the fight beyond the hype the more they said, "What a second, who was pressing, who threw the most punches, who hurt who?" So people on the Leonard side have over time backed off the Guerra score and made up this myth about "it was anybody's fight."

Hagler is perfectly justified in making his points. And, truthfully, he doesn't sound bitter to me at all. He waited for Leonard to give him a rematch. When he realized Leonard wasn't going to do it, he retired. He didn't have anything left to prove. He wasn't going to break Monzon's record, so there was no need in continuing. It was time to move on to what he was planning on doing: acting. Hagler is a very reasonable fellow. And he was in great spirits for the interview. I appreciate the man for his down-to-earthness. He worked his tail off to give us a great ride. The man's got my respect.

:clap:

[Quick Cash]

It's true Hagler lost the fight on the negotiating table. He's still on it years from the fight precisely because he got left in dust when it was time for Ray to return the favor. This after he acceded to practically all of Leonard's demands just to get him in the ring.

I thought he lost-- and he'd dispute that-- but really he's most upset about not getting the rematch after the judges snubbed him, as was said in the interview.

[fists of fury]

Maybe someone should put up a poll on ESB to see who thought who won...it's probably been done though, but this topic never fails to deliver heated debate.

[Unforgiven]

I agree with much of what MrMarvel wrote.

All of you saying "Hagler is still bitter" and "He should just get over it" are actually the ones who are stuck in the past (c.1987), in my opinion.

Hagler always comes across as a man who's living a perfectly happy life after boxing (and has done so for the last 20 years), and someone who puts his boxing career into perspective and is perfectly happy with his accomplishments and his historical standing. He's not going around beating his chest with a scowl on his face about how no one rates him high enough (as he, and others, might have done DURING his boxing career) and he's not obssessed with talking about Sugar Ray Leonard at every opportunity.

All he's saying - when asked ! - is he thinks he won it then, and he thinks he won it now. And he gives reasons.

And the stuff about "if it's really close, the champion should retain his title" shouldn't be interpreted too literally or within the confines of the UNJUST conventions of how the scoring system is usually implemented.

Personally, I think the scoring system is haphazard, the 10-point must system under-used when there's a clear round, and further blighted by the nonsensical notion that judges should AVOID scoring rounds as "even" (10-10), even when we know that many rounds ARE even, or can "go either way". And this phobia of a "draw" as a result. People would rather see championships change hands on these "could have gone either way" decisions ???
I think it's stupid. It's absurd. People want this element of a "lottery" to decide who a CHAMPION is, I dont know why.

I'll say this :
If a fight "could go either way" then it SHOULD go NEITHER WAY - the fairest decision being a "DRAW", and the champion SHOULD retain the title and grant the challenger a rematch.

That's fair and logical. That's commonsense.
But boxing fans seem to be so familiar with the tradition of the Illogical and the unfair that they think that's the way it has to be, and even seem to love and defend it.

[Gesta]

I think Marvin just won, it could of gone either way thou.

To the people that say Hagler is still bitter, well what can you say what if it was you. If you have a few close fights and they are allways going to the other fighter, I would be cut. How would Ali's resume look if all his close fights were scored against him?. What if you were Smoking Joe and everytime your name is mentioned people remeber the two fights he lost to Ali, but not the win?, or remember the uncle tom comment.

Halger should not of lost in that way. He put himself in that position by allways giving in to Leonard ,but if he did not fight the media would of had a field day with him and fergotten all about the years he did not want to fight hagler and the eye injurie bullshit.

[mcvey]

Along with a shorter distance, I believe another concession Marv's camp allowed was the use of ten ounce gloves.

Regardless, Angelo Dundee was the perfect cheerleader in Ray's corner, pumping him up continuously, while the Petronellis behaved like undertakers to Hagler.

In Marv's draw with Antuofermo, his ten rounder with Geraldo, the 15 round decision over Duran, and then the showdown with SRL, he seemed to be lacking that mental edge usually prevalent. When under pressure, he didn't often perform at his best.

For Hagler and the Petronellis, Duran should have sent alarm lights spinning. Had that one been scheduled for 12 rounds, Duran would have beaten Ray to Marv's title, despite Hagler's better performance against Roberto. (Of course with Leonard, he seemed to be a detached sleepwalker. What I want to know is, what the hell the Petronellis were thinking while this was going on?)

I totally agree,I thought Leonard won it by a point ,but wouldn't argue either way it was really how you interpreted it.
The Petronelli's were far too laid back, could they not see it was close?
Hagler was in decline,which Leonard spotted, his little flurries may not have hurt Marvin ,but they DID score points.
All this talk about having to beat a Champion clearly, is rubbish imo.

[JudgeDredd]

According to Leonard he offered Hagler the re-match but he declined. Anyway, like most have said, Leonard basically bought the title at the negotiating table, & Hagler accepted a few more million figuring he was gonna win no matter what. Close fight, I think Hagler edged it.

[Robbi]

People aren't listening to the man's argument.

Hagler is arguing that you can't take it away from the champion under these circumstances because that's what everybody told him after the Antuofermo fight. Remember that? It was a draw because Hagler didn't do enough to take the title. Hagler is wondering, as he has in so many previous interviews, "Why doesn't that argument work for me?" As somebody who always had to worry when fights went the distance, wondering whether a double standard is being applied is hardly an illegitimate question. Like Holmes, Hagler didn't get the respect he deserved. That always seemed to be reserved for the glamour boys like Leonard.

Hagler made the fight with Leonard. He was aggressor. He threw many more punches and landed the harder shots. Leonard ran, clowned, and fouled. Some people like that shit, but it's not boxing. Furthermore, in a fight with that much controversy, a real champion fights a rematch to clear up the matter. Hagler makes this argument, too. And he's right again. No fight in history screamed rematch more than this one. But Leonard knew he lucked out the first time around. He was the news and he (and Dundee) gave a good enough performance to convince some people he had done enough to win. The second time around he knew the novelty of it wouldn't fly. Leonard needed the Hagler win on his record to make the historical case, especially after getting overwhelmed by Duran and looking so bad against Hearns. Having Hagler erase the win makes the reality of record all the more apparent.

Hagler is making the same arguments that a lot of us make, and we can't all be bitter, can we? Of course not. How can you be bitter for another person? You can't attribute Hagler's argument to bitterness, then. Especially when it's so logical. The Associated Press scored the fight for Marvin by an overwhelming majority. Contrast that with the score of that joke-of-a-paper the New York Daily News and we can see were the gravity lies. The best that Leonard nut huggers over at the New York Times and the Washington Post could do for their man was give him a draw, which means Hagler keeps the title. Go back and check the Associated Press score for the Antuofermo-Hagler fight. Now that was a close fight. Antuofermo did much better against Hagler than did Leonard and look where the controversy goes. Hagler recognizes the significance of the Antuofermo fight to this whole matter. He even acknowledges in the interview the problem with that fight.

