Mayweather -v- De La Hoya: The new Leonard -v- Hagler?

Will boxing fans be debating this one for the next 20 years?

Will ODLH fans be coming up with reasons why they think Oscar should have been given the decision in a close fight that he probably just failed to do enough in, just like Marvellous Marvin 20 years ago?

I scored the fight 115-113 in favour of Mayweather; ironically I had exactly the same score in favour of Leonard versus Hagler, although I don't believe that Marvin fought as well as Oscar did against Floyd.

Maybe that tells you something!!!! :laugh: :alcoholic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syntax Error

Will boxing fans be debating this one for the next 20 years?

Will ODLH fans be coming up with reasons why they think Oscar should have been given the decision in a close fight that he probably just failed to do enough in, just like Marvellous Marvin 20 years ago?

I scored the fight 115-113 in favour of Mayweather; ironically I had exactly the same score in favour of Leonard versus Hagler, although I don't believe that Marvin fought as well as Oscar did against Floyd.
Maybe that tells you something!!!! :laugh: :alcoholic:

---

:o :o Are you on crack?

To compare the effort of either man to that of Leonard or Hagler in their fight is absolutely assinine.. Almost as much so as it is to consider it as contraversial a decision.. Hagler was completely dominant in large parts of the fight and hurt Leonard BADLY in many instances as well as dealt a huge accumulation of damage and basically beat the life out of SRL by the end of the fight.. I will always think Hagler edged that fight out after giving away too many early rounds.. But more importantly he fought MUCH more valiantly and was FAR more effective than Oscar was against Floyd.. Hagler applied effective aggression all night long, wore his guy down and landed a lot of very hard flush shots. Oscar didn't land one thing close to any number of shots Hagler was consistently landing.. THe only thing comparable is perhaps the effort put forth by SRL and Floyd. In terms of the effort/tactics put forth by Leonard and Mayweather, there is perhaps a small likeness... THe difference is Floyd only needed to put forth the performance he did and was in control of the fight in doing so, wheras Leonard was forced to dig much much deeper simply to last the distance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syntax Error

Will boxing fans be debating this one for the next 20 years?

Will ODLH fans be coming up with reasons why they think Oscar should have been given the decision in a close fight that he probably just failed to do enough in, just like Marvellous Marvin 20 years ago?

I scored the fight 115-113 in favour of Mayweather; ironically I had exactly the same score in favour of Leonard versus Hagler, although I don't believe that Marvin fought as well as Oscar did against Floyd.

Maybe that tells you something!!!! :laugh: :alcoholic:

---

Re: Mayweather -v- De La Hoya: The new Leonard -v- Hagler?

No not at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syntax Error

Will boxing fans be debating this one for the next 20 years?

Will ODLH fans be coming up with reasons why they think Oscar should have been given the decision in a close fight that he probably just failed to do enough in, just like Marvellous Marvin 20 years ago?

I scored the fight 115-113 in favour of Mayweather; ironically I had exactly the same score in favour of Leonard versus Hagler, although I don't believe that Marvin fought as well as Oscar did against Floyd.
Maybe that tells you something!!!! :laugh: :alcoholic:

---

:o :o Are you on crack?

To compare the effort of either man to that of Leonard or Hagler in their fight is absolutely assinine.. Almost as much so as it is to consider it as contraversial a decision.. Hagler was completely dominant in large parts of the fight and hurt Leonard BADLY in many instances as well as dealt a huge accumulation of damage and basically beat the life out of SRL by the end of the fight.. I will always think Hagler edged that fight out after giving away too many early rounds.. But more importantly he fought MUCH more valiantly and was FAR more effective than Oscar was against Floyd.. Hagler applied effective aggression all night long, wore his guy down and landed a lot of very hard flush shots. Oscar didn't land one thing close to any number of shots Hagler was consistently landing.. THe only thing comparable is perhaps the effort put forth by SRL and Floyd. In terms of the effort/tactics put forth by Leonard and Mayweather, there is perhaps a small likeness... THe difference is Floyd only needed to put forth the performance he did and was in control of the fight in doing so, wheras Leonard was forced to dig much much deeper simply to last the distance.

---

I have never taken crack in my life & I don't agree with you.

Hagler plodded after Leonard, switching between orthodox & southpaw needlessly all night & never realliy put him under too much pressure.

The two times (rounds 9 & 12) where he had Leonard pinned, SRL was able to flurry his way out of trouble.

Marvin was woefully slow that night & that played into SRL's hand.

