Be careful what you wish for - just ask Marvin Hagler!

Afternoon gents, just a little something which I stumbled across but thought made for interesting reading with regards to the highly publicised and equally controversial fight between Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler for the Middleweight title in 1987.

"Oh no, not another Leonard-Hagler" thread, you might say. Hopefully not, though, as an article I read not long back enlightened me on a particular circumstance surrounding the right which I'd previously been totally unaware of, but which turned out to be a major factor in Leonard nicking Hagler's WBC 160 lb crown on a contentious split decision.

Having read through the article I've linked below (I hope my not having seen it before now isn't an exception to the rule), it seems that Hagler and his team - primarily the famed Petronelli brothers - may have unwittingly contributed to their own downfall and, in short, made a decision which helped change the course of boxing history.

We all know of the concessions which Hagler made in order to secure the fight with Leonard, a fight he'd been actively chasing as soon as he won the Middleweight title from Britain's own Alan Minter in 1980; Leonard wanted twelve rather than fifteen rounds, and he got it. He wanted a larger ring than the standard-sized ones used by the WBC, and he got it. He wanted the right to pick the size of the gloves, and he got it. But there is an even more interesting element to the pre-fight negotiations which, I have to admit, I'd never heard until now.

As was (and, I think, still is) common practice at the time, three judges were chosen to score the fight, with one in reserve who could be appointed should either camp voice a concern over the original three. Those three judges were Dave Moretti, Lou Filippo and the Englishman Harry Gibbs. Now, this is where it all gets very interesting.

Hagler, or more prominently his handlers Goody and Pat Petronelli, were worried that Gibbs, being an Englishman and all, would find any way possible to score against Hagler, given the way that 'Marvelous Marvin' had ripped the title away from England's Minter amongst disgraceful chaos in London seven years previously. Fearing that Gibbs may have had such an agenda, they insisted he be removed from the panel and replaced by the Mexican Jo Jo Guerra, who famously produced one of the most inept judging displays of all time to award the fight to Leonard by a ludicrous 118-110 margin (Moretti and Filippo scored the bout 115-113 to Leonard and Hagler respectively, both understandable margins).

"You'll never judge another fight as long as you live!" was the only post-fight pleasantry which a fuming Pat Petronelli exchanged with Guerra afterwards. Now, here is where the tale takes another twist. As the article below explains, Gibbs was contacted soon after the fight at his London home by a newspaper, who asked him if he'd watched and scored the fight. Gibbs replied that he had done - and that, ironically, he'd scored it 115-113 to Hagler.

It appears, then, that while Leonard's demands took up the headlines, it was in fact a demand made by Hagler and his people which cost him more than any other - had Gibbs kept his place as the third judge, Hagler would have retained his title for a thirteenth time via split decision and, most likely, retired as undefeated champion. First off, was I the only one who didn't know of this sub-plot involving the judges, or is it news to a few others on here? Apologies if so. Next, have there been any other great examples of a fighter's pre-fight demands back-firing as spectacularly as Hagler's did here?

Once again, the article is linked below for anyone interested. Much of it has been covered many times over, but if there are any others who, like me, were unaware of the issue with Harry Gibbs, it makes for a good read.

If anyone has something to add, fire away fellas. Cheers everyone.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6983512/hagler-vs-leonard

I didn’t know, but he may have scored it differently live.

I can't think of anything like that Chris, however I'm sure Windy will know of some guy in 1892 that decided to change shoes which cost him a title or something along that note!!

Re: The article, very interesting and I had no idea of this story, thanks for sharing, although as Scott eluded to it is possible he would have scored it differently whilst being in the arena.

Thanks for commenting Scott and Alex, glad I'm not the only one who previously hadn't heard the story surrounding Gibbs and Guerra.

As you both mention, there is of course a possibility that Gibbs may have scored it differently from ringside, however it's debatable whether or not the shift from a ringside seat to an armchair view would have been enough to change the all-important belief he had that Hagler won the fight. In many ways it's easier to just assume that he'd have scored the fight the same had he been appointed - well, certainly easier for the purpose of this article, anyway!

I had absolutely no idea about this! Wow, could have changed the course of boxing history in a big, big way. Thanks for sharing, Chris.

Fascinating stuff Chris and a story I was unaware of. Would add it is not possible if Gibbs knew his removal from the fight was down to Hagler's team he may have had a little dig at Marv's expense in announcing that score. I know if someone did me out of a prime gig reffing such a mega fight I would not be beyond doing such a thing.

I had actually heard this before. It seems almost unbearably ironic, however I agree with Scott that contacting Gibbs after the fight and asking how he scored it watching it on T.V. is flawed. He may well have scored it differently live.

Also, not to cast any aspersions over Gibss' character, but there is also the possibility that Gibbs said he gave the fight to Marv in order to make a point to the Petronelli's and Hagler for having fought so vociferously to have him removed from the judging panel in the first place.