Why this controversy about Hagler-Leonard persists is because people who side with Leonard have to keep putting out the idea that it was close and therefore a Leonard victory plausible. One of the dead giveaways is this qualification: "I thought Leonard won the fight and I am a huge Hagler fan." Right. Sure. That's the same qualifier we see on CSPAN when liberals call on the conversative line saying, "I'm a Republican, but I believe Obama is right for our country right now." We are on to this trick, folks. We get it. Another dead giveaway is that any score in which Leonard wins several more rounds that Hagler is a problem because "admittedly the fight was so close." They admit that Guerra's score was absurd. Yet Leonard-loving boxing publications in the aftermath of the fight extolled the virtues of his scoring. Why? Because they wanted the make the miracle as big a possible. But the people didn't buy it. The more time passed, the more people saw the fight beyond the hype the more they said, "What a second, who was pressing, who threw the most punches, who hurt who?" So people on the Leonard side have over time backed off the Guerra score and made up this myth about "it was anybody's fight."

Hagler is perfectly justified in making his points. And, truthfully, he doesn't sound bitter to me at all. He waited for Leonard to give him a rematch. When he realized Leonard wasn't going to do it, he retired. He didn't have anything left to prove. He wasn't going to break Monzon's record, so there was no need in continuing. It was time to move on to what he was planning on doing: acting. Hagler is a very reasonable fellow. And he was in great spirits for the interview. I appreciate the man for his down-to-earthness. He worked his tail off to give us a great ride. The man's got my respect.

The opening part of this post is terrible. Hagler-Vito was a draw because in the eyes of three judges it was just that. Leonard did enough to beat Hagler in the eyes of two judges, so he won a split decision.

Hagler was the aggressor, but wasn't really effective. Not too sure if he threw many more punches. One thing I do know, he couldn't put 2 or 3 punches together during the whole fight. He lacked variety throughout.

[Unforgiven]

Leonard did enough to beat Hagler in the eyes of two judges, so he won a split decision.

That's true. It is a matter of fact that the scores of the three judges resulted in a split decision win for Leonard, and it is a matter of fact that those three men are ultimately and absolutely responsible for who is designated the "winner".

But it does raise the question : who believes both the judges who scored for Leonard came up with a score that was reasonable or defensible or reasonably defensible ?
Did both those judges come up with scores that illustrate a reasonable interpretation of the fight ?

Who is willing to stand up and say each of the 3 judges did a decent job of judging the fight, within reasonable margin of human error ?

[Francis75]

In the interview Hagler basically says that Leonard won. He states that he should have won the close fight because he was the champion and he incorrectly thinks that the challenger should dominate the champion to win. If Marvin and anyone else believes that BS then they believe that fights should not be judged fairly without bias. If Tiger Woods comes second in a golf major by 1 stoke than do we declare him the winner purely because he was the defending champion and world number 1. Of course not. I noticed that Marvin failed to mention how Leonard was a career welter and had only had one fight in the previous 5 yrs, but Marvin ridiculously believes that Leonard needed to dominate and just about KO him to get the nod. You are the one who should have been dominating Leonard considering all of the circumstances in this fight.

[Duodenum]

How does that work tho?My supposition here is that Marv's bold declaration may have somehow biased the judges against him.I've seen Hearns predict a KO in fights he won via decision.And Tommy nearly won his first match with Ray by decision, a situation where he adamantly refused to predict a knockout while SRL committed himself to winning by a stoppage (which became possible only because that was scheduled for more than 12 rounds).If he would have fought like he meant this statement he may have won the fight. Certainly would have been a better strategy.For him, it had to begin with that lethal right jab, a taxing shot which led to stoppages as a byproduct of piling up points. He needed to act on what had been working best for him, not react to what SRL was doing. Hagler needed to behave like Hagler. When he began lamely mimicking Ray's showboating, he completely surrendered any pretext of ring generalship, an integral component of scorecard judging. (Scoring is not exclusively a matter of punching.)

His right jab might have taken the partisan crowd out in fairly prompt order.

Maybe he needed Ray to cut him early like Hearns did, and get put at risk of getting stopped to regain the sense of urgency which so completely deserted him here.

[Francis75]

Hagler and his trainers should have known how Leonard would fight. He should have imposed himself on Leonard from the get go NOT plod after him like an old George Foreman all the while allowing Leonard to move away easily and fire off quick fire combos to steal rounds.

[Robbi]

In the interview Hagler basically says that Leonard won. He states that he should have won the close fight because he was the champion and he incorrectly thinks that the challenger should dominate the champion to win. If Marvin and anyone else believes that BS then they believe that fights should not be judged fairly without bias. If Tiger Woods comes second in a golf major by 1 stoke than do we declare him the winner purely because he was the defending champion and world number 1. Of course not. I noticed that Marvin failed to mention how Leonard was a career welter and had only had one fight in the previous 5 yrs, but Marvin ridiculously believes that Leonard needed to dominate and just about KO him to get the nod. You are the one who should have been dominating Leonard considering all of the circumstances in this fight.

:good

[Unforgiven]

Where did Hagler say that Leonard won ?? :huh

[Rumsfeld]

Where did Hagler say that Leonard won ?? :huh

I don't ever recall him ever saying that.

:lol:

I do, however, specifically remember him saying he thought he won the fight.

:smoke

[Unforgiven]

Thanks, Rummy. :good

I thought it sounded like an excessive amount of spin.


In the interview Hagler basically says that Leonard won.

:-(

[Rumsfeld]

Thanks, Rummy. :good

I thought it sounded like an excessive amount of spin.




:-(

To say Hagler conceded that Leonard one is, at best, a stretch, at worse, an outright distortion of what he was saying.

He did SPECIFICALLY state that he thought he won the fight.

Anyway, in the coming days, I'm going to try and transcribe the entire interview. Just finished up another one, and have one more transcription to do before I get to this one, but I assure you all, I will get to it.

:good

[Unforgiven]

In the interview Hagler basically says that Leonard won. He states that he should have won the close fight because he was the champion and he incorrectly thinks that the challenger should dominate the champion to win. If Marvin and anyone else believes that BS then they believe that fights should not be judged fairly without bias. If Tiger Woods comes second in a golf major by 1 stoke than do we declare him the winner purely because he was the defending champion and world number 1. Of course not.

Again, you're mis-interpreting the meaning of what Hagler is saying, and taking the "have to beat the champion convincingly" thing too literally.