De La Hoya on the other hand fought avery good tactical fight, but just didn't quite have enough to overcome Floyd.

It doesn't matter how slow Hagler was or appeared to be... What matters is that he applied effective agressiveness and was rewarded for his work, and finished much stronger down the stretch having landed the much more telling blows overall.. It's not at all the case with Oscar against Floyd.. If anything you could compare Oscars tactics moreso to Leonards than Haglers... In that he tried(another key difference) to flurry and steal rounds by being flashier, wheras Floyd was the one sitting down more on his punches and he finished much stronger.. You say it all in your last sentence as far as I'm concerned...Oscar didn't have enough to overcome Floyd.. Hagler had enough to overcome and wear out Leonard and I think he won the fight.. I could never see Oscar winning no matter how much I tried to give him close rounds etc.

it is actually a very similar fight. One guy is being more effective and the other is throwing but not hitting. Although Hagler hit Ray more than Oscar hit Floyd. And Hagler almost had Ray out at the bell it seemed. Floyd was more effective than Ray and should have won by a bigger margin. And I think Ray beat Marvin. I think Marvin was past his prime during Leonard and could not fight effectively anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

it is actually a very similar fight. One guy is being more effective and the other is throwing but not hitting. Although Hagler hit Ray more than Oscar hit Floyd. And Hagler almost had Ray out at the bell it seemed. Floyd was more effective than Ray and should have won by a bigger margin. And I think Ray beat Marvin. I think Marvin was past his prime during Leonard and could not fight effectively anymore.

---

Not really Oscar didn't give away first 4 rounds Hagler didn't gas in last part of fight its not same at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

it is actually a very similar fight. One guy is being more effective and the other is throwing but not hitting. Although Hagler hit Ray more than Oscar hit Floyd. And Hagler almost had Ray out at the bell it seemed. Floyd was more effective than Ray and should have won by a bigger margin. And I think Ray beat Marvin. I think Marvin was past his prime during Leonard and could not fight effectively anymore.

---

See it's this that I can't understand.... So your trying to say that Leonard was more effective, and that Hagler was throwing but not hitting ??? I mean seriously, have you watched the whole fight?? Hagler was much more effective, and landed the much better shots.. Leonard was only effective in fooling the judges with his flurries that did nothing to Hagler.. That sounds more like what Oscar did than Floyd to me...

The real point of this point was not to infer that the fights were similar as such, but to highlight that they were two mega hyped fights that ended with split decisions & controversy.

Leonard -v- Hagler has been debated to death for the last 20 years & we will never get all to agree.

I think the Mayweather -v- De La Hoya bout will be debated in the same way for the next 20 years & will usurp the Leonard -v- Hagler bout in that respect. :band:

I think they are the same in a lot of respects, and thought about this in length on the bus today.

1) Fighter coming out of what was more or less a retirement to fight the best fighter out there.
2) Hagler goes southpaw, De La Hoya stopped jabbing.
3) Stalking fighter versus a slippery fighter, defense won the fight in both cases
4) Neither were fights of the year by any means but tactically thrilling in bouts in which all 4 fighters had high spots.

Well...that's about it but I do think they are very similar and had Saddo's been around them, you would hear a lot of the same stuff you're ehearing now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syntax Error

Will boxing fans be debating this one for the next 20 years?

Will ODLH fans be coming up with reasons why they think Oscar should have been given the decision in a close fight that he probably just failed to do enough in, just like Marvellous Marvin 20 years ago?

I scored the fight 115-113 in favour of Mayweather; ironically I had exactly the same score in favour of Leonard versus Hagler, although I don't believe that Marvin fought as well as Oscar did against Floyd.
Maybe that tells you something!!!! :laugh: :alcoholic:

---

:o :o Are you on crack?

To compare the effort of either man to that of Leonard or Hagler in their fight is absolutely assinine.. Almost as much so as it is to consider it as contraversial a decision.. Hagler was completely dominant in large parts of the fight and hurt Leonard BADLY in many instances as well as dealt a huge accumulation of damage and basically beat the life out of SRL by the end of the fight.. I will always think Hagler edged that fight out after giving away too many early rounds.. But more importantly he fought MUCH more valiantly and was FAR more effective than Oscar was against Floyd.. Hagler applied effective aggression all night long, wore his guy down and landed a lot of very hard flush shots. Oscar didn't land one thing close to any number of shots Hagler was consistently landing.. THe only thing comparable is perhaps the effort put forth by SRL and Floyd. In terms of the effort/tactics put forth by Leonard and Mayweather, there is perhaps a small likeness... THe difference is Floyd only needed to put forth the performance he did and was in control of the fight in doing so, wheras Leonard was forced to dig much much deeper simply to last the distance.

---

You can't compare Leonard, A GREAT, with Floyd Jr. Leonard was there to show off his great boxing skills AND he was also there to FIGHT!!! YES F-I-G-H-T. Please, let's not compare Floyd I-love-to-get-on-my-bicycle-and-throw-one-weak-ass-punch-at-a-time Mayweather! Is he a great boxer? YES, is he GREAT? Nah...needs to beat more quality opponents. Hagler and De La Hoya were there to fight and fight they did...the comparisons end there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

I think they are the same in a lot of respects, and thought about this in length on the bus today.

1) Fighter coming out of what was more or less a retirement to fight the best fighter out there.
2) Hagler goes southpaw, De La Hoya stopped jabbing.
3) Stalking fighter versus a slippery fighter, defense won the fight in both cases
4) Neither were fights of the year by any means but tactically thrilling in bouts in which all 4 fighters had high spots.

Well...that's about it but I do think they are very similar and had Saddo's been around them, you would hear a lot of the same stuff you're ehearing now.

---

I agree with 1, 2, and 4 but not 3. SRL did not win just by defense. He won because he was boxing smart and FIGHTING, not playing defense only. There were some hard shots landed by Sugar Ray, Floyd landed some good pussy counterpunches but nothing like what Leonard landed that day. I would have to see the fight again to make sure, but I believe Floyd landed his hardest punch at the end of the 11th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

it is actually a very similar fight. One guy is being more effective and the other is throwing but not hitting. Although Hagler hit Ray more than Oscar hit Floyd. And Hagler almost had Ray out at the bell it seemed. Floyd was more effective than Ray and should have won by a bigger margin. And I think Ray beat Marvin. I think Marvin was past his prime during Leonard and could not fight effectively anymore.

---

Not really Oscar didn't give away first 4 rounds Hagler didn't gas in last part of fight its not same at all.

---

But Ray gave away the last 3 rounds. Although some gave Ray the 11th, I did not. but the comparisons are very strong. Hagler the stronger guy and Ray the boxer. Had Marvin been active more at the end of 86 with one more fight after Mugabi he would have won those first few rounds. He had to shake off the rust, and coming out orthodox in rounds one and two gave the momentum to Ray even after Marvin switched. The only effective fight he fought against the legends was with Hearns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

it is actually a very similar fight.  One guy is being more effective and the other is throwing but not hitting. Although Hagler hit Ray more than Oscar hit Floyd. And Hagler almost had Ray out at the bell it seemed.  Floyd was more effective than Ray and should have won by a bigger margin. And I think Ray beat Marvin.   I think Marvin was past his prime during Leonard and could not fight effectively anymore.

---

Not really Oscar didn't give away first 4 rounds Hagler didn't gas in last part of fight its not same at all.

---

But Ray gave away the last 3 rounds. Although some gave Ray the 11th, I did not.  but the comparisons are very strong. Hagler the stronger guy and Ray the boxer.  Had Marvin been active more at the end of 86 with one more fight after Mugabi he would have won those first few rounds. He had to shake off the rust, and coming out orthodox in rounds one and two gave the momentum to Ray even after Marvin switched. The only effective fight he fought against the legends was with Hearns.

---

Sorry but it isn't the same at all maybe same sort of styles but fight is totally different Hagler was long reigning champion at that time Oscar had not had many fights and in his last 3 fights had record of 2 wins and 2 losses Leonard threw alot more affective flurries than what Oscar done because sound they were making and they were clean punches and Leonard didn't give away last 3 rounds if i remember he won 12th round and neither Oscar or Floyd gave away first 4 rounds so it isn't same at all plus that fight was alot more closer than Oscar vs Floyd i had Floyd ahead by 3 rounds.

