What if SRL hadn't suffered a detached retina, as reported, and it was not recommended that he retire, and instead, he moved up to 160 and took on the Hagler that Duran went 15 rounds with. What would the outcome have been? Hagler would've been quicker but SRL, without a five year lay-off and having been active, presumably would've been in better form as well. Who do you pick?
With Leonard you never really know as he was too stubborn to lose, but the biggest factor that makes me pick Hagler is that he would not have underrated that version of Ray but instead would have gone after him from the start and pulled out the decision. He did have the tools to win 1987 too but Leonard was tactically superior and imho deserved the close nod
The only explanation for Hagler's performance in 1987 - referring to his sluggish and orthodox start - is that he was certain he would knock SRL out in the late rounds. I think also he was hoping to surprise SRL with his right-handed stance, knowing that SRL probably had a game-plan all set to steal the early rounds - a plan that Hagler thought he could foil by starting in an orthodox stance. It back-fired of course, because SRL, as much training as he must have done fighting south-paws, would always have done better against a fellow right-hander. That much was obvious. In fact, Gil Clancy reported during the fight that SRL was having a lot of trouble dealing with south-paws in the gym. I still think SRL's holding should've been counted against him by the referee. I think he got away with way too much of it throughout the fight. And I'm not referring to the instances when he held the few times he was hurt. I'm referring to his use of holding to shut down Hagler's inside game and set him up for flurries that no doubt won him rounds and gave the impression he was winning, and in some cases dominating Hagler, when in fact, he never hurt Hagler, and certainly never slowed down the pressure that Hagler was applying throughout the fight. There's also the possibility that Hagler was arrogant enough to think he could beat SRL fighting orthodox, which apart from knocking him out, would've been the ultimate humiliation for SRL. What's interesting is that the main-stream know SRL primarily for his fights with Duran, Hagler and Hearns. He lost to one of them officially, and arguably lost to all three. Of course he also beat Hearns and Duran legitimately, and beat Hagler officially. But for all of the flak ODH gets for his victories in close fights against the best competition he could find, it seems to be lost on the public's collective consciousness that SRL barely beat the best competition he ever faced. Of course, in the case of Duran, he requested an immediate rematch - something ODH never did except in the case of PBF. And it's safe to say SRL probably would not have given Hagler a rematch. Still, SRL IMHO split two with Hearns, split two with Duran, and lost to Hagler. That doesn't sound like the invincible fighter everyone talks about today.
The main difference is that Leonard won more fights against greats convicingly. He stopped Benitez (even if the stoppage was questionable, Ray was clearly ahead anyway), stopped Hearns, and made Duran quit. De La Hoya has no clear-cut wins like these. Controversial wins over Whitaker and Quartey (no rematches), controversial loss to Trinidad (no rematch), close but uncontroversial loss to Mosley. I don't count the rematch with Mosley against DLH. If he did something like clearly outbox Whitaker and stop him late (keep in mind Benitez was much closer to peak than Whitaker), make Tito or Mosley quit, or stopped Quartey in the late rounds, then he wouldn't get as much flack. I do like the fact thought that DLH stayed more active later in his career. If he was a part-time fighter than Leonard was a quarter-time fighter. Hagler in 1983 was arguably at his peak in the Sibson fight. He slowed down some later, getting hit with more regularity against the likes of Roldan, Mugabi, and then Leonard. Then again, Leonard in 1983 was better too. I think the 4 years helped him grow more into MW, but he also lacked the stamina of earlier years. Leonard was already showing signs of fatigue in the 5th or 6th against Hagler. This is a guy who finished the 15th strong against Duran after taking a hammering to the body. Sure he used his legs more against Hagler, but he used his legs quite a bit in the Duran rematch and looked full of energy there. If Hagler fights like he did versus Hearns, then I can see it being pretty hard for Leonard to deal with the bigger, stronger Hagler. Leonard had a superior chin to Hearns, but if Hagler's able to force a brawl and get him up close then eventually he may be too much for Leonard. Leonard's footwork was terrific, but Hagler cut off the ring well in that bout. However, will Hagler fight that way? He rarely fought in that manner. If he boxes more patient like usual, moving laterally and a more deliberate forward approach rather than the kamikaze attack against Hearns, then Hagler's still going to have to deal with Leonard's speed, flurries, and movement. Leonard had about an equal reach to Hagler's. If Hagler fights in his usual approach then I can see it going similar in ways to their 1987 fight, ending in a close debatable decision.
Oh Double. You really are pathetic in your attempts to reimagine Leonard as nothing special. And your attempts to dismiss Leonard's LEGITIMATE detached retina injury are even worse. I am still waiting for you to show even a shred of objectivity when discussing boxing. But no...it's still just one horribly slanted post after another...either negatively or positively...depending on how much you like the fighter(s) in question. And You can "IMO" all you like...but the bottom line is that he defeated Hearns and Benitez while both were undefeated. And even though the Benitez stoppage was questionable...Leonard had the fight won at that point. He lost a tough fight to Duran, but then in the rematch fought a smarter fight and frustrated Duran to the point where he quit. He also defeated Duran in their rubber match, which I don't normally think is all that relevant, but if you are going to hold the Hearns rematch against Leonard, then objectively you have to give Leonard credit for the 3rd Duran fight since the fights took place around the same time and Duran was coming off a win over Barkley who had just knocked out Hearns. And Leonard received and deserved the win against Hagler. We can talk about what if's and whatever else...but the bottom line is that Leonard won the fight. Might things have been different if Hagler did some things differently?? Perhaps...but that is all just speculation. What actually matters is what happened in the ring when they fought...and Leonard won. Leonard's wins over Hagler, Hearns, Benitez and Duran trump any of DLH's career achievements by a significant margin. And no one says Leonard was unbeatable...and AGAIN...no fighter is unbeatable. But Leonard fought during a time of remarkably great fighters and when all was said and done...he was first among them. Leonard went 5 - 1 - 1 in those fights. What does DLH have to compare to that? The very debatable wins over Quartey and Whitaker. The wins over a washed-up and undersized Chavez? The "almost-won-but-he-blew-it-by-running-like-a-bitch" peformance against Trinidad? Where are the peformances by DLH against great opposition that rival Leonard's? I'll save you the time..there are none. And here's the best part....I HATED Leonard as a fighter when he fought. I hoped he would lose and cheered against him in every one of his fights that I watched. But despite that...I have no choice to recognize what a great fighter he was because to do otherwise would be ignoring the facts and what unfolded right in front of my eyes.
I'd have to go with MMH in a close one. I think if these guys fought 10 times at any time period Hagler would have won the majority of them.