Hagler is saying that the judges took away his title, he wasn't beaten, and the closeness of the fight should not give anyone the right to re-designate who should hold the championship.
I agree with that in principle.

As I posted earlier, and I challenge anyone to show me where I'm wrong, rounds that are so close that people say they "could go the other way" should be marked as EVEN, if fairness of the overall decision is important.

I dont see how anyone can say "yeah, the decision could have easily gone the other way" and then say it's FAIR that the champion lost his title on such a lottery-like decision. Obviously a DRAW and a REMATCH makes most sense.

Not to mention that the ACTUAL scores of this fight feature the 118-110 score to Leonard that I dont see anyone defending.
If all three judges scored it like that we'd want an investigation, but when it's just the deciding score in an apparently close fight of a split-decision, people try to say it's not even important ?!!
Again, where's the logic ?

[JohnThomas1]

My supposition here is that Marv's bold declaration may have somehow biased the judges against him.

I can't for the life of me see how this works.

Judges score things round by round then tally them up at the end.

They may not have even seen Haglers declaration, and certainly not have cared.

There have been thousands of occasions boxers boldly predicted a KO.

We have three different people, via your reach who is to say one or more wasn't impressed and thereby biased the other (Hagler's) way? It's a very wild statement.

And Tommy nearly won his first match with Ray by decision, a situation where he adamantly refused to predict a knockout while SRL committed himself to winning by a stoppage (which became possible only because that was scheduled for more than 12 rounds).I'm feeling a bit of Zen in the room around now. Boxers predict many things, sometimes they ring true, sometimes not. Not predicting a KO sure doesn't make it impossible to have one.

The other thing, and it's glaringly obvious is that if the fight was 12 rounds it would have unfolded far far differently, gee. If SRL is behind with 2 or 3 to go in a 12 rounder he simply turns it on earlier. It's ludicrous to speculate Hearns would have won a 12 rounder because he was ahead after 12 in a 15 rounder, or that Duran would have beat Hagler under the same criteria etc.

For him, it had to begin with that lethal right jab, a taxing shot which led to stoppages as a byproduct of piling up points. He needed to act on what had been working best for him, not react to what SRL was doing. Hagler needed to behave like Hagler. When he began lamely mimicking Ray's showboating, he completely surrendered any pretext of ring generalship, an integral component of scorecard judging. (Scoring is not exclusively a matter of punching.)

His right jab might have taken the partisan crowd out in fairly prompt order.

Maybe he needed Ray to cut him early like Hearns did, and get put at risk of getting stopped to regain the sense of urgency which so completely deserted him here.Quite simply Leonard outclassed and out thought him both in and out of the ring. Hagler should have done this and that but quite simply, under this particular gun, he didn't have the intangibles to pull it off.

Needing someone to cut him in order to fall upon the right strategy reeks of fallibility. Don't forget, he and Hearns were warring with all the intensity in the world long before the cut. It wasn't a case of him ambling around getting outsped, copping a cut and going berko all of a sudden.

[Ezzard]

I don't get this coming forward argument. I don't care which direction a fighter moves in, I'm looking at clean punches.

Anyway, from memory I think the punch count was fairly even (for what it's worth, don't think counts are anything more than an indicator). I could be wrong though.

At the same time I don't think Leonard could have gone 15 rounds with Hagler. Fighters can pace themselves to some extent but even so 15 rounds is always, ALWAYS harder than 12.

Leonard won the first 30 secs and the last 30 secs of most of the rounds. I also thought he won his rounds more clearly. IMO (1) Ray deserved the verdict, (2)would not have lasted the full 15 and (3) made me lose all respect when he didn't grant a rematch but came back to win 2 titles at that phoney weight against LaLonde.

[Bokaj]

Let's be honest, this is above you. Saying this about Hagler on ESB makes you look like a little girl. You should just leave it at bitter, I doubt you'd be saying this to Hagler if the opportunity ever came with him going on about SRL. You would be standing there smiling and nodding your head. Of course, it's Hagler who's the little girl. :rofl The man and guy that gave his heart, blood, and soul in the ring.

I wouldn't call Monzon a psycho to his face either, doesn't mean he isn't one.:good

Never questioned Hagler as a warrior inside the ring, but this kind of bitching soon get's old. And fans of boxing shouldn't warm to it as they do.

[Bill Butcher]

I disagree with Marvin here. I think irrespective of who the champion is, the fight should be judged accordingly to what transpires over 12 rounds. I had Leonard up by a point, I can see how some people scored it otherwise. The big injustice in all this has how controversial the decision has been seen to be over the years. It was a fight that could have gone either way. Leonard got the nod. Considering his circumstances, it was a great achievement just to make it to the final bell.

I agree all the way here (tho I had Leonard by 2 pts)

[Unforgiven]

I don't get this coming forward argument. I don't care which direction a fighter moves in, I'm looking at clean punches.


Clean punches is priority.
But if both fighters move back and wait for the other guy to come forward there's no fight.
If both fighters come forward there's a fight.

I'm not an extreme advocate of that thinking but I do think it makes proper sense, and I factor it in to scoring fights - to some extent at least.

I am however quite strongly against the blatant stalling and holding that some fighters do, when they tie the other man up with absolutely no intention of letting go or attempting to fight out, and simply wait for the referee to save them. I dont understand people who score a fight and REWARD the fighter who's doing that. If the fighter wants to stay at long range he should stay at long range, but if the opponent gets inside he should have to fight his way out. Holding shouldn't be rewarded.



Leonard won the first 30 secs and the last 30 secs of most of the rounds. I also thought he won his rounds more clearly.

That's interesting. I thought the clearest rounds were Hagler's where he stunned Leonard and had him backing up, looking tired and hanging on.

[Unforgiven]

Never questioned Hagler as a warrior inside the ring, but this kind of bitching soon get's old. And fans of boxing shouldn't warm to it as they do.

What do you find so wrong with it ? He's just saying he won the fight and feels he got jobbed by the judges.
Why do you say "this type of bitching" when he's got every right to say he thinks he won and he thinks the judges jobbed him out of the title on a close fight.
You want him to lie when asked and say something phoney just to come across as an unrealistically "nice guy" ?

I scored the fight narrowly for Hagler, and certainly reckon the 118-110 score for Leonard taints the merits of the decision regardless of who you think won.
I think a draw would have been acceptable.

I think a rematch was in order, and I'd be saying that even if Hagler had gotten the decision.

[Sonny Carson]

Good to see that more people as the pages go on think Hagler won the fight. I think he won too. I was not impressed with what Leonard was doing, he was throwing too many pitty pat shot's and was running and not boxing alot. He didn't even jab and move at times, he ran in quite a few rounds. He didn't run the whole fight of course, but he did run a good number. You can tell he was more affected by Hagler's punches than he was affecting Hagler. He looked hurt at times, but he ran so much in the second half of the fight, that he avoided any kind of stoppage.

