Thursday 5 April 2012
Sweet Memory
I haven't posted for quite some time, but couldn't let 6 April pass with mentioning such a significant anniversary. 25 years ago Sugar Ray Leonard defeated Marvellous Marvin Hagler in 'The Superfight'. It was probably the greatest comeback in boxing history - Leonard had only fought once in the preceding five years, whilst Hagler had not lost in eleven years. By winning the fight, Leonard secured his legacy as one of the greatest boxers of all time. Sweet indeed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Sweet, yes, but not everyone swallows the Sugar Ray legend whole, and for some there was a sour aftertaste about Leonard's win over Hagler. One of those who pursed their lips over the split-decision victory back in 1987 was Hugh McIlvanney. Here's a link to what he wrote in Sports Illustrated at the time.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1065875/index.htm
The opening line of that article, as so many that the Scot has written in a career that goes back to the 1950s, is typically compelling. And his argument, that Leonard's brilliantly-judged performance bedazzled the judges into thinking that he was more effective than a cooler anaysis of events would merit, is an interesting one.
However, it's one thing for a boxing scribe to fulfil his professional duty by telling it as he sees it in print. It's quite another to sit opposite a great and proud boxer and declare that you think that one of his greatest triumphs was a kind of sleight-of-hand trick. But that is just what McIlvanney did when he interviewed Leonard on television. As I recall, the interview was conducted at Leonard's house, and was proceeding according to plan until, delicately, sheepishly, McIlvanney, having praised Leonard for the cleverness of his strategy against Hagler, gave it his big shot. With a nevous giggle he said: I think you lost that fight, Ray.
Boxers who want to at least try to retain their marbles choose their opponents with care, and I suppose that McIlvanney would not have been so foolhardy as to have goaded some of boxing's more volatile practitioners, even with the cameras running to record whatever mayhem might ensue. But he must have wondered what the effect of such words would be on a fighting man, even one like Leonard, who had the reputation as an equable individual outside the ring.
Leonard went quiet. McIlvanney smiled weakly. There was a pause. Then, no doubt mightily relieved, the nervous writer realised he had just about judged it correctly as Leonard said something like, "That's it, interview over" and walked out.
By the way, for those who might not know, Hugh's brother is the writer William McIlvanney. Here's an interview with him from 2010.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/interview-william-mcilvanney-author-1-1368477
Yeah, McIlvanney really went down in my opinion after that article! I think it was his use of the phrase 'quiet beating' which really rankled. I’m pretty certain he’d predicted an easy win for Hagler – he may even have been one of those people who’d argued that the fight shouldn’t go ahead, for fear that Ray might get permanently injured. In truth Hagler was past his prime, fought a poor fight, and gave away the early rounds to someone who’d been largely inactive for five years and had never previously boxed at that weight. The Boxing Tribune recently revisited the fight, and it’s conclusion is spot on: “this was no robbery, it was just a damn close fight”.
http://theboxingtribune.com/2010/06/controversial-fight-series-hagler-leonard/
(Note the press cutting showing how divided the media was at the time – I still own a boxing magazine from the time which scored the fight 117-111 to Leonard). Any notion that the decision was tainted detracts from Ray’s remarkable performance – possibly the greatest comeback in boxing history.
Post a Comment