Still a very interesting aside from a hugely polarising contest

No problem, Fists. As I said above, I'm just glad I'm not the only one who was unaware of that sub-plot before finding this article!

Jeff, interesting point about Gibbs perhaps seeing a window of opportunity to metaphorically stick two fingers up at Hagler and his camp in light of being replaced by announcing he'd scored it to Hagler at home, one which didn't really cross my mind when reading the article or writing mine. I guess we can only hope that Mr. Gibbs wasn't as spiteful a so and so as you clearly are!

Gibbs may have got a certain satisfaction out of letting people know he scored it in favour of Hagler, but given that his reputation would be on the line, I doubt very much he would mis-represent his opinion just to spite Hagler. I tend to believe pettiness on such a level is more prevalent in modern times.

Always good to know I am more petty and spiteful than the majority of the population!

And you are really good at reading between the lines as well.

Oh, great story by the way. I knew nothing about this and found it an interesting take on an important event. Thanks for sharing

No worries, bhb!

Thanks for sharing that Chris! Very interesting read. Didnt know that at all.

Nice article. Seems ludicrous on the Hagler team's part to believe that someone would harbour a grudge against him simply based on nationality and the result of a fight and to hold it for 7 years? Careful what you wish for is right.

paperbag_puncher wrote:Nice article. Seems ludicrous on the Hagler team's part to believe that someone would harbour a grudge against him simply based on nationality and the result of a fight and to hold it for 7 years? Careful what you wish for is right.

More or less what I thought, Paperbag. The Petronelli's, to me, always seemed level-headed and astute, so it does seem strange that they'd have such a concern in the first place. Cooper was the most popular and quintessentially British fighter of his time but that didn't sway Gibbs' opinion that Bugner deserved the nod when the two of them met.

It appears, then, that while Leonard's demands took up the headlines, it was in fact a demand made by Hagler and his people which cost him more than any other - had Gibbs kept his place as the third judge, Hagler would have retained his title for a thirteenth time via split decision and, most likely, retired as undefeated champion. First off, was I the only one who didn't know of this sub-plot involving the judges, or is it news to a few others on here? Apologies if so. Next, have there been any other great examples of a fighter's pre-fight demands back-firing as spectacularly as Hagler's did here?

Can't blame Leonard for making those demands really, seeing as he was fighting at Marvins weight.

Jukebox, boxing tradition dictates that even if a fighter has been beaten before winning a world title, they are referred to as an undefeated champion if they subsequenty retire without ever having lost that crown in the ring, in case that's what the whistle emoticon was aimed at.

I've never heard of fighters referred to as undefeated when thay are not undefeated.

Is Amir Khan an undefeated champion?

Yes, he is.

I've heard of it Chris, don't worry.

I’ve heard of it, but don’t like it, and wouldn’t use it. Might say undefeated as champion, which makes it much clearer.

It is very misleading, I'll give you that.

Very interesting story. Although can't help but think Hagler was too eager for the fight. He'd already secured greatness/money beforehand and shouldn't have given Leonard any concessions whatsoever.

I've heard the story before about Gibbs being replaced and him scoring the fight for Hagler. I suppose if he had judged the fight and Hagler had got the decision, people would be posting about how Leonard got 'robbed'.

I'd never heard of this, thanks for posting. Seems there's not a detail of this fight anybody can agree on.

I'm of the same belief, boon, but can see why he wanted some kind of defining fight. However, by giving away such concessions, and the judging fiasco mentioned by chris, he actually lost it before he stepped into the ring, you could argue.

Fists of Fury wrote:I'm of the same belief, boon, but can see why he wanted some kind of defining fight. However, by giving away such concessions, and the judging fiasco mentioned by chris, he actually lost it before he stepped into the ring, you could argue.

Could have just won a couple more rounds decisively, christ Fists, he was only facing Sugar Ray Leonard...

It's easy to say he shouldn't have agreed to any concessions but he received a $12 million guarantee and millions more from closed circuit, a massive, massive payday for 1987. Hagler needed money just like every fighter does and he might have felt that if he didn't agree to Leonard's demands then there would be no fight.

Yeah but wasn't Hagler's defining fight against Hearns? So he already had a superstar on his CV. Agree though, from my very hazy recollection of the fight at the time, I remember the writing was pretty much on the wall as far as Hagler was concerned.

Ive heard the story before - I think its mentioned in George Kimballs "Four Kings". I think it also mentions that after the fight a disconsolete Hagler couldnt sleep so he went out walking in the middle of the night just to get some peace. He came across a couple of workers who were unloading crates of beer from a truck. One of them recognised Hagler and offered him six pack. Hagler then sat down a had his first drink in years and made up his mind to retire that night as the story goes.

Atila wrote:It's easy to say he shouldn't have agreed to any concessions but he received a $12 million guarantee and millions more from closed circuit, a massive, massive payday for 1987. Hagler needed money just like every fighter does and he might have felt that if he didn't agree to Leonard's demands then there would be no fight.