[Bill Butcher]

People always describe this as a 'controversial' fight and it really wasnt .. Marvin is bitter that he waited for Leonard for so long and then got beat, its as simple as that .. Leonard stole rounds, not because he manipulated the judges but because Hagler was slow and didnt land enough through the whole of the fight .. Leonard wins this fight by 2 rounds every time i watch it. Hagler was past his very best and he got edged out by the quicker, slicker Leonard, you cant win a fight just because you push the action, you have to land shots too and Marvin didnt land enough ..

As for this argument that Poor Marvin had to give up so much to land this fight, well nobody forced him to take the fight. He knew he Sugar Ray Leonard was the guy bringing 'the money' to the fight and he got paid the best purse of his career .. Marvin and his fans have been bleating about this decision for 20 years and it gets boring, it could of gone to Marvin but it could have gone to Leonard, in the end it went to Leonard and people need to get over it ....

If Marvin wants to see what real controversial decisions are then he really needs to watch,

Lewis v Holyfield
Whitaker v Chavez
Pintor v Zarate

Maybe then he'll understand that he got edged out in a very close fight, nothing more, nothing less, zero controversy ..

Good (& very true) post

[Ezzard]

Clean punches is priority.
But if both fighters move back and wait for the other guy to come forward there's no fight.
If both fighters come forward there's a fight.

I'm not an extreme advocate of that thinking but I do think it makes proper sense, and I factor it in to scoring fights - to some extent at least.

I am however quite strongly against the blatant stalling and holding that some fighters do, when they tie the other man up with absolutely no intention of letting go or attempting to fight out, and simply wait for the referee to save them. I dont understand people who score a fight and REWARD the fighter who's doing that. If the fighter wants to stay at long range he should stay at long range, but if the opponent gets inside he should have to fight his way out. Holding shouldn't be rewarded.





That's interesting. I thought the clearest rounds were Hagler's where he stunned Leonard and had him backing up, looking tired and hanging on.

Agree in that sense.

The 9th was the most convincing round of the fight but as a rule I found it easier to give the rounds to Leonard.

1 thing about the champ ghetting the benefit of the doubt. It should eb judged in terms of who fought the best BUT in a close fight where there is a lot of debate about rounds then it seems harsh to move the title.

[Bill Butcher]

Perhaps I should have done it before my last post, but I just watched the early rounds again. It did not change my opinion that MMH did not "give away" those rounds. I'm more than willing to credit a stick and move strategy, but SRL was almost all move with very little stick (that landed). If you watch without the sound and you forget who the boxers are, I fail to see how you come to the conclusion that SRL won the fight.

Your watching a different fight mate, its with the sound down that you can see SRL lands way more punches, shows better defence (which I suppose go hand in hand) & much better ring generalship.
The only clear rds I gave to Hagler were 5, 7 & 8.... Leonard has an extremely strong case for winning the rest of those rds because he was landing more punches, out-maneuvering Marvin & fighting toe to toe when forced to - oh yes, toe to toe, running my ass, what a pile of mythical bullshit.

Leonard W12 Hagler (7-5)

THE END !

[Bokaj]

What do you find so wrong with it ? He's just saying he won the fight and feels he got jobbed by the judges.
Why do you say "this type of bitching" when he's got every right to say he thinks he won and he thinks the judges jobbed him out of the title on a close fight.
You want him to lie when asked and say something phoney just to come across as an unrealistically "nice guy" ?

I scored the fight narrowly for Hagler, and certainly reckon the 118-110 score for Leonard taints the merits of the decision regardless of who you think won.
I think a draw would have been acceptable.

I wasn't talking about what he said of the decision, but of Leonard "running like a little girl" and "manipulating" him into accepting 12 rds as a limit.

On a whole I find that tasteless and a bit pathetic.

I think a rematch was in order, and I'd be saying that even if Hagler had gotten the decision.

A rematch was in order, for sure. Was Hagler trying to get one, though? He retired, didn't he?

[Bill Butcher]

People aren't listening to the man's argument.

Hagler is arguing that you can't take it away from the champion under these circumstances because that's what everybody told him after the Antuofermo fight. Remember that? It was a draw because Hagler didn't do enough to take the title. Hagler is wondering, as he has in so many previous interviews, "Why doesn't that argument work for me?" As somebody who always had to worry when fights went the distance, wondering whether a double standard is being applied is hardly an illegitimate question. Like Holmes, Hagler didn't get the respect he deserved. That always seemed to be reserved for the glamour boys like Leonard.

Hagler made the fight with Leonard. He was aggressor. He threw many more punches and landed the harder shots. Leonard ran, clowned, and fouled. Some people like that shit, but it's not boxing. Furthermore, in a fight with that much controversy, a real champion fights a rematch to clear up the matter. Hagler makes this argument, too. And he's right again. No fight in history screamed rematch more than this one. But Leonard knew he lucked out the first time around. He was the news and he (and Dundee) gave a good enough performance to convince some people he had done enough to win. The second time around he knew the novelty of it wouldn't fly. Leonard needed the Hagler win on his record to make the historical case, especially after getting overwhelmed by Duran and looking so bad against Hearns. Having Hagler erase the win makes the reality of record all the more apparent.

Hagler is making the same arguments that a lot of us make, and we can't all be bitter, can we? Of course not. How can you be bitter for another person? You can't attribute Hagler's argument to bitterness, then. Especially when it's so logical. The Associated Press scored the fight for Marvin by an overwhelming majority. Contrast that with the score of that joke-of-a-paper the New York Daily News and we can see were the gravity lies. The best that Leonard nut huggers over at the New York Times and the Washington Post could do for their man was give him a draw, which means Hagler keeps the title. Go back and check the Associated Press score for the Antuofermo-Hagler fight. Now that was a close fight. Antuofermo did much better against Hagler than did Leonard and look where the controversy goes. Hagler recognizes the significance of the Antuofermo fight to this whole matter. He even acknowledges in the interview the problem with that fight.

Why this controversy about Hagler-Leonard persists is because people who side with Leonard have to keep putting out the idea that it was close and therefore a Leonard victory plausible. One of the dead giveaways is this qualification: "I thought Leonard won the fight and I am a huge Hagler fan." Right. Sure. That's the same qualifier we see on CSPAN when liberals call on the conversative line saying, "I'm a Republican, but I believe Obama is right for our country right now." We are on to this trick, folks. We get it. Another dead giveaway is that any score in which Leonard wins several more rounds that Hagler is a problem because "admittedly the fight was so close." They admit that Guerra's score was absurd. Yet Leonard-loving boxing publications in the aftermath of the fight extolled the virtues of his scoring. Why? Because they wanted the make the miracle as big a possible. But the people didn't buy it. The more time passed, the more people saw the fight beyond the hype the more they said, "What a second, who was pressing, who threw the most punches, who hurt who?" So people on the Leonard side have over time backed off the Guerra score and made up this myth about "it was anybody's fight."

Hagler is perfectly justified in making his points. And, truthfully, he doesn't sound bitter to me at all. He waited for Leonard to give him a rematch. When he realized Leonard wasn't going to do it, he retired. He didn't have anything left to prove. He wasn't going to break Monzon's record, so there was no need in continuing. It was time to move on to what he was planning on doing: acting. Hagler is a very reasonable fellow. And he was in great spirits for the interview. I appreciate the man for his down-to-earthness. He worked his tail off to give us a great ride. The man's got my respect.

The parts Ive highlighted make me think you have no sense or judgement.

[Bill Butcher]

Good to see that more people as the pages go on think Hagler won the fight.

Anytime Ive seen a poll done its usually SRL that comes out on top, thats probably because he won the fuckin fight fair & square.... end of !

[redrooster]

Your watching a different fight mate, its with the sound down that you can see SRL lands way more punches, shows better defence (which I suppose go hand in hand) & much better ring generalship.
The only clear rds I gave to Hagler were 5, 7 & 8.... Leonard has an extremely strong case for winning the rest of those rds because he was landing more punches, out-maneuvering Marvin & fighting toe to toe when forced to - oh yes, toe to toe, running my ass, what a pile of mythical bullshit.

Leonard W12 Hagler (7-5)

THE END !

i'd like to go along with you but the fact is, Ray didnt do enough to earn all the early rounds 1 and 3. I gave him 2 and 4 but rounds 1 and 3 were no better than Even. I didnt give it to Ray. I could have but I could have given it to Hagler. Neither would be fair.

the only other rounds I gave to ray were 6, 12 for a total of four rounds. Round seven was even as well and no I didnt give Ray the round for punching after the bell to make it look as tho he tipped the round in his favor. That would be cheating

round 8 went to Hagler as soon as he started using his right jab. Round five when he had the little pansy stumbling backwards from a panny ante right hand. Round nine went to Hagler as well as rounds 10, 11. I dont know why people say Leonard won rounds 10,11 when it's clear he lost both rounds.

Leonard was sharper, faster, and more impressive but even a slow motion Hagler could never lose to someone like Leonard without the help of the judges

[MrMarvel]

The parts Ive highlighted make me think you have no sense or judgement.

Open you eyes, Bill.

Hagler was in good spirits, laughing and joking. Sure, he's upset by the decision. Who wouldn't be? The judges gave his title to Leonard in a fight he clearly won. Hagler knows, as do the rest of us, that he has never gotten the credit he deserves. There is nothing wrong with him saying so. That's not bitter. That's telling it like it is.

Antuofermo stepped on the gas in round eight and fought furiously over the remainder of the fight. He took the fight to Hagler in the second half. Leonard did not. Leonard survived. Let's be honest about that, okay?

Seriously, Bill, if you watch both those fights and you actually believe Hagler-Leonard was closer, then your judgment is in question, not mine.

[PetethePrince]

I wouldn't call Monzon a psycho to his face either, doesn't mean he isn't one.:good

Never questioned Hagler as a warrior inside the ring, but this kind of bitching soon get's old. And fans of boxing shouldn't warm to it as they do.

Monzon may very well be a psycho. But there's a truthful reality to that. Hagler is no where near being a little girl. Anyone who calls someone a warrior while stating that they're a little girl for complaining about a decision they feel that got jobbed on is really doing a disservice for themselves. Just out of curoisity, are you or did you once play sports? If you geniunely believe you get ripped off it's a tough thing to swallow especially when you're a warrior that puts that much in. Considering all of Hagler's concessions along with the no rematch by SRL I think he has more than enough justification for calling SRL a little girl. You on the other hand have no validated in doing so and only look like the little girl. :good

A rematch was in order, for sure. Was Hagler trying to get one, though? He retired, didn't he?

:patsch

So you think Hagler was lieing in the interview about trying to get a rematch with SRL?

[Bokaj]

Monzon may very well be a psycho. But there's a truthful reality to that. Hagler is no where near being a little girl. Anyone who calls someone a warrior while stating that they're a little girl for complaining about a decision they feel that got jobbed on is really doing a disservice for themselves. Just out of curoisity, are you or did you once play sports? If you geniunely believe you get ripped off it's a tough thing to swallow especially when you're a warrior that puts that much in. Considering all of Hagler's concessions along with the no rematch by SRL I think he has more than enough justification for calling SRL a little girl. You on the other hand have no validated in doing so and only look like the little girl. :good

What a load of nonsense. Showing such a lack of respect for an opponent in public isn't in any way justified by being "a warrior in the ring".

And say what you want, I maintain that speaking like that about Leonard (or any former opponent) and blaming him for a decision he himself made is a loooong way short of impressive.

If Leonard had said something as deragatory about Hagler in a radio broadcast you'd be frothing at the mouth.



:patsch

So you think Hagler was lieing in the interview about trying to get a rematch with SRL?

Wasn't listening that far. But, yes, I can see him overstating that. But I can also easily picture Leonard not at all being interested in a rematch to be honest.

[Danny]

Hagler lost & that's the way it is whether he likes it or not! However, he feels & has always felt he won the fight & I guess if you really feel in your hurt that you won then it must hurt, deep inside!

Leonard did run, but to a certain extent! Ray fought to the strategy that gave him the best chance to win. If he would have stood & traded with Marvin he would have got stopped! Why do you think Leonard would not agree to fifteen rounds? He knew that would give Hagler an extra nine mins!

After the fight, there was a short period of which if the rematch was going to happen, it had to happen in that period & it was probably a twelve month period! After twelve months had gone, Hagler probably lost the desire to box again!

[prime]

In spite of myself, never over the years have I been able to reach a different conclusion regarding this fight: Leonard won in a stinker.

a) Leonard, smaller, weaker, rustier, a large underdog, adhered to one of his cardinal laws: stick to your game plan. He did: he executed his legitimate round-stealing strategy much better than Hagler did his of, ostensibly, cleaning Leonard's clock via irresistible pressure.

b) From memory, I'm pretty confident Leonard landed more punches, a key element in scoring, even when retreating, because:

c) Hagler pressed and pressed, but simply couldn't and didn't get off nearly enough. Two solid blows landed will never outweigh seven or eight perhaps lighter, but accurate, shots from your opponent, regardless of how many past accolades you can boast of. Hagler seemed to age from the first to the final bell.

d) In fact, toward the end, as an upset seemed probable, Leonard seemed to increase while Hagler decreased into a despairing, totally bamboozled old warrior.

