Hagler v Leonard 2 - Should Hagler have asked for a rematch??

and would he have won???

I think Leonard wins a rematch between them......Judging by his exploits against Lalonde I think Leonard probably had more left in the tank!!

Marvin for me did the right thing in quitting....

Well, Hagler DID ask for a rematch, Truss. In fact he chased Leonard for about a year before he gave up all hope entirely.

I used to think that a rematch would have seen Hagler correct his errors from the first bout and gain revenge, but now I tend to find myself backing Leonard, like you. I think Leonard had done Hagler psychologically and Hagler, as he later admitted, just had all the wind taken out of his sails by what he deemed to be the injustice of the verdict when they did box in 1987. Fighting with too much emotion wasn't a good idea against a master of mind games like Ray and, if he'd gone in there trying to rip Leonard's head off, I think he'd have been outpointed again. Hagler was visibly half a step slower than he'd been when he'd taken out the likes of Sibson and Hearns.

I wouldn't have minded being a fly on the wall when the pair of them bumped in to each other in the gents at a Vegas charity ball some years later, mind you. According to Hagler (bearing in mind he'd chased the rematch, probably knowing deep down he'd never get it, for a full twelve months from '87 to '88), it was around 1990 or 1991 and Leonard, whose career was slowly stalling to a halt, shuffled up to the urinal next to Marvin and said, "So, Marvin - how about that rematch this year?"

Hagler said he was so livid and outraged by Leonard's sheer cheek that he was tempted to drag him in to the cubicle and flush his head down the Gary Glitter!

I didn't know that Chris..............good post..

I gave Hagler the first fight and reckon his win would have been more comprehensive. SRL fought his best and Marvin fought a poor fight esp the first 4 rounds. Hagler via ko in 9

azania wrote:I gave Hagler the first fight and reckon his win would have been more comprehensive. SRL fought his best and Marvin fought a poor fight esp the first 4 rounds. Hagler via ko in 9

Do you have a scorecard for it?

Don't worry if not, you can always make one up like your Kessler v Froch card.....

Maybe Marvin should have tried A Hagler v Hearns, Holmes v Spinks 2 opening...........

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

azania wrote:I gave Hagler the first fight and reckon his win would have been more comprehensive. SRL fought his best and Marvin fought a poor fight esp the first 4 rounds. Hagler via ko in 9

Do you have a scorecard for it?

Don't worry if not, you can always make one up like your Kessler v Froch card.....

Ha. I've seen the fight too often. I had it for Marvin by a couple. So did Hugh McIlvenny

Think it's a fight you need to see more than once.....

First time I had it huge for Leonard...with his eye catching work....The next time I saw it... thought that Hagler's work was more effective in some rounds If less NOTICEABLE...

Still think Marvin gave himself to much to do and threw it away though..

I know Hagler will go to his grave saying that he beat Leonard at a canter, and that he was on the wrong end of a disgraceful verdict, but I wonder how much he actually believes what he says, if he does at all.

Hagler's body language after that final bell was telling, I think. The delay in raising his arms to signal any belief that he'd won, that totally out of character dance he did while awaiting the verdict and so on. To me, they were signs of a nervous man who knew that he hadn't done enough to make sure of hanging on to his title, and that it was all in the balance.

The other thing to bear in mind is it is pretty well known Ray stuck it to Marv at the negotiating table first time round in terms of the length of fight, ring size etc. If he could do that as the challenger you have to think he really sticks it to Marv second time around, you would also have to think given how desperate Marv was for the shot he would have agreed to pretty much anything and everything. These can be important little advantages for a fighter to take in with him.

Personally I thought Ray just about snuck the first fight and suspect he would have done the same second time around. Think he was just a bit too cute for Marvin, especially a Hagler who was probably slowing down a step or two.

