Hopkins vs Leonard & Hearns

by hazharrison Fri 13 Feb 2015, 5:35 pm

How does Hopkins get on with these two at middleweight?

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 13 Feb 2015, 5:42 pm

I'd say Hoppo beats both but not with any conviction..........

Hearns lands a Shuler right it's curtains for anybody..........But Hoppo was very good defensively so you'd fancy him mid to late.....

Leonard may mess him about and outwork him..........But I'd expect Hoppo to come on late...Leonard has the capacity to nick a decision......

Hoppo ko 6 Hearns

Hoppo MD Leonard...........

by **Seanusarrilius** Fri 13 Feb 2015, 5:48 pm

Good fantasy fights. I think Hopkins chin would hold out long enough against Hearns for him to knock him out late. Possible whilst down on cards. I think Leonard would beat Hopkins over the distance. Are these 15 or 12 round fights? Guessing 12 as Hopkins never had to go 15.

by hazharrison Fri 13 Feb 2015, 5:53 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'd say Hoppo beats both but not with any conviction..........

Hearns lands a Shuler right it's curtains for anybody..........But Hoppo was very good defensively so you'd fancy him mid to late.....

Leonard may mess him about and outwork him..........But I'd expect Hoppo to come on late...Leonard has the capacity to nick a decision......

Hoppo ko 6 Hearns

Hoppo MD Leonard...........

I think Hearns deals with Hopkins - outboxes him and floors him en route to a decision.

Leonard would be a pick 'em but I'll go for Ray's greater propensity to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Leonard on points in a dull fight.

by milkyboy Fri 13 Feb 2015, 6:15 pm

My initial thought was Hopkins x 2, assuming we're looking at the Hopkins that fought trinidad, keeping the workrate high. I have a sneaking suspicion though that someone like hearns if he stuck to a boxing plan, might be able to sneak a decision against Bhop.

We only ever saw Leonard at middle at the tail end of his career, but he looked ponderous, relative to his prime. He's not a guy you write off, but he was just never a middleweight for me. Given this is a great champion against 2 great fighters above the weights they looked their best, the percentage call is Hopkins.

How many posts can this thread go, before it turns on the direction we're all expecting?!

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 13 Feb 2015, 6:30 pm

I'm on my best behaviour..........Milky..

Problem with Tommy by decision............Is he wasn't the smartest operator even though he was truly gifted.....and twelve rounds is a long time with his chin as Roldan, Kinchen and Barkley showed........

by catchweight Fri 13 Feb 2015, 6:55 pm

Hearns and leonard on points.

by milkyboy Fri 13 Feb 2015, 7:14 pm

True enough truss. Hoppo wasn't generally a 1 punch guy, and often didn't follow up when he had guys hurt. Tommy did manage the odd win on points. Like I said, initial thought was Hopkins but I could see tommy sneaking it... Notwithstanding the ever present risk of getting sparked!

by catchweight Fri 13 Feb 2015, 7:22 pm

Hopkins struggled with better, quicker boxers.

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 13 Feb 2015, 7:25 pm

Hopkins decisions Leonard and stops Hearns, Ray had no form at the weight and fighting for 30 seconds a round wouldn't work against BHop. Hearns would eventually fold, he can't go the full 12 rounds without clocked.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 13 Feb 2015, 7:27 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Hopkins decisions Leonard and stops Hearns, Ray had no form at the weight and fighting for 30 seconds a round wouldn't work against BHop. Hearns would eventually fold, he can't go the full 12 rounds without clocked.

Great minds think a like..

by hazharrison Fri 13 Feb 2015, 7:30 pm

Hopkins didn't have the punch to stop Hearns and I don't think he'd work hard enough. Hearns was a beautiful boxer when he wanted to be (think Hill and Benitez). He'd be too quick and too skilful.

Hopkins would stand a better chance with Leonard.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 13 Feb 2015, 7:31 pm

hazharrison wrote:Hopkins didn't have the punch to stop Hearns and I don't think he'd work hard enough. Hearns was a beautiful boxer when he wanted to be (think Hill and Benitez). He'd be too quick and too skilful.

Hopkins would stand a better chance with Leonard.