Leonard won, but justice held her nose. Per his typical MO, Ray played within a set of given rules, teasing, spoiling, sometimes plain fighting, albeit always bravely, and simply shocked Marvelous by a couple of whiskers.

It will always remain a stinker for the ages, because a great, macho champion such as Hagler was dethroned with a whimper, not a bang.

[zadfrak]

Agreed.

The huge fact to consider tho is the fact that an old Hagler took on pedigreed youth in his last 3 fights; Hearns/Mugabi/Leonard. It's asking an awful lot to have any old middleweight champ fight those 3 guys and to go 3-0. Stumble just a little bit and a loss is coming.

We sure don't see guys signing contracts for that level of opposition & it's one of the things hurting the sport--far too much cherry picking.

[Gesta]

Open you eyes, Bill.

Hagler was in good spirits, laughing and joking. Sure, he's upset by the decision. Who wouldn't be? The judges gave his title to Leonard in a fight he clearly won. Hagler knows, as do the rest of us, that he has never gotten the credit he deserves. There is nothing wrong with him saying so. That's not bitter. That's telling it like it is.

Antuofermo stepped on the gas in round eight and fought furiously over the remainder of the fight. He took the fight to Hagler in the second half. Leonard did not. Leonard survived. Let's be honest about that, okay?

Seriously, Bill, if you watch both those fights and you actually believe Hagler-Leonard was closer, then your judgment is in question, not mine.


:good:good:good

I think Leonard gave Hagler a closer fight in regards to the scoring, where Vito gave Hagler a tougher fight.

[DRMULLEN]

dURAN IS A bEAST.

[Gesta]

:happy:happy:happydURAN IS A bEAST.

[Boro chris]

I agree with Hagler, after all Hagler had established himself as the long running undisputed champ and had a long distinguished reign as Middleweight champ. You have to give the close rounds to Hagler and give him the decision on such a close fight. Alternatively, if Leonard was the champ then you would have to give it to Leonard. Further, Leonard was a non-aggresor and ran away from Hagler the whole fight. I really can't see Leonard saying he was better than Hagler overall, but on this night it was too close to call and the deciding Judge gave the toss-up to the challenger.

Is that in a rulebook somewhere?:huh
Either way its absolute twaddle. You give close rounds to who you thought won it (or score it even) not on who's the champ or challenger!
Otherwise whatsthe point in haveing judges??
A champion dosen't have a right to win close rounds/fights, he has to defend his right to be the champ.

[GazOC]

It was a close fight and I understand how people score it for Hagler (and certainly how Hagler thinks he won) but those "champion gets the close rounds" and "you have to take a champions title" lines are BS.

Both men are equal when they step into the ring, the only concession to the champion is that he keeps his title in the event of a draw (maybe thats the form "taking the title" takes?)

[Gesta]

It was a close fight and I understand how people score it for Hagler (and certainly how Hagler thinks he won) but those "champion gets the close rounds" and "you have to take a champions title" lines are BS.

Both men are equal when they step into the ring, the only concession to the champion is that he keeps his title in the event of a draw (maybe thats the form "taking the title" takes?)


Yes but if there is a few close rounds you can't score them for the one fighter?.

[GazOC]

Yes but if there is a few close rounds you can't score them for the one fighter?.

Yes you can. If you thought the same fighter won those close rounds then he should be awarded them all. A round should be scored in isolation and on its own merits, not with one eye on who you gave the last close round to.

[Unforgiven]

I've said it before and I'll say it again :
Rounds that you can see "could go either way" should be scored even. And that will go some way in making fights that "could go either way" result in a DRAW - the fairest result.

Champions dont have a right to get the win in close fights, but it's not fair to move the title in a fight that "could go either way". That's like saying, "yeah, maybe you're right, I cant say you were beaten, but you lose the title anyway, the title you won undisputedly by a stoppage" .
Sure, that's boxing, but I think we shouldn't defend the injustice of it.

It's compounded in this case by the 118-110 score for Leonard. That was an indefensible score (whereas the other two weren't), therefore the split decision win for Leonard is not even based on "fair" or decent scoring.

Having said all that, I think Leonard's refusal to rematch and immediate (temporary) retirement are what really makes the debate and unease linger.

[GazOC]

I've said it before and I'll say it again :
Rounds that you can see "could go either way" should be scored even. And that will go some way in making fights that "could go either way" result in a DRAW - the fairest result.

Champions dont have a right to get the win in close fights, but it's not fair to move the title in a fight that "could go either way". That's like saying, "yeah, maybe you're right, I cant say you were beaten, but you lose the title anyway, the title you won undisputedly by a stoppage" .
Sure, that's boxing, but I think we shouldn't defend the injustice of it.




I'm not avocating finding a winner of a round just for the hell of it but having won a title by KO doesn't give the champion any advantage when judging the rounds in his title defences.;)

A lot of people will find a winner for a round no matter what and criticize judges for scoring even rounds. I understand that some rounds are very close and there shouldn't be an element of finding a winner at all costs but the other side to the argument is that how many rounds are truely even where a winner can't be found? I guess its where you draw the line in the sand.

I can see both sides TBH.

[Gesta]

Yes you can. If you thought the same fighter won those close rounds then he should be awarded them all. A round should be scored in isolation and on its own merits, not with one eye on who you gave the last close round to.


Well if a round is close but one fighter clearly wins the round, ok, but if there is a few rounds that could go either way and the judges give all of them to one fighter it is not fair, as the other fighter might win some rounds clearly and all the close rounds go against him?.

Fighter "a" might win 5 rounds clearly and fighter "b" wins 1 clearly and 6 rounds could go either way, fighter "b" could still win, 'cause he gets all the close rounds?.

[GazOC]

Well if a round is close but one fighter clearly wins the round, ok, but if there is a few rounds that could go either way and the judges give all of them to one fighter it is not fair, as the other fighter might win some rounds clearly and all the close rounds go against him?.

Fighter "a" might win 5 rounds clearly and fighter "b" wins 1 clearly and 6 rounds could go either way, fighter "b" could still win, 'cause he gets all the close rounds?.

Yep, thats how its supposed to work. Its just tough luck I'm afraid....

[MrMarvel]

I don't think the question is whether you give a close fight to the champion. I think the point is that you don't take away a title in a fight a challenger doesn't win.

If it was indecisive that's what rematches are for.

[Boro chris]

Well if a round is close but one fighter clearly wins the round, ok, but if there is a few rounds that could go either way and the judges give all of them to one fighter it is not fair, as the other fighter might win some rounds clearly and all the close rounds go against him?.

Fighter "a" might win 5 rounds clearly and fighter "b" wins 1 clearly and 6 rounds could go either way, fighter "b" could still win, 'cause he gets all the close rounds?.

Like democracy its a terrible system but its the best one we have.

[GazOC]

I don't think the question is whether you give a close fight to the champion. I think the point is that you don't take away a title in a fight a challenger doesn't win.

If it was indecisive that's what rematches are for.

A lot of people had the challenger winning that fight, are you saying he should have had to win a rematch as well before he got the title off Hagler?

You might not agree with, or like, the decision (or the fact that there was no rematch) but that was the decision that was given and the champion lost his title. To just say "the challenger didn't win, the champ should still have his title" isn't really much of an argument when discussing how title fights should be scored, its just a comment on how you personally scored the fight.

[Francis75]

The ONLY advantage a champion should have is the fact that they will retain their title in the event of a draw. That is it. Each round should be scored individually without bias. A round should only be called even if the judge can not separate the fighters in that round. If a judge believes that one fighter just did a little bit more in a round than that fighter should be awarded the round even if every round is like that.

[Dr. Iron Fist]

Hagler says the Leonard was not a true Champion cause he never gave him a rematch, but Leonard said he would of but Hagler moved to Italy. I wonder what really happened :think

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[redrooster]

Hagler says the Leonard was not a true Champion cause he never gave him a rematch, but Leonard said he would of but Hagler moved to Italy. I wonder what really happened :think

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

What really happened is that Leonard refused to give a rematch and used Marvin's relocating to Italy as an excuse for later. he thinks people dont remember what happened

[MrMarvel]

What really happened is that Leonard refused to give a rematch and used Marvin's relocating to Italy as an excuse for later. he thinks people dont remember what happened

Even if the latter were true, say Hagler moved to Italy right after the loss, so Leonard isn't allowed to fight anybody who lives in Italy? This isn't a global sport? That's possibly the most stupid argument I have ever heard from a boxer. Did Leonard really say this?

[redrooster]

Even if the latter were true, say Hagler moved to Italy right after the loss, so Leonard isn't allowed to fight anybody who lives in Italy? This isn't a global sport? That's possibly the most stupid argument I have ever heard from a boxer. Did Leonard really say this?

I dont know but I wouldnt be surprised. leonard would say anything to cover his tracks. There has never been a fighter who held such low standards for himself

[GazOC]

Even if the latter were true, say Hagler moved to Italy right after the loss, so Leonard isn't allowed to fight anybody who lives in Italy? This isn't a global sport? That's possibly the most stupid argument I have ever heard from a boxer. Did Leonard really say this?


I'd be interested to see/ read that interview because I have no recollection of Leonard saying this....

[Rumsfeld]

Even if the latter were true, say Hagler moved to Italy right after the loss, so Leonard isn't allowed to fight anybody who lives in Italy? This isn't a global sport? That's possibly the most stupid argument I have ever heard from a boxer. Did Leonard really say this?

Yes. Leonard said that in our interview "On the Ropes".

He told us to something to the effect that Marvin forgets, he moved to Milan. You need to call Marvin back and remind him of the facts.

I believe he also claimed he was in Milan trying to work out a rematch, but I don't remember exactly what was said.

[Rumsfeld]

I'd be interested to see/ read that interview because I have no recollection of Leonard saying this....


He said it.

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

The show kicks right off with the Leonard interview which lasted about 20-25 minutes or so.

:good

[GazOC]

He said it.

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

The show kicks right off with the Leonard interview which lasted about 20-25 minutes or so.

:good

Interesting interview but all that Leonard said when asked about Haglers claim that he stuck around for a year waiting for a rematch was that Hagler had gone to Milan. He didn't say it was any sort of deal breaker or obstacle for a rematch being made.

He was asked a question about Haglers statement regarding when he moved to Italy and answered it.

To be honest from what I remember at the time the main problem was the Leonard wanted to twist the knife into Hagler and have him ask for a rematch. Hagler refused to do this out of pride and went off to make action films in Italy.

[Rumsfeld]

Interesting interview but all that Leonard said when asked about Haglers claim that he stuck around for a year waiting for a rematch was that Hagler had gone to Milan. He didn't say it was any sort of deal breaker or obstacle for a rematch being made.

I never said he did, but he most certainly insinuated that it was him, and not Hagler, who wanted the rematch.

[GazOC]

I never said he did, but he most certainly insinuated that it was him, and not Hagler, who wanted the rematch.


The claim was made in this thread over the last 10 posts that Leonard said he wouldn't/ couldn't rematch Hagler because Hagler had moved to Italy and you said that interview backed the claim up....it doesn't.

Leonard did claim he wanted the rematch in that interview, I've no idea whether thats true or not but thats a totally different question than whether he used Haglers move to Italy as the excuse for it not happening.

[Sonny Carson]

Anytime Ive seen a poll done its usually SRL that comes out on top, thats probably because he won the fuckin fight fair & square.... end of !
Shut up you fuckin faggot. And for your information bitch the last poll we had on this fight, a majority of people 44 people had Hagler winning, 38 had Ray Leonard winning, and 7 had a draw. People are starting to wake up.

[Boxed Ears]

As long as people talk about boxing, they will be arguing about this fight.

[Addie]

As long as people talk about boxing, they will be arguing about this fight.

For the wrong reasons, as well.

[MrMarvel]

Yes. Leonard said that in our interview "On the Ropes".

He told us to something to the effect that Marvin forgets, he moved to Milan. You need to call Marvin back and remind him of the facts.

I believe he also claimed he was in Milan trying to work out a rematch, but I don't remember exactly what was said.

Didn't Duran live in Panama? When Leonard was scrambling to get Duran to give him a rematch (and as soon as possible so Duran would be out of shape and ill prepared) I don't recall any argument that supposed that because these two men lived in different countries that there would be a problem with a rematch. I guess I need to listen to that interview and hear Leonard in context. It really sounds like a ridiculous argument!

[MrMarvel]

Shut up you fuckin faggot. And for your information bitch the last poll we had on this fight, a majority of people 44 people had Hagler winning, 38 had Ray Leonard winning, and 7 had a draw. People are starting to wake up.

Doesn't Richard Steele, who intially though Leonard won, say that every time he watches the fight it gets closer? More and more people will come around to the reality that Hagler won and we won't be arguing about who won but rather how terrible it was Hagler was robbed. In other word, a large majority will come to understand Hagler's point of view. Those of us who aren't blinded by fandom have always known what happened.

[leverage]

leonard won more on flash than actual substance. His flurries captivated the judges but it was hagler that landed the more effective punches. Also, if you take a good look at the fight you will see that leonard didn't land nearly as many punches as people think because many were blocked.