Hagler doesn't think he did anything but win every fight he ever had! Wouldn't be the most objective judge, I don't suppose. As for Hugh McIlvanney, just about the best writer on boxing who ever lived, but not all that as a scorer of fights. He had Leonard ahead of Hearns in their first fight at time of stoppage and Leonard effectively conning the judges v Hagler with some boxing equivalent of the three-card trick.

Likes a bet, does Hugh, and he's also written beautifully about horse-racing, one of my other great passions. I wonder if once in a while, he's been talking through his pocket when charting the progress of a fight.

The three card trick is what SRL did. The flashy combinations caught the eye but hagler won more rounds imo.

A rematch would have been more conclusive. The fight split opinion. SRL looked the winner but hagler controlled the fight. Tough one to score and can see why sugar got it.

Hagler let himself down in this fight. People forget how long Sugar had been out of the ring, and given Hagler was supposed to be the man at that time, he should have been able to win a clear victory. A rematch would not have been a conclusive Hagler win IMO. Sugar was coming off a huge lay off, and was still able to keep it extremely close. I imagine Ray would have been less rusty the second time around

Hagler would have been more aggressive from the off. He wouldn't have stood off like he did knowing that sugar couldn't hurt him.

I think it was in the great Four Kings book that Leonard's team said they maybe would've gone for a rematch if Hagler hadn't spent so much time trying to convince people they hadn't won in the first place. It makes sense that maybe if he'd accepted the result and let his fans do the talking and demanding it might've happened. The money would've been massive.

I feel for Leonard, because although the Hagler fight was closer than Duran I, it wasn't by much and Leonard never complained about that verdict. He also didn't take too much credit for the Hearns "draw". Pure conjecture but I believe if Hagler had been more dignified Leonard probably would've given him more credit for his performance and maybe even given him the chance to straighten things out in the ring. Although as rowley said, Leonard could've once again owned the negotiating table as he now held all the cards.

Hagler was hardly going to say that he lost the fight. I don't believe srl had any intention of having a rematch.

azania wrote:Hagler would have been more aggressive from the off. He wouldn't have stood off like he did knowing that sugar couldn't hurt him.

Maybe, hard to say.

He didn't have to act as if it was the biggest robbery of all time and that none of the rounds were hard to score and never give Leonard any credit for what was a pretty amazing comeback either.

I see that Leonard's lay off has already been mentioned, but if the lay off didn't bother Leonard that much I don't see why others keep bringing it up. Here's a direct quote from Leonard's book.

SugarRay Leonard wrote:By April, I would be fighting for the first time in thirty-five months, while more than a year would have passed since Hagler’s last bout vs. Mugabi. To me, there would be little difference in the degree of rust. The layoff also meant I had absorbed far fewer blows than Hagler in recent years, and there are only so many hits a fighter can take in his career.

It almost sounds to me that Leonard feels that he is the one with the advantage because he mentions that he has taken less punches in recent years.

Anyways, there's no reason why Hagler should have to admit that he lost if he really felt that he won. From what I remember at the time there were plenty of people who thought that he actually did win.

Back on topic, I would have liked to have seen a rematch later on in 1987. It would have been a massive fight but for some strange reason it didn't happen. I would have favoured Hagler to win it if it had taken place.

More than one reason that it didn't happen, in my view. You can throw in Hagler's intransigence, Leonard's oneupmanship, horrid promoters and anything you choose.

What tends to be forgotten, great occasion though it was, is that this was a pretty poor fight, featuring long stretches where nothing much happened. One of life's great mysteries is why some paper or other (might even have been The Ring) called it the Fight of the Year. It was no such thing; a lot of people didn't see a rematch being any better, either. The truth, amazing though it seems, is that there was no real public appetite for a second installment. My memory is of people wanting Hagler to retire and Leonard to stop strutting. One out of two wasn't bad.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:He didn't have to act as if it was the biggest robbery of all time and that none of the rounds were hard to score and never give Leonard any credit for what was a pretty amazing comeback either.

Perhaps he felt that way. Lets not forget he was the victim of some pretty bad decisions in the past with Antuerfermo and the ridiculous scoring of his Duran fight where he won at a canter yet the judges managed to score it close. That said, he only had himself to blame coming out orthodox and being passive against a fighter who couldn't hurt him. I reckon he underestimated SRL. He feared Hearns hence him coming out like a lunatic.

captain carrantuohil wrote:More than one reason that it didn't happen, in my view. You can throw in Hagler's intransigence, Leonard's oneupmanship, horrid promoters and anything you choose.

What tends to be forgotten, great occasion though it was, is that this was a pretty poor fight, featuring long stretches where nothing much happened. One of life's great mysteries is why some paper or other (might even have been The Ring) called it the Fight of the Year. It was no such thing; a lot of people didn't see a rematch being any better, either. The truth, amazing though it seems, is that there was no real public appetite for a second installment. My memory is of people wanting Hagler to retire and Leonard to stop strutting. One out of two wasn't bad.

None of the above. SRL didn't give rematched to anyone who he felt could beat him. Why not rematch Hearns until years later when the fight was meaningless. Or even Bentitez? The controversy warranted a rematch. Look at the Watson Eubank fight for example. Their first fight was boring and cagey. There was a clamour for a rematch because of the controversial scoring.

Really, when you think they were both past their best its no shock it wasnt that great a fight .

On mvilvanney. A gifted writer but an arrogant jerk, who never uses a simple word when an obscure one will do... and loves letting you know how smart he is.

A week before the fight he dedicates an article to the complete mismatch that was hagler Leonard. How Srl had no right to be in the ring with hagler and was going to take a beating. To be fair, that was the consensus opinion prior to the fight.

I read the same column after the fight expecting some humble. Hugh doesn't do humble. His column claims the judges robbed hagler, had failed to notice the silent beating he dished out. I've watched a lot of boxing and I'm still not sure what a silent beating is.

No beef with anyone thinking hagler won, it was a close fight, and mcilvanney may have genuinely thought he won. But his entire article was dedicated to proving he was right the previous week. When like most people he'd been proved wrong whatever the decision.

In my opinion, mvilvanney's ego matters more to him than his integrity, which i consider something of a flaw in a journalist, even if he is writing features with an angle. He is revered and multi award winning, but his views on this fight carry about as much weight as gordy's.

azania wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:He didn't have to act as if it was the biggest robbery of all time and that none of the rounds were hard to score and never give Leonard any credit for what was a pretty amazing comeback either.

Perhaps he felt that way. Lets not forget he was the victim of some pretty bad decisions in the past with Antuerfermo and the ridiculous scoring of his Duran fight where he won at a canter yet the judges managed to score it close. That said, he only had himself to blame coming out orthodox and being passive against a fighter who couldn't hurt him. I reckon he underestimated SRL. He feared Hearns hence him coming out like a lunatic.

I agree, although I haven't seen the first Vito fight I've read in a few places that it wasn't the robbery history has had us believe and Hagler was simply much poorer than usual that night. Whether or not it was actually a robbery or not of course may not be relevant, as long as Hagler believed it was then it would reinforce his paranoia regarding the judges.

I wouldn't say he feared Hearns, I think Hearns was possibly the first guy Hagler faced whose power he actually had any respect for seen as he was coming of the Duran brutalization, but more importantly he was clearly never going to beat Tommy by outboxing him. To beat Hearns, you've got to risk being knocked out by him. Leonard had to turn slugger and outfight him. Hagler had no other intention but war (the Hearns corner were yelling "Box Tommy! Box!") and Barkley had to wade through vicious punishment before landing the bingo shot. Hagler didn't have much of a choice but to wage war if he wanted to win.

Though a masive Hagler fan I always will think he didn't do enough to get the decision. Maybe his previous fight with Mugabi had taken more out of him than he thought. If there had have been a rematch within the next six months I feel that Hagler would have fought a different fight and got the decision.