I'm taking issue with Tim Kawakami. Before I get started I want to make some admissions. Tim and I are friends. We see each other all the time and he's a great guy and a terrific sports writer. He also knows current boxing like nobody's business -- knows it better than I do. I have lost some interest because the sport is degraded.
Tim just wrote a blog about Manny Pacquiao. To read his blog click here. He said this is the Manny Era. OK. Tim said Manny could beat Floyd Mayweather Jr. Maybe now that Mayweather hasn't fought, but at their top, come on, Tim. No way. Mayweather is bigger, faster and a better athlete. He wouldn't knock out Manny but he'd beat him.
Anyway that's not my primary beef with Kawakami. I'm caught up short with his claim Manny is the best fighter since Marvin Hagler.
Marvin Hagler? I want to laugh.
Marvin Hagler was a very good middleweight, a champ. He destroyed Thomas Hearns -- a welterweight. But the so-called Hagler Era was in reality the Sugar Ray Leonard Era. Everyone knows this. Leonard put small men on the map at his time and place. He took the play away from the heavyweights. His fights with Roberto Duran were historic -- two all time greats meeting. In the second fight he made Duran quit. He beat Hearns when Hearns was unbeatable. He beat Wilfred Benitez when Benitez was at the top of his form.
And I must remind Tim Leonard beat Marvin Hagler. Beat him. So how is Hagler the best when he lost to Leonard, a puffed up welter?
If you rate all time top 10 welters, Leonard would be near the top, certainly top 5. If you rate middles, Hagler would be in the top 10, sure, but he'd be between 6 and 10. He couldn't beat Ray Robinson, Stanley Ketchel, Mickey Walker, Carlos Monzon, Gene Fullmer (too tough) Jake LaMotta. I doubt he could beat Tony Zale. I'm not even sure he could beat Bernard Hopkins, really I'm not.
Hagler did not hit as hard as people think and he was methodical and couldn't decide if he was a lefty or a righty. He had trouble with the smaller Duran because Duran was a better technician by far and Hagler finally won by pushing him around.
So, Tim, I think you're changing history. Ray Leonard did not fight in the Hagler Era. Hagler fought in the Sugar Ray Leonard Era.
Your pal,
Lowell
I have read both blogs and I think cases can be made to support both of your opinions.
I personally enjoyed Hagler more than Leonard, & Leonard was certainly the better boxer.
It's interesting to talk about boxing. This sport has lost a lot of popularity in recent years.
Boxing needs to make itself more accessible to the average sport fan. Their concept of a pay-per-view is a complete rip-off. I would spend the $50-$60 bucks if it were a true entertainment value. They need to put complete cards together, and show 3 hours of solid boxing matches. I cannot remember a PPV event that demonstrates this value. They utilize HBO to a reasonable extent...But, I currently do not subscribe to HBO. That leaves network television...When was the last time we saw a decent fight on regular TV ???
I consider the 70s as the golden era of boxing. Boxing was typically on numerous Saturdays, via network TV.
It was either ABC w/ Howard Cosell, or CBS with their Saturday shows. + Lets not forget the 1976 olympic team. That was probably the apex of 70s boxing. I know that Leonard was the best of that batch.
As for a dream match-up of Jr. Welterweights...I would take a younger Roberto Duran, when he was truly the fists of stone. This would be a pre-Leonard I version of Duran. I bet that Duran was on these Saturday shows at least every 2-3 months. Pac Man would go down in defeat by this version of Duran.
First I just want to laugh at the thought that Marvin Hagler is on the top of anyone's list. Hagler had no one to fight so he had to take on welterweights. That doesn't make him great, it means he had no one great in his division. He WAS a solid fighter...but a legend...hardly.
Greatness is defined by the people you beat. That's the way it's always been; in any sport.
With that said, Sugar Ray beat him! Made him look foolish and Mr. Hagler was reduced to crying about how Ray wouldn't fight. Well I sure saw him get hit a lot in that fight so Ray must have been fighting.
I love the 80's era personally and yes, there was plenty of good free fighting in the 70's no question. But watching Jerry Q. get beat up by Ali wasn't a Hearns - Leornard match up.
Or..... that first Duran Sugar Ray fight for that matter. I had to go to the civil center in San Jose to watch it and even watching on a large closed circuit TV; the place was electric. People knew the fight meant something. I can't remember a fight since then that mean so much to so many people.
Toolguy you are spot on about the reason why too. No interest due to poor cards and high prices. I don't have SUCKER writen on my forehead and I doubt Lowell or you do either.
Hey Fred, It sounds like we have very similar views on boxing. I think you missed my point about Hagler vs. Leonard. Their styles were very different, as were their personalities. I enjoyed the tough guy image that Hagler tried to portray. I always thought that Leonard was very image conscious & maybe too smooth to be in his profession. In reality Leonard was a boxer that was probably ahead of his time, and Hagler probably goes down in history as a poor sport that lacked a personality. I also stated that Leonard was the better boxer. I also attended the Hagler - Leonard fight that was shown on closed circuit TV. It was at the Marin Civic Center. The crowd went totally bonkers over their match.
Back to the 70s for a moment...I forgot to include the heavyweight division. This division was awesome. In no particular order - we saw the likes of; Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Holmes, & L.Spinks just to name a few. + the Ali - Frazier match-up's have to be considered as some of the best fights of all-time.
I have a hard time believing that the 80s produced a class of heavyweights like these guys.