He didn't have the punch to stop Hearns.................Hearns chin was very dodgy at 160..............Roldan wasn't a hitter..

by catchweight Fri 13 Feb 2015, 7:36 pm

Hearns and leonard are all wrong for hopkins.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 13 Feb 2015, 7:40 pm

catchweight wrote:Hearns and leonard are all wrong for hopkins.

Not at middle..........Hearns v hoppo would be similar to Nunn - Toney..........

by catchweight Fri 13 Feb 2015, 7:43 pm

by hazharrison Fri 13 Feb 2015, 7:43 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
hazharrison wrote:Hopkins didn't have the punch to stop Hearns and I don't think he'd work hard enough. Hearns was a beautiful boxer when he wanted to be (think Hill and Benitez). He'd be too quick and too skilful.

Hopkins would stand a better chance with Leonard.

He didn't have the punch to stop Hearns.................

Correct.

Hearns was only stopped by bangers in Leonard, Hagler and Barkley (and Barkley hit lightning in a bottle that night).

Hopkins could wear fighters down but rarely pinged anyone top drawer out (he dominated Trinidad - who still almost made the cards). I can't see him dominating Hearns sufficiently to wear him down.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 13 Feb 2015, 7:46 pm

Yes but he was on the edge of being stopped by Roldan...Kinchen who were both ordinary fighters....without a shot.....

Hoppo punched as hard as them...........Ask Oscar and Tito..

by hazharrison Fri 13 Feb 2015, 7:53 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
catchweight wrote:Hearns and leonard are all wrong for hopkins.

Not at middle..........Hearns v hoppo would be similar to Nunn - Toney..........

Only if you have Hearns in the Toney role. If anyone was getting dropped it would be Hopkins.

Nunn was a beautiful boxer/athlete but lacked something.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 13 Feb 2015, 7:54 pm

Hearns couldn't take a shot at 160 + ......Lost his legs after Hagler..

by hazharrison Fri 13 Feb 2015, 8:03 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yes but he was on the edge of being stopped by Roldan...Kinchen who were both ordinary fighters....without a shot.....

Hoppo punched as hard as them...........Ask Oscar and Tito..

Roldan was a strong puncher and he landed one hell of a shot. Kinchen was up at 168 and Hearns was coming off the back of the devastating Barkley knockout. I'd give Hopkins every chance against THAT Hearns.

The version from a couple years prior, though, was too good.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 13 Feb 2015, 8:04 pm

He was a mauler...........

by hazharrison Fri 13 Feb 2015, 8:10 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He was a mauler...........

Yeah, strong, clubbing puncher. He was swinging for the fences against Hearns.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 13 Feb 2015, 8:13 pm

The way I see it is.............You don't need a big smack to put Hearns in trouble.......

Hoppo had a decent smack........

But there you go.....You see what you want to see !!

by AdamT Fri 13 Feb 2015, 10:34 pm

For me Hopkins probably wins both but think Tommy is probably the tougher fight.

Both guys lose easily to Jones at middle for me.

by rapidringsroad Sat 14 Feb 2015, 1:09 am

Hearns if he fought like he did against Schuler and Duran would have stopped Hopkins,but I think Leonard would have to have been at his very best to sneak a majority decision in my opinion.

by Strongback Sat 14 Feb 2015, 1:48 am

Leonard v Hopkins would be a draw, their wouldn't be a punch thrown in anger.

by milkyboy Sat 14 Feb 2015, 7:47 am

Hmmn, seen a lot of Leonard strongy?

by Strongback Sat 14 Feb 2015, 11:25 am

milkyboy wrote:Hmmn, seen a lot of Leonard strongy?

I think he uses stick and move tactics against the bigger man. Given Hoppo would put the proverbial glass eye to sleep it would end up a bore fest.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sat 14 Feb 2015, 3:34 pm

Strongback wrote:
milkyboy wrote:Hmmn, seen a lot of Leonard strongy?

I think he uses stick and move tactics against the bigger man. Given Hoppo would put the proverbial glass eye to sleep it would end up a bore fest.

Can't remember ever seeing Leonard in a stinker............Apart from Duran 3 !!...........and that had more to do with Duran being sadly passed it..

Benitez, Green, Finch, Kalule, Hearns, Hagler, Lalonde, Hearns 2, Norris, Camacho, Duran, Duran 2.............

