Sunday, September 13, 2009

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.

No comments: