Quote Originally Posted by TIC View Post
Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
Hagler-Leonard was a fight I never understood, to be fair. I also felt that wasn't the same Hagler in there that fought Hearns. But the fight before Leonard was against John "The Beast" Mugabi. A dangerous, undefeated, avoided fighter who was 25-0, all by knockout at the time of the fight. It was a brutal war. So toward the end of his career, he took on a dangerous opponent who people thought had a legitimate chance to get Hagler out of there.

Hagler-Hearns was a classic, widely regarded as one of the best 3-round fights in history. Though Hearns came up from super welter, he was 6 foot 1, and his body was better suited for the higher weights, where he ended up fighting.

Prior to that it was Mustafa Hamsho and Juan Domingo Roldan, two very rugged middleweights.

If anything, Hagler ended his career in a manner befitting his great, HOF career. Again... the Leonard fight was strange to me. Both the matchup, the fight, and the outcome.

But none of this lessens Hagler's legacy, nor IMO requires anyone giving him "a pass."
yeah that ray fight sure is a cash out to me. those that say mike mccallum hadn't done anything at middleweight overlook the fact that john mugabi, roberto duran, tommy hearns & ray leonard hadn't done anything of note at the weight either. nothing wrong with that, bernard hopkins probably made his biggest purses against tito & oscar. no one is trying to lessen marvins legacy. one should be able to critique parts of a fighters career without being critical of the whole body of work

You're totally right about being able to critique parts of a fighter's career without being critical of the whole body of work.

Of those you mentioned, I'll talk about Hagler and Hopkins. Hagler was known during his entire career as a warrior. He always took the tough fights. Even those you mentioned (SRL, Hearns, Duran) brought more than enough to the table. Of Hearns in particular, the following must be said. We shouldn't focus on the fact that Hearns was coming up from 154. Fact is he was always too tall for his weight (meaning he had the frame to able to carry more weight). At 160, he looked fit and strong. He even went higher in weight later in his career. The Hearns-Hagler fight was an instant classic... and no one knew beforehand how Hagler would respond from getting hit by those right hands from Hearns. In other words, Hagler took a significant risk.

Hopkins. Yes, he fought both Trinidad and DLH at middle, when neither of them was a true middle. But in Trinidad's case, he had just knocked out a bonafide MW champion in William Joppy. This was part of a MW Championship Series put together by Don King, so yes... Hopkins ended up fighting Trinidad. Plus the public was clamoring for the fight, since Felix had seemingly made the jump to middle with ease. On the other hand, the DLH fight I can't defend. That one I'll put in the category of Hagler-Leonard. DLH didn't belong at middle... and much less in the ring with Hopkins.

But none of this diminishes the career of either Hagler or Hopkins. Both were warriors, and neither looked for the easy way out most of the time (save those two fights). I don't recall either one of them seeking advantages in their big fights... ducking obvious opponents... playing weight games constantly to their favor... protecting their "0"s... or being blatantly favored by judges every time they fought. But yes... we can definitely critique those parts of their careers, without being critical of the whole body of work.

In other cases, one can critique both the end of a fighter's career, and... the whole body of work.