All interesting fights..........I suggest Strongy watches them before commenting......

by Strongback Sat 14 Feb 2015, 3:50 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Strongback wrote:
milkyboy wrote:Hmmn, seen a lot of Leonard strongy?

I think he uses stick and move tactics against the bigger man. Given Hoppo would put the proverbial glass eye to sleep it would end up a bore fest.

Can't remember ever seeing Leonard in a stinker............Apart from Duran 3 !!...........and that had more to do with Duran being sadly passed it..

Benitez, Green, Finch, Kalule, Hearns, Hagler, Lalonde, Hearns 2, Norris, Camacho, Duran, Duran 2.............

All interesting fights..........I suggest Strongy watches them before commenting......

Did Leonard v Hagler live up to the hype?

I watched those fights as a teenager in the 80's generally on delay. I was boxing myself at that time.

Remember the Fight Doctor he exposed your supposed "80's knowledge"on a regular basis.

You're a waffler, you've been hanging around herr waffling for more than a decade.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sat 14 Feb 2015, 4:06 pm

Hagler v Leonard was a great fight....

That's your only rebuttal ... Rolling Eyes

As for your insults...I find you pathetic...So nothing will bother me coming from you !!

by Strongback Sat 14 Feb 2015, 4:21 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hagler v Leonard was a great fight....

That's your only rebuttal ...

As for your insults...I find you pathetic...So nothing will bother me coming from you !!

Hagler v Leonard was a disappoint to most fans at the time given the hype. Ray picked his time to push the fight very well.

Hearns v Hagler was a great fight.

You throw insults out like confetti so you can fu.ck off.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sat 14 Feb 2015, 4:22 pm

Strongback wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hagler v Leonard was a great fight....

That's your only rebuttal ...

As for your insults...I find you pathetic...So nothing will bother me coming from you !!

Hagler v Leonard was a disappoint to most fans at the time given the hype. Ray picked his time to push the fight very well.

Hearns v Hagler was a great fight.

You throw insults out like confetti so you can fu.ck off.

1987 Ko magazine's fight of the year............

You bore me...........Stick to Hearn..

by Strongback Sat 14 Feb 2015, 5:41 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Strongback wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hagler v Leonard was a great fight....

That's your only rebuttal ...

As for your insults...I find you pathetic...So nothing will bother me coming from you !!

Hagler v Leonard was a disappoint to most fans at the time given the hype. Ray picked his time to push the fight very well.

Hearns v Hagler was a great fight.

You throw insults out like confetti so you can fu.ck off.

1987 Ko magazine's fight of the year............

You bore me...........Stick to Hearn..

Surprised you didn't pick Curry's schooling of McCallum.

by milkyboy Sat 14 Feb 2015, 8:17 pm

Strongy has a point, the 5 years with only one fight and unfair advantage in speed Leonard had from being a blown up welter gave him such a huge advantage against the slightly ring weary career middle marvellous one. Whistle

There's no doubt Leonard did think hagler had lost a step... The idea that this gave him a real advantage given how far removed he himself was from prime, is laughable. Two great fighters bit past their best. Not a great fight when you look back on it knowing the result, but a great occasion and one that kept the audience on tenterhooks the wholeway through as the improbable started to look possible.

by Strongback Sat 14 Feb 2015, 8:37 pm

Leonard didn't look like he deteriorated all that much from the layoff. He was 30(?) years of age and hadn't taken a lot of punishment in his career excepting the eye. By all accounts he prepared well for the fight with full on sparring without head guards all well away from the media glare.

I enjoyed watching Leonard despite the sh1t eating grin but I was more a fan of the Hagler and Hearn's type of fighter. That came from the older lads in the gym who I looked up to.

Leonard just too good in every aspect for Mayweather.

by milkyboy Sat 14 Feb 2015, 10:28 pm

By all accounts he did train seriously, behind close doors fights etc. However, He was also drinking heavily and taking coke during the mid 80's, right up to the time of the hagler fight.

He was blowing out of his behind at various times quite early in the fight... His conditioning certainly seemed a factor and probably contributed to him fighting in spurts. Watch Leonard hearns 1, then Leonard hagler back to back, and say he hadn't deteriorated. And I'm not denying that hagler had lost a step too.