I think the comparison was more the way Hagler was stronger and Ray sort of won the fight with sharper punches, yet the exact same fight is hard to figure. Maybe Meldrick Taylor vs. Julio Cesar Chavez is a better comparison. I did not make the comparison. But it is a common style.. the stronger slower guy against the fast sharper boxer.. But the styles are not exactly the same of coarse not. But there are similarities. Marvin had not fought much in 2 years since he fought Hearns. he only had one fight. Same with Oscar and Hopkins in 2 1/2 years. Hagler was stronger and he was going to use his aggression. The difference of this fight and the Hagler Leonard was that Oscar did everything correct, but Floyd was too good. Hagler not fighting southpaw the first two rounds was the deciding factor in his fight. So Hagler took Ray for granted a little. Something Oscar did not do with Floyd .

if i could sit ringside for either of the two fights HANDS DOWN SRL VS HAGLER!

its a shame our generation gets the shaft and we dont get REAL fights like these :-[

Hagler did way better against Leonard than Oscar did against Mayweather, especially considering Leonard ran alot more than Mayweather did. ANyways I have Mayweather up alot more than just 2 rounds in the fight as should most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

Hagler did way better against Leonard than Oscar did against Mayweather, especially considering Leonard ran alot more than Mayweather did. ANyways I have Mayweather up alot more than just 2 rounds in the fight as should most.

---

I'm not sure Leonard ran more, but he landed some solid shots on Hagler...some good combinations too. Mayweather would run run run and throw 1 or 2 shots. I didn't really see Hagler blocking a lot of shots. Oscar, however, was blocking shots. Leonard was GREAT, Floyd is very good.

Hagler was not sharp for the Leonard fight, and I know some people say well Ray is the reason he was not sharp, and there is some truth to it. Ray was a great fighter, but Hagler was not sharp like with his other defenses. He came in 158 and then fought the first two rounds southpaw and he had not fought in 13 months. I think the Hagler who fought Hearns would have beaten Ray. I am not sure he would have knocked out Ray but I am pretty sure he would have. Seems like being inactive really hurt Marvin Hagler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

Hagler was not sharp for the Leonard fight, and I know some people say well Ray is the reason he was not sharp, and there is some truth to it. Ray was a great fighter, but Hagler was not sharp like with his other defenses. He came in 158 and then fought the first two rounds southpaw and he had not fought in 13 months. I think the Hagler who fought Hearns would have beaten Ray. I am not sure he would have knocked out Ray but I am pretty sure he would have. Seems like being inactive really hurt Marvin Hagler.

---

Well Ray was even more less sharp he hadn't fought for 3 years and had 2 fights in 5 years if i remember right so we could say if Ray was at his sharpest what would of happened would it have been more clear cut ?? your never know because its all ifs bro don't go on ifs 8)

This is a message board so I figure saying if and whys and discussions are what we want on the boxing board here. :) Alot of these boards say if Marvin fought Bernard, or if Ray fought Tito. As for the discussion, Ray was fighting simulated fights in the gym with Quincy Taylor the middleweight out of Dallas, Texas for one year before the April 6, 1987 fight. so he was not necessarily inactive, and in those same years Hagler had gone from active -2 fights in 1984, one in 1985, one in 1986, and in those 1985 and 1986 fights he took hard punches which in my mind took alot out of him. The key is motivation and timing and Ray played this perfectly, which is why Marvin is so mad at him to this day. In retrospect he knows Ray got the best of him in and out of the ring. As for Marvin's inactivity, he had broke his nose in training for Mugabi and the Nov. 1985 card was postponed to March 10, 1986, but the fact is he did not get in much sparring for Mugabi because the Petronellis wanted to prevent his nose from being reinjured. The years 1984-1987 were harder on Marvin physically, Ray was inactive in the ring yet those simulated fights and his advantages he sought were the equalizers, and Ray was concentrating wholly on Marvin anyway and had been studying him while working for HBO, whereas Marvin didn't know what Ray was up to. the fact that Ray fought better against Marvin than he did against Lalonde and Hearns shows how preparation was important as well as style, but do not underestimate the intelligence of Ray Leonard to know when to fight Marvin and how to get all the advantages. Ray first announced in May, 1986 from a Baltimore TV station that he wanted to fight Marvin, Marvin Hagler took a month to respond, and when he did he said he was not sure he was going to fight Ray. Of coarse later he said he would and the fight was announced in Nov, 1986. As for Ray, in the years since his 1984 fight he had bulked up and waited until Marvin got a little slower or in Ray's mind he had an advantage- he had studied Marvin and he was a great fighter. but the advantage is what Ray in his later years always looked for to win fights. example Lalonde weight 168 fighting in defense of his 175 title, or Hearns having to weigh 164 in the rematch. Why else would he have picked the time of May, 1986 to fight Marvin instead of May, 1985 right after Marvin fought Hearns? Looking at that era and using what I know about those fighters Hearns,Duran,Leonard,Hagler, I have come to some conclusions. it is not excusing Marvin but it is putting everything into account from Ray's perspective and Marvin's. I think that the Marvin of 1985 on the night he beat Hearns would have beat Ray Leonard no doubt in my mind and I think I have put in this post some good facts to support why I think this. Intangibles. Intangibles which no one else thought of except Ray. Winning the fight before the bell for the first round rings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

