Hagler on the Leonard Fight

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.

How to Rank the Fabulous Five Pound-for-Pound

Of the four notable fighters of the early 1980s - Wilfred Benetiz, Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, and Ray Leonard - Hagler is the outstanding candidate for the top spot. He not only defeated Duran (over 15 rounds), Hearns (by knockout), and Leonard (but was robbed in Las Vegas), but defeated other outstanding fighters, including Mustapha Hamsho, who held a win over Benitez, and Juan Roldan, who thrilled fans with a shotout versus Hearns for the vacant WBC middleweight title. There is little doubt among boxing observers that Hagler would have overpowered Benitez.

Duran decisively defeated Leonard, put on a fabulous, albeit losing, performance against Hagler, and won the WBC middleweight title by defeating Iran Barkley, who had knocked out Hearns (and would go on to decision Hearns at light heavyweight). Duran overwhelmed Carlos Palomino, whom Benitez had, in a controversial split decision, defeated for the world welterweight title. Moreover, Duran was world lightweight champion for nearly the entire decade of the 1970s, posting 12 successful title defenses. Against Duran are these facts: Duran suffered a crushing defeat to Hearns (second round blowout) and was outboxed by Benitez (granted Duran was flat for the fight).

Hearns was cleanly outboxing Leonard in their first fight before the referee inexplicably stopped the action and awarded the fight to Leonard. In fact, over the first 12 rounds, except for two rounds, Leonard appeared to be completely baffled by Hearns' boxing ability. Hearns outboxed master boxer Benitez and blew away Duran and Roldan. He outpointed Leonard in the rematch, dropping him twice. Hearns moved up in weight to win the WBA and the WBC light heavyweight titles in separate fights. Hearns' boxing ability was phenomenal, losing only one decision during his entire career, a close loss to Iran Barkley in their rematch. However, Hagler blew Hearns away and he was wiped out by Iran Barkey to lose his middleweight title.

It is difficult to rank Benitez above Duran even though he defeated him because of Duran's accomplishments, particularly his victory over Leonard (and especially in light of Benitez's loss to Leonard), and his performances against Hagler and Barkley. We can't rank him over Hearns given that he dropped a decision to Hearns.

However, it's difficult to rank Leonard over Benitez. Benitez defeated Palomino, who lost to Duran, defeated Duran, to whom Leonard lost, and lost a close decision to Hearns, who had clearly demonstrated his superiority over Leonard. The Benitez who defeated Duran and fought a close contest with Hearns would have likely have outboxed Leonard. And Leonard's unjust 14th-round stoppage against Hearns should not benefit Leonard in these rankings.

Leonard has trouble against the others because of the reality of his record. He rose to challenge for the welterweight title without having to fight outstanding opposition. He won the title on a controversial 15th-round stoppage against Benitez. He was thoroughly dominated by Duran and regained the title when Duran couldn't continue in a fight where there was no clear leader (it is itself quite revealing that Leonard could not dominate an opponent who would only hours later be hospitalized for severe stomach cramps). Leonard lost almost every round against Hearns (he maybe won two of the 13 rounds) before the referee stopped the fight without cause and awarded the title to Leonard. Leonard lost to a shop-worn Hagler over twelve rounds. Leonard lost to Hearns in the rematch and was knocked down twice. And while Leonard outpointed Duran over 12 rounds in their rubbermatch, Duran was 38 years old and Leonard refused to engage Duran in battle (in my view it should have been ruled a "no contest," as Leonard effectively refused to fight).

So after a comparative analysis, the rankings of the fabulous five look like this:

1. Roberto Duran: world lightweight champion, 12 successful title defense; world welterweight champion; and WBC middleweight champion. Held wins over Palomino, Leonard, Cuevas, and Barkley. Capturing titles in two more weight classes after having dominated a division for nearly a decade is nothing short of phenomenal. Duran is a top five all-time great.

2. Marvin Hagler, world middleweight champion, 12 successful title defenses, including wins over Duran and Hearns, as well as wins over Antuofermo, Hamsho, and Roldan. If there was justice in scoring, Hagler would have 13 successful title defenses. Hagler is clearly the best middleweight of the five and the best middleweight in history. He is a top ten all-time great.

3. Thomas Hearns, WBC middleweight champion (clearest claim on the world title), WBA light heavyweight champion, and WBC light heavyweight (clearest claim on the world title) champion. Held wins over Cuevas, Duran, Benitez, and Roldan. He beat Leonard in their rematch, and he was the victim of a serious injustice in their first fight. He proved in both fights that he could outbox Leonard. While Hearns was among the ten best welterweights and middleweights, crushing defeats to Hagler and Barkley put him outside the top ten all-time pound-for-pound rankings.

4. Wilfred Benitez and Ray Leonard (tie). Benitez defeated Duran whereas Leonard lost to Duran. Benitez did far better against Hearns than did Leonard. A prime Benitez would have done as well as Leonard against an old and faded Hagler. At the same time Leonard was outboxing Benitez in their match before the referee stopped it. Neither fighter is a top 20 all-time great, though.