We'll have similar conversations about who'd dipped the most, if manny and floyd finally deign to take our money.

by Strongback Sun 15 Feb 2015, 12:16 am

Leonard likes to exaggerate. If he used drugs he has to have used more than anybody else.

I think Duran showed a lot more evidence of hard partying.

The 1st Tommy fight might have softened Leonard up a bit though.

by Atila Sun 15 Feb 2015, 4:34 am

Sugar Ray Leonard wrote:April was a long way off and I was grateful. When I issued the fight to Hagler, I was hoping to get the fight in before the end of the year. Understanding the level of commitment it would require, I didn’t know how long I would be able to maintain it. But as the months dragged on, I began to see the advantage of any delays. In addition to the extra work I could get in, which I needed, the later the fight was staged, the more it would render insignificant that I had been away from the ring for so long. By April, I would be fighting for the first time in thirty-five months, while more than a year would have passed since Hagler’s last bout vs. Mugabi. To me, there would be little difference in the degree of rust. The layoff also meant I had absorbed far fewer blows than Hagler in recent years, and there are only so many hits a fighter can take in his career.

Angelo Dundee wrote:Ray had a lot of time off, but the big key is that Ray was an athlete. While he wasn’t fighting, he was doing roadwork, going to the gym, doing something. The time off made no difference. He was in shape.

by milkyboy Sun 15 Feb 2015, 10:30 am

... Yep there's Leonard exaggerating again! Good you don't believe a word he says Atila. It was worth buying his bio, to help you dish the dirt at every opportunity though fella Laugh

... Must gut you to know that the royalties probably bought him a soya latte. Let's hope he choked on it eh!

The guy has spent large amounts of time trying to show the world how clever he was, to the detriment of his talent and ability, a unique trait among fighters most of whom will tell you they would have won if they hadn't been stupid or unlucky or cheated. He didn't bleat about the close decision in Montreal, he admitted that hearns should have got the nod in their second fight. When he won big fights he talked up the edge he was smart enough to get, not the performance.

Whichever, he was wheezing like a 40 a day smoker at times during the fight. Something we didn't see earlier in his career in higher intensity fights. I don't think he'd mentioned to Angelo that his daily jogs were to the pub or round to his dealers for his nose candy.

Re drugs. Maybe Leonard's wife was exaggerating too when, during divorce proceedings, she listed his drinking and drug taking during the period...

by Strongback Sun 15 Feb 2015, 11:52 am

milkyboy wrote:...

Re drugs. Maybe Leonard's wife was exaggerating too when, during divorce proceedings, she listed his drinking and drug taking during the period...

My wife exaggerates my alcohol intake too.

by kingraf Sun 15 Feb 2015, 1:09 pm

Like Mayweather, I think Leonard takes a lot of pride in being the smartest in the room. There's an archived Sports Illustrated article about Leonard-Hagler after the fact and he does give the impression that he's quite chuffed he outsmarted the lot of them. Arum, Hagler, the judges. Alternatively, in the Hands of Stone 30for30, he got rather annoyed at Duran for not accepting he was outthought

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 15 Feb 2015, 1:25 pm

I just wish all the so called experts and bookmakers were as smart as Atila and Strongy..

Can't believe Leonard wasn't the massive favorite..

by Strongback Sun 15 Feb 2015, 2:36 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I just wish all the so called experts and bookmakers were as smart as Atila and Strongy..

Can't believe Leonard wasn't the massive favorite..

Leonard fooled everybody. Clever lad.

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 15 Feb 2015, 3:44 pm

He certainly fooled me !!............Decked and struggled against a trialhorse... then retired three years earlier..... No doubt for the purpose of fooling Hagler three years later on...

Sherlock Holmes has nothing on this guy...

Makes me feel like going back to Keele...

by milkyboy Sun 15 Feb 2015, 4:13 pm

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

by Atila Sun 15 Feb 2015, 9:54 pm

milkyboy wrote:... Yep there's Leonard exaggerating again! Good you don't believe a word he says Atila. It was worth buying his bio, to help you dish the dirt at every opportunity though fella ... Must gut you to know that the royalties probably bought him a soya latte. Let's hope he choked on it eh!

