Thoughts?

Hagler was fed up with the system that screwed him over. This fight was the beginning of the end for boxing in a lot of ways. From glove choice & ring size to # of rounds. This paved the way for the DLH’s, Mayweathers & Pac’s to believe they have the right to dictate these things as the challenger.

Hagler knew that merit, dominance & being a real champion meant absolutely nothing compared to being a media darling that gets press. Hard work & determination have been replaced by revenue generation & marketing. Hagler refused to play the BS so he left & went to Europe a land where they appreciate a great fighter over a celebrity.

Great post.

You can directly blame Ray Leonard for "The Money over The Glory" mindset of the big names that followed him....

You got it nailed with that one. And damn... No one got brutally killed. Hagler did make a few Italian movies like Indio. Indio was a Rambo-like film. Hagler played the Troutman-like character. It was a terrible film. I remember renting it from Blockbuster back in the 90's. the selling point was that Hagler was the star, when he only had maybe 5minutes of screen time. I think he was the star of the sequel though...

I just call it how I see it. I may come off as all bitter & twisted with delusional rants about fighters but deep down when you read between the lines most people are aware that i have a certain amount of knowledge on boxing. It is just some people cannot read between the lines on here.

One guy that gets nowhere near enough respect is Larry Holmes. In time people came to appreciate his greatness in the ring but not many realise he was the first big time fighter to do revolutionary things such as promoting his own fights on TV & calling a sanctioning bodies bluff by dumping their belt in the trash for the right reason as opposed to get out of a legit fight.

Without Holmes doing that guys like DLH would never have been able to establish GBP although it appears that GBP is every bit as bad as DKP & Top Rank in jobbing fighters & shady tactics.

Fighters like him, Hagler & Hopkins are a thorn in the sides of sanctioning bodies & promoters because they are independantly minded & voice their opinions without regard for the potential backlash.

+1

I think Hagler also refused to a 2nd fight because he knew he had fought as well as he could have at his diminished state and he probably was not going to do much better. I say "much better" because he could have started to let his hands go earlier in the fight but then again, Leonard would probably have done the same and then we would have ended up with the same close fight and you know that in a close fight SRL would get the win.

His legacy would have been so so so different without the Tyson fight.

His legacy was signed sealed & delivered well before the Tyson fight. The Tyson fight had as much to do with his legacy as McBride did with Tyson's. Had he won it would have added to his legacy & catapaulted him straight to #1 heavyweight of all time. How it is so so so different by a old rusty 39 year old losing to a peak Tyson confuses me. The only fights he has ever lost were world title fights, never knocked out or stopped. I would love to know what else he could have done to do mor efor his legacy I really would Sal.

Think about it did SRL losing to Camacho affect his legacy as a great fighter? Did Duran losing William fucking Joppy affect his legacy? Of course not because when they were at their peak they did more than enough to secure their legacy as ATG fighters.

That's likely NOT the case. The second time around, Hagler could have spent LESS time switching stances and trying to "out box" the boxer. Those were rounds, wasted, IMO.

I thought Hagler deserved the nod first time around. Hags was fed up and rolled.

The difference with Holmes-Tyson was that it was Holmes' biggest fight on the biggest stage. (And yes, I believe it was at least as big as his fight with Ali or Cooney.) And the thing about the Tyson fight was that Holmes (who I think was retired at the time and given like 8 weeks notice and the biggest paycheck of his career) looked so bad and uncoordinated - and that's the impression people have of him.

His earlier fights were obviously way different and if he'd retired after the Cooney fight, there wouldn't be a chance in the world that anyone would have anything to say about him other than he was a top hw who could have held his own with anyone. But he looked so rediculous against Tyson that that is the strongest impression most people have of him.

Holmes beat all the great hws of his era and he just stayed around too long, fighting as an aging, B-level fighter, just like Duran did. The problem is that the only fight of his anyone ever sees today is the Tyson fight because they constantly replay all of Tyson's kos. The only fights of Duran's they ever show are his first fight with Leonard and his fight with Hagler.

I remember the UGLY Tyson/Holmes KO....if you watch closely Larry is coming back with a left and his arm gets caught in the ropes and slingshots him back and into Tyson's punches! lol

BUT.....that was also a long retired Holmes fighting a Prime Tyson.....I have always said that even the OLDER Holmes of the 90's would have given that same Tyson a better fight. That was a pure case of terrible ringrust not to mention simple old age.

BUT...the HIGHLY active Holmes of the 90's...the one that fought his ass off against Holyfield, Mercer and McCall would have faired much better.

Yeah, Hagler didn't bitch, whine or complain. He just said peace out.

Absolutely agree. Larry fought very well into his 40's with a win over a prime Ray Mercer. With a couple of tune ups Larry could have been the one who Douglas'd Tyson. Douglas had a similar game to Holmes, just not the same desire.