Why Jersey Joe Walcott cannot possibly be an all-time top ten heavyweight

Here are the reasons:

1. Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, George Foreman, Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Michael Spinks, Lennox Lewis, Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano must be ranked ahead of him for the simple fact that they would beat him. Even a badly faded Joe Louis knocked out Walcott. There are many other heavyweights who would beat Walcott, including Ken Norton, Ron Lyle, Floyd Patterson, and Tim Witherspoon. In fact, I don't have time to list all the heavyweights who would beat Walcott.

2. Walcott's record is miserable. He lost 18 times against 51 wins. Of those 18 losses, six of them were by way of knockout. He was knocked out by Abe Simon in six. Ever seen any film of Abe Simon? Then you know what I'm talking about. He was knocked out by Abe Ettore in eight. Light heavyweight Tiger Jack Fox knocked out Walcott in eight, too. Fox whipped him on points in the rematch. He lost to 11-15-1 Johnny Allen. He lost to tough but rather ordinary light heavyweight Joey Maxim and only managed majority and split decisions over him in subsequent matches. He twice lost to Charles (by wide margins in the first fight 73-77, 72-78, and 72-78, and even wider margins in the rematch of 70-80, 66-84, and 67-83, as well as being dropped for a 9 count) and was gifted a win in their fourth encounter (but nobody much cared because they couldn't stand seeing the two of them fight a fifth time). He lost to Rex Layne by scores of 2-6, 3-6, 3-6 in a fight in which he was a 4-1 favorite. When you are that cleanly outboxed by Rex Layne there is no spot for you on a top ten list. Walcott did not avenge this lost.

3. His only significant accomplishment was to become (at that time) the oldest heavyweight champion. What were his notable wins? He had one: a seventh round one-punch knockout of Ezzard Charles, a shop-worn natural light heavyweight (how Walcott got a third match with Charles is a testament to the tragic condition of the heavyweight division at the time). He lost a split decision to an out-of-shape and shot-worn Joe Louis that many observers thought he won, but then he was destroyed in the rematch. He was boxing well against Rocky Marciano, but then Rocky was a natural light heavyweight with very limited skills - and in the end Marciano knocked out Walcott with a single punch. Marciano knocked out Walcott in the first round of the rematch.

I don't mean to sound rude, but this must be said: if you believe Walcott is a top ten heavyweight, then you simply don't understand what great boxing is. You are letting a Cinderella story cloud your judgment. You are operating on sentiment and not reason. Walcott was a journeyman who lucked into the title because he boxed in the worst era in the history of the heavyweight division. Again, I apologize for my bluntness.

Boxing observers who believe Walcott is a great heavyweight are like amateur philosophers who extol the virtues of Ayn Rand's writing.

Hagler versus the Judges

It was always a relief to see Marvin Hagler beating an opponent into submission because you knew that, if the fight had gone the distance, Hagler was at the mercy of judges who often did not fully appreciate his work.

Hagler's fight in 1987 with Ray Leonard was the epitome of the way judges treated Hagler in the scoring. I was hoping he would knock out Leonard because I didn't feel good at all about how the judges would decide the fight, Leonard being the media darling and all. The judges were going to be focused on everything Leonard did and ignore Hagler's work, which was often subtle. Hagler didn't knock out Leonard and my worst fears were realized. Of major news organizations covering the fight, Hagler drew or won on eight of 14 cards. The Associated Press had Hagler winning 117-112, which is about what I had after 12 rounds. However, the official decision was split, with one judge awarding the fight to Hagler and the other two giving the fight to Leonard, one by a ridiculous 8 point margin. Hagler threw many more punches than Leonard according to punchstat numbers, 792 to 629. That Hagler was the busier fighter was obvious. What wasn't obvious were punchstat numbers showing that Leonard landed 15 more punches than Hagler (291-306). In any case, that is not a significant difference and Hagler's punches were the cleaner and harder of the two boxers, often staggering Leonard. Hagler controlled the pace throughout most of the fight and assumed control after the fourth round. For his part, Leonard ran and flurried, punched low, slapped, spun, clowned. It was a major league robbery.

Another notable case was Hagler and Antuofermo 1979 scrap. This was Hagler's first shot at the title and easily his toughest fight at the championship level. Hagler dominated the first half of the match. Antuofermo turned it on in the eighth and fought like a man possessed from that point onward. Hagler stepped up his game, too, and the fight descended into trench warfare. Hagler dominated more of the exchanges, but Antuofermo's intensity was impressive and he lept it close, even winning some rounds. More ringside observers believe Hagler won the fight rather handily. I agree. However, one judge saw it for Antuofermo (by a ridiculous margin) and another scored the fight even. Thus the fight was declared a draw and Hagler was viewed as the uncrowned champion. Ironically, Antuofermo put forth a much better fight against Hagler than did Leonard, yet most people believe Hagler was robbed in the Antuofermo fight.

Hagler-Duran 1984. Hagler won this fight by a wide margin in my view, however, two of the three judges at Duran ahead the end of the 12th round. Hagler turned it on in the last three rounds to pull out the victory. Both fights put on a grand display of boxing savvy. Duran was especially impressive given that he had moved up from welterweight (before that he was the long-standing lightweight champion). Why the judges had it so close is a bit of a mystery, though. Hagler's physical advantages made it very difficult for Duran to dominate exchanges. He kept it close by using his boxing skills. But Hagler clear one.