The guy has spent large amounts of time trying to show the world how clever he was, to the detriment of his talent and ability, a unique trait among fighters most of whom will tell you they would have won if they hadn't been stupid or unlucky or cheated. He didn't bleat about the close decision in Montreal, he admitted that hearns should have got the nod in their second fight. When he won big fights he talked up the edge he was smart enough to get, not the performance.

Whichever, he was wheezing like a 40 a day smoker at times during the fight. Something we didn't see earlier in his career in higher intensity fights. I don't think he'd mentioned to Angelo that his daily jogs were to the pub or round to his dealers for his nose candy.

Re drugs. Maybe Leonard's wife was exaggerating too when, during divorce proceedings, she listed his drinking and drug taking during the period...

milky, I've enjoyed jousting with you over the years on Hagler v Leonard, but I've noticed how you like to flippantly dismiss anyones opinion that disagrees with your own. Who would know better than Leonard and Angelo Dundee on how good a shape Leonard was in going into the Hagler fight? Apparently it's milkyboy who knows best not them. And years ago I remember mentioning on the old Beeb boards that Leonard's ex wife was on a documentary saying that she thought Hagler won the fight against her ex, you dismissed that too, but apparently now she's a creditable source when it comes to the subject of Leonard's drug usage. I guess you're just like me and everyone else in that we choose to believe what suits us. Very Happy

You've now diagnosed Leonard with some sort of mental condition, one where he prefers to appear smart rather than just a great boxer. You've met him I guess, sat down and talked with him? You have a degree in Psychology?

p.s. I never bought his book, I borrowed from the library. If you do buy his book, Leonard has a Facebook page where he says that if you send your book to him with the return postage, he will sign it for you.

by milkyboy Mon 16 Feb 2015, 3:59 pm

You noticed me being flippant eh Sherlock
Whistle

I have my tongue fairly firmly in cheek on this place most of the time... the degree of that, and the degree of dismissiveness varies dramatically depending on who I'm debating with, and the context. The fact that I don't write IMO at the end of each sentence doesn't mean I'm passing off what I say as fact. Otherwise I'd write FACT, at the end of each sentence. Wink

Whichever my views on this subject are nowhere near as entrenched as they probably come across. Given I've regularly debated with hagler fans who don't give an inch. You select information that suits your argument so I select some that suit mine. Has that ever been in doubt? It doesn't necessarily mean that I always believe my angle to be the correct one... sometimes its just an alternative perspective. I do believe leonard won the fight, I believe it had a few swing rounds that you could call either way, and that if you call them for hagler he wins. Close fight no robbery. That's the only opinion that's relevant. Some want to claim its a robbery, some want to say leonard was only even competitive by waiting for hagler to get old and are dismissive of the lay off and weight jump which I don't consider to be a particularly balanced argument. All of that stuff is just fluff.

If you just accepted your guy lost a close decision, and stopped making excuses for him, these debates would never have happened in the first place Wink

... but then we wouldn't have forged a bond that only fierce combat between warriors over a lengthy period of time deliver!

Re your specific points.

You pointed out above, some obviously good sources suggesting Leonard was in shape. I'd already acknowledged that he had a long camp and trained hard. But it wouldn't reflect well on either to suggest otherwise, so i wouldn't expect them to say he was off the pace even if he was. There's being in good shape and there's being prime though. My genuine opinion is that he looked slow of foot (which I guess could just be the extra weight) and that he was blowing harder than in say the duran or hearns fights. Maybe it was the quiet beating from hagler, i wasn't astute enough to see, that made it seem that way.

My point in raising the drug issues is whether he was really able to get back to his prior shape. But of course it's all conjecture. Whilst I might query his wife as an authority on boxing scoring I'm more likely to take her view on how drunk her husband was when he slapped her around, or how many packets of white powder she found in the house. She raised it in the divorce proceedings, amongst allegations that he physically abused her when under the influence. Which is clearly unacceptable behaviour. He admitted it all from what I remember. I can't think of a good reason why he would admit things that put him in such a bad light, but of course its possible. If he did take drugs, did it impact on this fight or his later career? Hard to say. People can make up their own minds from watching the fights. Obviously leonard was in good enough shape to win the fight. I've always stated that I felt it was two fighters both past their best.