[Bokaj]

He said it.

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

The show kicks right off with the Leonard interview which lasted about 20-25 minutes or so.

:good

Great interview. Leonard is really frank. He admits:

1. That Hearns really won the rematch
2. That he insisted on 12 rounds against Hagler because he thought it favoured his chances
3. That he came back because he thought that Hagler looked vulnerable against Mugabe

Does this honesty makes his claims that he fought Duran's fight in Montreal (due to Duran getting inside his head) and that he wanted a rematch with Hagler more credible, you think?

[Jaws]

The talk of the "the champion should retain his title in a close fight" is BS. I've always viewed it, as well as many others, that the second both men step into the ring, the title is no longer in either one's possession until the fight is over.

It was a close fight, and while Leonard may not have hurt Hagler much, Hagler sure didn't hurt Leonard either! That's what I don't get about the people who complain about this fight....neither man found much success.

After Antuofermo, Hagler vowed to never leave a fight up to the judges again. So why did he let it happen again against the smaller Leonard? If the shots Leonard was landing on Hagler were all "showmanship and flash", then why didn't Hagler wade through them to get inside on him??? Hagler successfully used this tactic against the more powerful Hearns, so why not Leonard? Obviously, Leonard's shots gained Hagler's respect!

A huge part of boxing is adapting to your opponent's gameplan, and Hagler wasted too much time in this fight. I'm more of a Hagler fan, and think he could have won, but I have Leonard edging it. That's just the way it went down...that night.

There are FAR more controversial decisions out there.

[redrooster]

It is a shame, but the sympathy factor was in play. The hollywood crowd really needed a sugar ray win over the great (once great) Hagler to legitimize him as a fighter and send him out on a storybook script ending.

Yes, hagler was robbed but at least he didnt go out like Sugar Ray with two back to back losses and getting destroyed by Camacho :lol:

[MrMarvel]

leonard won more on flash than actual substance. His flurries captivated the judges but it was hagler that landed the more effective punches. Also, if you take a good look at the fight you will see that leonard didn't land nearly as many punches as people think because many were blocked.

Moreover, many of the punches did not land with the scoring portion of the glove. Leonard did a lot of slapping in that fight. By punchstat numbers he only landed 15 more punches, but the punchstat clearly exaggerates his success and counts punches that do not count in scoring.

[MrMarvel]

his claims that he fought Duran's fight in Montreal (due to Duran getting inside his head)

The idea of winning a fight is to make the other guy fight your fight. Leonard didn't lose that night because he beat himself. He lost because Duran whipped him. Leonard had no choice but fight Duran's fight. Leonard at his best was not strong enough to keep Duran off him. His punches were not powerful enough to dissuade Duran from coming forward. It was like when Armstrong had Ross constantly backing up and against the ropes. Sure Ross was fighting Armstrong's fight - he didn't have a choice! The only chance Ross had against Armstrong were if Armstrong had come into the fight out of shape and ill prepared. Same is true for Leonard against Duran.

[GazOC]

I'd take the Leonard of the second fight over the Duran of the first fight. I know its simplistic to say Leonard fought the wrong fight in Montreal but its also a convienent kop out to say Duran wasn't in shape for the 2nd.

[Bummy Davis]

Angelo Dundee was crafty and Leonard had the smarter corner and better boxing connections. Petronelli's were great guys and loved Marvin but did not have the experience of Angelo. It was Angelo that insisted on an instant rematch with Duran and they Knew Duran after a victory was partying, drinking and coking and eating. They new there was no way Duran could get in great shape and told Durans people Leonard was the American $ and they would fight Hearns instead. Angelo also had Ray do the shoe- polish routine at the end of the rds to steal close rds. I remember watching the fight and thinking Hagler was not doing as well as I thought he would. It was a close fight and it could have gone either way but a rematch was in order. Old school was you had to take the title from the champ. Today the judges do what they want or how they are influenced to vote. Don't think boxing Clout does not have its benefits.

[sugarsean]

Angelo Dundee was crafty and Leonard had the smarter corner and better boxing connections. Petronelli's were great guys and loved Marvin but did not have the experience of Angelo. It was Angelo that insisted on an instant rematch with Duran and they Knew Duran after a victory was partying, drinking and coking and eating. They new there was no way Duran could get in great shape and told Durans people Leonard was the American $ and they would fight Hearns instead. Angelo also had Ray do the shoe- polish routine at the end of the rds to steal close rds. I remember watching the fight and thinking Hagler was not doing as well as I thought he would. It was a close fight and it could have gone either way but a rematch was in order. Old school was you had to take the title from the champ. Today the judges do what they want or how they are influenced to vote. Don't think boxing Clout does not have its benefits.

Why you talking shit Its well known that Duran despise's drugs

[redrooster]

I'd take the Leonard of the second fight over the Duran of the first fight. I know its simplistic to say Leonard fought the wrong fight in Montreal but its also a convienent kop out to say Duran wasn't in shape for the 2nd.


It would be a copout if there was no basis for saying it. Unfortunately, there is and it's quite detailed by a very credble witness whose JOB it was to describe it :smoke

[GazOC]

It would be a copout if there was no basis for saying it. Unfortunately, there is and it's quite detailed by a very credble witness whose JOB it was to describe it :smoke

I know it been documented but its no different than the first being down to Leonard fighting the wrong fight. The bottom line is that its a fuck up each fighter made.

I know its "cool" to rail against popular fighters but sometimes you've just got yo admit the guy was good.

[MrMarvel]

It would be a copout if there was no basis for saying it. Unfortunately, there is and it's quite detailed by a very credble witness whose JOB it was to describe it :smoke

Excellent answer. The comparison is of two nonequivalent things. Leonard was the same fighter in both fights. Duran wasn't.

[james442]

Dont Forget:Holmes v Spinks II!!

[Bummy Davis]

Why you talking shit Its well known that Duran despise's drugs


yea because he was hanging out at Victors Cafe( a drug hang out blowing coke right after the Leonard fight and it was was one of the reasons he could not get in top shape in time...thats why he hates drugs ...I know this and a few fight people knew this as well. Why did Duran tell you he said no drugs.

[haglerforever]

this was the first fight I ever saw a punch count ,wondered what`s this.NO excuse but hagler Had to BEAT the champ who for years would not fight him.I think subcontiously he figured he was getting points for initiating the fight ,knowing that punches he was getting hit with did not affect him and had never been counted before.Leonard was crafty,dundee would yell ray 30seconds left and he would throw punches(mostly inconiquencial)afterbeing chased for 2 & 1/2 minutes..2 great fighters, still leaves bad taste after all these years..