I occasionally like to post at various boxing boards, especially if they have a section dedicated to boxing history and the great fighters of the past. I take offense to trolls and those incapable of accurately judging the legendary fighters. My job as a member of IBRO (International Boxing Research Organization) is to defend the truth of history as reported by those who saw them from the campaigns of malfeasance and inexpert meanderings of the incompetent who have their own agenda's against them.
A poster called "Revolver" has recently almost completely taken over the EastSide Classic Boxing section forum because of the nonsense he spews out just to draw attention to himself. Why anyone would listen to him is beyond reason. He knows NOTHING about boxing. Think about it. Why would anyone listen to what he has to say about mythical match ups and/or the abilities of fighters of the past when he doesn’t understand or comprehend what he actually sees?
The fact that he doesn't know what he sees is evident in his analysis of the Marvin Hagler-Ray Leonard middleweight championship bout. He says that Ray Leonard DIDN’T WIN ANY of the first 4 rounds against Marvin Hagler. No one who watches the fight objectively could possibly say that. This is not a mythical match up that one can ramble on about endlessly. It was a real fight and virtually every sports writer and boxing insider who saw it thought it was close one way or the other (a couple rounds either way). One can argue that Leonard or Hagler won by slim margins, but to say Leonard didn’t win any of the first 4 rounds is just wrong. No one who watches the fight and understand what they are seeing would say that. It is obvious Revolver does NOT know what he sees when he watches boxing. He doesn’t understand the fundamentals. He probably thinks a punch that lands on a glove and makes a big sound is a scoring punch, when in fact it was blocked. Revolver is not someone who understands the technical aspects of boxing, nor is he a boxing researcher, he is simply a Boxrec click and blabber boy.
Revolver constantly attacks the records of fighters he doesn’t like while ignoring the faults of fighters he does like. That is the truth. Case in point is the rating of Eddie Machen among his 20 greatest ever heavyweights. He stresses the good things about Machen but then ignores the blotches on his record. Using Revolvers own style of argument one sees that Machen lost to light-heavyweight Harold Johnson who lost 4 times to Archie Moore, Moore was knocked out by Rocky Marciano, Machen “must really suck” to lose to Johnson. Further Machen Was KO'd By Kirkman who “had 10 Fights” and was KO'd by Frazier who “had 12 Fights”. And in his prime he was KO’d in ONE round by Ingemar Johannson. What a “bum!” By emphasizing the low points of a fighters record and neglecting the facts of age, and circumstances one can make ANY fighter look bad. And that is all that Revolver does. He is very selective about what he picks and chooses when talking about fighters. He is not at all objective. He simply elevates the fighters he likes by highlighting their wins while glossing over their defeats. For fighters he doesn’t like he highlights their losses and ignores the high water marks of their career.
An example of this is his attack on Ezzard Charles record. By looking only at the numbers of wins and losses and counting the knockdowns that researchers have submitted to Boxrec he highlights the negatives, but then ignores the positives. Of the times Charles was down in his peak years how many of those fights did he actually lose? If Revolver were objective he would see that the last four years of Charles fighting career are what really deluded his record, he fought 24 times and won only 10. But Revolver ignores and doesn’t mention Charles peak record because it refutes his claims. Before losing the title to Jersey Joe Walcott he was 73-5-1. One of those losses was a controversial split decision that most thought he won against Elmer Ray, so he was effectively 74-4-1. Further Ezzard Charles avenged every single one of those losses, with about 80 pro fights he had beaten every man he faced at least once. Charles was a winner. Just look at the guys he fought. He was 3-0 against Archie Moore, 2-0 against Charley Burley, 3-0 against Joey Maxim and 4-1 against Jimmy Bivins in his career. Revolver mentions that he was knocked out by Lloyd Marshall but fails to mention that he avenged that loss twice by knockout. He also fails to mention the death of Sam Baroudi, this is important because after his death Charles never went after an opponent with the same killer instinct that he had before. When analyzing a fighter one must look at him at his peak, and in his prime Ezzard Charles was a great fighter with a great record. Further I have a number of films on Charles and he looks great on film. He has speed of hand and foot, he has a perfect jab, he throws nice combinations, he works the body, and has solid defense. He was a complete fighter. Only someone who doesn’t understand the techniques of boxing would make a contrary opinion. With virtually every statement he makes Revolver demonstrates his lack of boxing knowledge.
Revolver continues his outrageous and nonsensical statements with the following in an post about Joe Louis, “I forgot how fake looking the knock out of Braddock was! The film is fast so it must have been even more fake looking in real time. Braddock sees the right hand coming and turns away from it. The impact is minimal. Then Braddock looks for a place to lay down and hides his face while he's counted it. Braddock was looking for a way out. Maybe he figured he couldn't win and wanted to lose with dignity. I don't know, but that is one of the most fake knock outs I have ever seen.”
That’s funny. Isn’t it strange how Revolver can come up with conclusions such as this when NO ONE ever in the past 60 odd years has ever suggested it was a fake except Revolver! No ringsiders, no sportswriters, no film historians. Not Tommy Thomas the referee. Nobody.
Since I have the newspaper reports lets see what the eyewitness ringside observers close to the action have to say about the punch that knocked out Braddock.
The June 23, 1937 Chicago Daily News in an article titled “Henry Gives Vivid Account of Joe’s Knockout Blow” the sportswriter pens:
“That right hand that (Louis) smashed against the face of James Braddock in the eighth round was as devastating a blow as any man ever threw. It caught the Irishman flush on the bulls-eye of his chin and all but knocked the life out of him. He fell as does a man when struck with a .44 slug.”