Hagler must have got a fortune from Hearns plus umpteen other defences. He's $12m richer but with emotional baggage from that fight that will stay with him till he dies. Never been a fan of champs giving concessions or doing catchweights, especially if they're already a huge name like Hagler. Hagler whored away the fight and his reputation.

Fists of Fury wrote:Yes, he is.

I've heard of it Chris, don't worry.

What about when he lost his WBO-intercontinental championship belt v Prescott?

He is undefeated super-lightweight champion of the world. The WBO intercontinental was at lightweight, and is a poxy belt anyway that nobody pays much heed to.

Fists of Fury wrote:He is undefeated super-lightweight champion of the world. The WBO intercontinental was at lightweight, and is a poxy belt anyway that nobody pays much heed to.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Yes, he is.

I've heard of it Chris, don't worry.

What about when he lost his WBO-intercontinental championship belt v Prescott?

Not a world title, and in a different division. If Khan were to retire now, he'd retire as undefeated Light-Welterweight champion in line with boxing tradition.

Had the fight been touted as a fifty-fifty affair beforehand, I doubt Hagler would have made the aforementioned concessions. In trying to understand why Hagler was so willing to give in to Leonard's demands, I think we need to remember that every man and his dog was predicting that he'd destroy Sugar Ray. As the Petronelli brothers stated, they felt it wouldn't have mattered if Leonard had the whole of the parking lot to fight in - they were just one hundred percent sure that Hagler would walk through him for a number of reasons, most of which are understandable from the outset.

Also, I think it's clear to see that had Hagler not been so willing to make such concessions, there would be no fight. Did Hagler need the Leonard bout to establish himself as an all-time great Middleweight? No. But regardless of that, he'd been campaigning for a Leonard fight since 1980 / 1981. He was still seething over that notorious 1982 incident where Leonard invited him to a big public bash - seemingly with the intention of announcing a fight between the two - only to then say he was going to retire right then and there.

I'm sure when he looks back, Hagler wishes he'd done things differently. But hindsight is always 20:20, as they say.

Super D Boon wrote:

Atila wrote:It's easy to say he shouldn't have agreed to any concessions but he received a $12 million guarantee and millions more from closed circuit, a massive, massive payday for 1987. Hagler needed money just like every fighter does and he might have felt that if he didn't agree to Leonard's demands then there would be no fight.

Hagler must have got a fortune from Hearns plus umpteen other defences. He's $12m richer but with emotional baggage from that fight that will stay with him till he dies. Never been a fan of champs giving concessions or doing catchweights, especially if they're already a huge name like Hagler. Hagler whored away the fight and his reputation.

I agree with some of what you say Boon. I personally wish had had followed through with his thoughts on retiring that he made after fighting Mugabi. However, he had always wanted to fight Leonard and the pull of $12m can change a mans thinking.

I too, am against catchweights and concessions, it's getting ridiculous and stupid. The part of your comments that I disagree with is the part about Hagler's reputation. Hagler is still highly rated and seems very popular. Sure losing to Leonard gives people plenty of ammunition to use against him but plenty of people think he deserved the decision.

If Hagler had not agreed to the fight and accepted the concessions, I bet there'd be someone saying that Hagler was scared to fight Leonard.

Perhaps using the term "whored" his reputation was harsh wording as Hagler's place in the pantheon of greats is assured but nevertheless it serves as a lesson to boxers and generally to anyone in any walk of life and that is NOT to sell your soul!

Also, if the fight had not taken place then I doubt too many people would have said Hagler ducked Leonard, as most would have reckoned Leonard would have got mauled anyway.

There is the chance that Gibbs denied a ringside seat to one of the greatest superfights of the modern era wanted to rub it in for being dropped...

Can't see how anyone could have Hagler winning...I had Leonard by 116-112...

Marvin just didn't commit enough..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:There is the chance that Gibbs denied a ringside seat to one of the greatest superfights of the modern era wanted to rub it in for being dropped...

Can't see how anyone could have Hagler winning...I had Leonard by 116-112...

Marvin just didn't commit enough..

I had it 115 -113 for Haglar Truss, contentious - definately, a robbery? Never

fair enough....Hagler definitely lost rather than Leonard winning....

I mean he gave the first four rounds away....Leonard must have nearly died laughing when he came out fighting orthodox..

Pretty much my take on it, horizontal, though I had the 115-113 scoreline in Leonard's favour. One of those fights where anyone could score it to either fighter by a point or two, or indeed have it a draw, and still be 'right' so to speak.

For sure Hagler should've jumped on him like he did hearns..

I hadn't heard that Chris, the other demands that S.R.L. insisted on were well publicised at the time. Despite being a huge fan of Hagler's, I don't think he did enough to win though I could have lived with a draw.

In fairness to Ray he didn't ask for Hagler to come in at 156 etc like Manny would've done..

and In fairness to Ray the fight was won in the ring...his work may not have been as effective but it certainly was more eye-catching..