This is a message board so I figure saying if and whys and discussions are what we want on the boxing board here. ;) Alot of these boards say if Marvin fought Bernard, or if Ray fought Tito.  As for the discussion, Ray was fighting simulated fights in the gym with Quincy Taylor the middleweight out of Dallas, Texas  for one year before the April 6, 1987 fight. so he was not necessarily inactive, and in those same years Hagler had gone from active -2 fights in 1984, one in 1985, one in 1986, and in those 1985 and 1986 fights he took hard punches which in my mind took alot out of him. The key is motivation and timing and Ray played this perfectly, which is why Marvin is so mad at him to this day. In retrospect he knows Ray got the best of him in and out of the ring.  As for Marvin's inactivity, he had broke his nose in training for Mugabi and the Nov. 1985 card was postponed to March 10, 1986, but the fact is he did not get in much sparring for Mugabi because the Petronellis wanted to prevent his nose from being reinjured.  The years 1984-1987 were harder on Marvin physically,  Ray was inactive in the ring yet those simulated fights and his advantages he sought were the equalizers, and Ray was concentrating wholly on Marvin anyway and had been studying him while working for HBO, whereas Marvin didn't know what Ray was up to. the fact that Ray fought better against Marvin than he did against Lalonde and Hearns shows how preparation was important as well as style, but do not underestimate the intelligence of Ray Leonard to know when to fight Marvin and how to get all the advantages.  Ray first announced in May, 1986 from a Baltimore TV station that he wanted to fight Marvin, Marvin Hagler took a month to respond, and when he did he said he was not sure he was going to fight Ray.  Of coarse later he said he would  and the fight was announced in Nov, 1986.  As for Ray, in the years since his 1984 fight he had bulked up and waited until Marvin got a little slower or in Ray's mind he had an advantage- he had studied Marvin and he was a great fighter. but the advantage is what Ray in his later years always looked for to win fights.  example Lalonde weight 168 fighting in defense of his 175 title, or Hearns having to weigh 164 in the rematch. Why else would he have picked  the time of May, 1986 to fight Marvin instead of May, 1985 right after Marvin fought Hearns? Looking at that era and using what I know about those fighters Hearns,Duran,Leonard,Hagler,  I have come to some conclusions.  it is not excusing Marvin but it is putting everything into account from Ray's perspective and Marvin's. I think that the Marvin of 1985 on the night he beat Hearns would have beat Ray Leonard no doubt in my mind.

---

Simulated fights are totally different from real fights fact of matter is Hagler had more ring time in proper fights Maybe Leonard did pick him at right time but fact of matter is he still won having been very rusty and way above his natural weight and you can't say Hagler would of won for certain because Leonard was hell of a fighter and active Leonard vs active Hagler prime for prime at Middleweight is toss up and you say he didn't fight as good vs Hearns in rematch actually i think he fought quite well except kds and that was at supermiddleweight anyway and Lalonde was at lightheavyweight and was big puncher.

Hate to go off topic but by the way just see this on boxrec and since you know alot about Hearns Hagler Duran and Leonard era do you remember this fight Hearns vs Weston i see it on boxrec and this is review of the fight




AS evidenced by the closeness of the scorecards, Weston gave Hearns alot of trouble. He was an elusive target that was hard for Hearns to hit.

The simulated fights for Ray worked well. A week before the fight Quincy Taylor hurt Ray Leonard in sparring). Ray was going to try and really fight Marvin toe to toe(this is what Ray said but who knows if he is telling the truth) but Taylor hurting him made him change his mind and box. As for Ray fighting Marvin when both are prime? Well that is another discussion if Ray prime could beat Marvin prime. Let's say they fought in 1983 (giving him a year to bulk up after the Finch fight)when Ray had time to bulk up a little to middleweight. He did fight Kalule at 154 so he could probably come in weighing 156/157 like he said he would at the time. It is hard to figure this fight but in my mind Ray beats Marvin in 1982 similar to 1987 but using more movement and Ray not being on the ropes as much as in 1987 and using sharper combinations.. My point was that Ray in 1986 used his intelligence out of the ring to get the advantages he needed to beat Marvin in April 1987, yet those advantages would not have worked in 1985 when Marvin used his physical strength effectively. As for Ray, he needed those advantages in 1986/1987 since he was inactive for a few years, but he also knew he could get the equalizers since Marvin was slowing down. And he did. In 1982 he had enough skills to not need the advantages I think. Although 15 rounds against Marvin would have been tough. But Ray would have done it I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