Nope I've never met Ray, nope I haven't a degree in psychology. Its an opinion based on how open he is about trying to get an edge in his big fights... which devalues the results and his legacy in many people's eyes. My opinion is that he cares more that we think he's clever, than he does about his perceived legacy, otherwise he'd keep his mouth shut.... A significant amount of the negativity you hear on leonard is based on information he supplied us with. You think he's an ahole? Have you got a masters in ahole spotting? Nope, just your opinion.

I'm unlikely to buy his book fella, on your recommendation that it was mediocre, the fact that i generally find auto bios a bit dull, and that I'm not actually that big a fan. Just an admirer of his boxing talent and nostalgic about the era.

Must dig out a series of articles covering hagler's career and major fights i stumbled across a while back, you haz and other fans might have read them all already, but there's some good pieces in there.

by TRUSSMAN66 Mon 16 Feb 2015, 4:47 pm

milkyboy wrote:You noticed me being flippant eh Sherlock

I have my tongue fairly firmly in cheek on this place most of the time... the degree of that, and the degree of dismissiveness varies dramatically depending on who I'm debating with, and the context. The fact that I don't write IMO at the end of each sentence doesn't mean I'm passing off what I say as fact. Otherwise I'd write FACT, at the end of each sentence.

Whichever my views on this subject are nowhere near as entrenched as they probably come across. Given I've regularly debated with hagler fans who don't give an inch. You select information that suits your argument so I select some that suit mine. Has that ever been in doubt? It doesn't necessarily mean that I always believe my angle to be the correct one... sometimes its just an alternative perspective. I do believe leonard won the fight, I believe it had a few swing rounds that you could call either way, and that if you call them for hagler he wins. Close fight no robbery. That's the only opinion that's relevant. Some want to claim its a robbery, some want to say leonard was only even competitive by waiting for hagler to get old and are dismissive of the lay off and weight jump which I don't consider to be a particularly balanced argument. All of that stuff is just fluff.

If you just accepted your guy lost a close decision, and stopped making excuses for him, these debates would never have happened in the first place ... but then we wouldn't have forged a bond that only fierce combat between warriors over a lengthy period of time deliver!

Re your specific points.

You pointed out above, some obviously good sources suggesting Leonard was in shape. I'd already acknowledged that he had a long camp and trained hard. But it wouldn't reflect well on either to suggest otherwise, so i wouldn't expect them to say he was off the pace even if he was. There's being in good shape and there's being prime though. My genuine opinion is that he looked slow of foot (which I guess could just be the extra weight) and that he was blowing harder than in say the duran or hearns fights. Maybe it was the quiet beating from hagler, i wasn't astute enough to see, that made it seem that way.

My point in raising the drug issues is whether he was really able to get back to his prior shape. But of course it's all conjecture. Whilst I might query his wife as an authority on boxing scoring I'm more likely to take her view on how drunk her husband was when he slapped her around, or how many packets of white powder she found in the house. She raised it in the divorce proceedings, amongst allegations that he physically abused her when under the influence. Which is clearly unacceptable behaviour. He admitted it all from what I remember. I can't think of a good reason why he would admit things that put him in such a bad light, but of course its possible. If he did take drugs, did it impact on this fight or his later career? Hard to say. People can make up their own minds from watching the fights. Obviously leonard was in good enough shape to win the fight. I've always stated that I felt it was two fighters both past their best.

Nope I've never met Ray, nope I haven't a degree in psychology. Its an opinion based on how open he is about trying to get an edge in his big fights... which devalues the results and his legacy in many people's eyes. My opinion is that he cares more that we think he's clever, than he does about his perceived legacy, otherwise he'd keep his mouth shut.... A significant amount of the negativity you hear on leonard is based on information he supplied us with. You think he's an ahole? Have you got a masters in ahole spotting? Nope, just your opinion.

I'm unlikely to buy his book fella, on your recommendation that it was mediocre, the fact that i generally find auto bios a bit dull, and that I'm not actually that big a fan. Just an admirer of his boxing talent and nostalgic about the era.

Must dig out a series of articles covering hagler's career and major fights i stumbled across a while back, you haz and other fans might have read them all already, but there's some good pieces in there.

I was clean shaven when I started reading this.... mo1

by Sponsored content