The simulated fights for Ray worked well. A week before the fight Quincy Taylor hurt Ray Leonard in sparring). Ray was going to try and really fight Marvin toe to toe(this is what Ray said but who knows if he is telling the truth) but Taylor hurting him made him change his mind and box. As for Ray fighting Marvin when both are prime? Well that is another discussion if Ray prime could beat Marvin prime. Let's say they fought in 1983 (giving him a year to bulk up after the Finch fight)when Ray had time to bulk up a little to middleweight. He did fight Kalule at 154 so he could probably come in weighing 156/157 like he said he would at the time. It is hard to figure this fight but in my mind Ray beats Marvin in 1982 similar to 1987 but using more movement and Ray not being on the ropes as much as in 1987 and using sharper combinations.. My point was that Ray in 1986 used his intelligence out of the ring to get the advantages he needed to beat Marvin in April 1987, yet those advantages would not have worked in 1985 when Marvin used his physical strength effectively. As for Ray, he needed those advantages in 1986/1987 since he was inactive for a few years, but he also knew he could get the equalizers since Marvin was slowing down. And he did. In 1982 he had enough skills to not need the advantages I think. Although 15 rounds against Marvin would have been tough. But Ray would have done it I think.

---

Fair enough agreed with that :coolclick: for the debate could you have look above your post bro see if you have seen that fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Hate to go off topic but by the way just see this on boxrec and since you know alot about Hearns Hagler Duran and Leonard era do you remember this fight Hearns vs Weston i see it on boxrec and this is review of the fight




AS evidenced by the closeness of the scorecards, Weston gave Hearns alot of trouble. He was an elusive target that was hard for Hearns to hit.

---

IceCold. I am not that knowledgeble on that era really but it was more when I was at the age where I remember alot of it, and about Weston/Hearns that was before my time I think 1979 when I was 14, but I watched it once at my friends. Weston had Hearns against the ropes and he was giving Hearns a tough time, and Hearns hit Weston with counters and somehow detached his retina-although who knows if Weston didn't have damage before that fight.. It was a sad ending to Weston's career.. You are exactly right about the Weston fight. That was the one fight Hearns was in jeopardy of losing prior to his title fight with Cueves. That would have derailed Hearns. Weston thinks Hearns thumbed him purposely since he was losing. I remember that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Hate to go off topic but by the way just see this on boxrec and since you know alot about Hearns Hagler Duran and Leonard era do you remember this fight Hearns vs Weston i see it on boxrec and this is review of the fight




AS evidenced by the closeness of the scorecards, Weston gave Hearns alot of trouble. He was an elusive target that was hard for Hearns to hit.

---

IceCold. I am not that knowledgeble on that era really but it was more when I was at the age where I remember alot of it, and about Weston/Hearns that was before my time I think 1979 when I was 14, but I watched it once at my friends. Weston had Hearns against the ropes and he was giving Hearns a tough time, and Hearns hit Weston with counters and somehow detached his retina-although who knows if Weston didn't have damage before that fight.. It was a sad ending to Weston's career.. You are exactly right about the Weston fight. That was the one fight Hearns was in jeopardy of losing prior to his title fight with Cueves. That would have derailed Hearns. Weston thinks Hearns thumbed him purposely since he was losing. I remember that.

---

Thanks for the info i must try and get some footage of that fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Hate to go off topic but by the way just see this on boxrec and since you know alot about Hearns Hagler Duran and Leonard era do you remember this fight Hearns vs Weston i see it on boxrec and this is review of the fight




AS evidenced by the closeness of the scorecards, Weston gave Hearns alot of trouble. He was an elusive target that was hard for Hearns to hit.

---

Hearns did have a certain sharpness to his punches which caused detached retinas.. He did not purposely do it ,but Weston, Leonard and Olajide all sort of had eye problems after fighting Hearns. Although I am not sure Olajide's eye problem was due to Hearns. I think he had them before that. The Weston fight I think ended in round 5 or 6. So Weston had to be taking alot of punches to that point. But Hearns thumbing him was far fetched for Weston to claim. And to this day I think he still claims it. In no way am I saying Hearns purposely would hurt someones eye. I just think he had a certain sharpness to his punches and his jab which did alot of damage.