“It required four men- two at his feet, two at his head- to carry him back to his corner where, placed on his stool, he sagged forward until the blood from his mouth dripped onto his shoes.”
“Every ounce of power in Joe Louis body rode behind that punch…It happened directly in front of me and no more than five steps away, and I saw him gather himself for the blow that brought him the heavyweight championship of the world. He came down off his toes and settled himself squarely on the flat of his feet- the perfect stance for the everything –goes- now- blow.” He also wrote that it sounded like a “click of the sort of when a golfer hits a perfect drive.”
The Chicago Record Herald and Examiner reported, “In his relatively short, but sensational career, Louis has knocked out many opponents, but never before did he finish one as suddenly and as completely as he did Braddock last night.” The Herald described the blow as “a terrific right hand” that knocked out Braddock.
Wilfred Smith in the Chicago Tribune reported that Braddock “rested for 30 minutes before he sat up” in his corner. Braddock was KTFO. End of story. No doubt Revolver will continue to live in his make believe world that it never happened, but for those who were there and those who know what they see when they watch the films it will be crystal clear that the truth is just as it was described by those who saw it. That is called history, my friends, the description of events as told by those who were there. What Revolver does is called “revisionist history” trying to change the truth in order to make it fit into his own agenda.
These facts prove that Revolver has no understanding of what he sees as well as the fact he has an agenda against Joe Louis. Nothing could be more obvious. Revolver will never admit he’s wrong because he’s not man enough, but the truth remains and nothing Revolver says will ever change it. No one is stupid enough to believe the crap that he dumps out like garbage at a waste management center, because its simply not true.
Revolver has criticized Louis saying that Joe "couldn't adapt" and hence was a "dummy" because in the first Schmeling fight -(the only fight the real Louis ever lost)- Joe was continually hit with right hands. Schmeling prepared perfectly for Louis exposing a fault in the young fighter's style. Schmeling noticed, by studying films, that sometimes after jabbing Louis would drop his left and set himself ever so slightly to throw a left hook. Schmeling trained to step back to evade the jab, and when Louis lowered his guard he countered with the right hand over the top. Louis for his part, under-estimated the crafty veteran, who was also an excellent counter-puncher and possessed a strong right hand punch. Louis was skipping out on training and thought he would win "no matter what I did." Schmeling was ready for the overconfident Louis. Nat Fleischer wrote that it took 57 hard right hand power shots to bring Louis down. Everyone one of those punches by Schmeling sounded like a bag of water falling from the top of a two story building and landing on concrete. Despite this Louis could not be knocked out by one punch, he had to be beaten over the course of the fight. Nat Fleischer in the Aug. 1936 Ring commenting on Louis loss wrote, "Louis at least answered the critics who said he couldn't take a punch. He took it, and how! He absorbed enough punishment to have laid low the average pugilist a half dozen times. Staggered time and again, he kept on his feet and fought back."
Louis proved he could adapt perfectly in the rematch. He kept his hands up and didnt drop his left one time. The result was a quick knockout victory for Louis who proved he could adapt and learn. Louis was 10-0 in rematches for the simple fact that he could adapt.
Now look at Ali. Ali never adapted to defend against Joe Frazier's left hook and was caught with the same exact punch time and again. In over 40 rounds in 3 differant fights Ali never "adapted" to learn how to block a left hook, which is one of the easiest punches to learn to block. If one accepts Revolver's flawed logic this makes both Louis and Ali "dummies."
The fact is Louis did learn from his mistakes and adapt and change to become more proficient. Louis was a much better technical fighter than Ali, while Ali cannot be faulted too heavily for his lack of fundamentals because of his outstanding athletic prowess. Both men were great fighters.
Revolver likes to say that "Joe Louis had no defense." He says this because his understanding of defense is just running and hopping around. That is not true defense. In many ways it is actually a waste of energy. It takes more out of a fighter to dance and move to avoid a punch than it does to stay close and slip and block punches. Louis was economical with both his punches and his defense.
Freddie Roach, a former professional fighter, and modern trainer said, “Louis was the best text book fighter.... ever. He was a classic boxer.” Only an inept, unqualified person would say otherwise.
Louis was a textbook fighter because his stance was compact with his hands up, his chin down, and he threw short punches, which are harder to slip and counter than long range ones. Louis could block punches very well. Anybody can be caught by one punch, but Louis did a good job of stopping punches while applying subtle pressure. His work allowed him to be in a position to counter as he forced his opponents into mistakes or caught them coming in. He would pick off opponents jabs with his gloves, tuck his chin and shoulder block, and block with his arms and elbows. Ray Robinson in his autobiography said that Soldier Jones was one of his early trainers. Jones told Ray the "left side is for offense and the right side for defense" and "if you can hit him with the left then you can hit him with the right." This is exactly how Louis fought. Louis would parry, block and bar his opponents blows with his rear right hand, and counter with his left. Louis would follow up with quick two handed combinations. Nobody did it better. These skills are why Joe Louis is considered great.
Louis tucks his chin and shoulder blocks a right.
Louis parries a left jab with his rear "checking" hand.
Louis slips and shoulder rolls.
Revolvers all time top 20-heavyweight list is an embarrassment, but he is too ignorant of boxing history and too un-objective to realize it. Revolver says his all time heavyweight list is not a historical list, it is a head to head list. I also put head to head before anything else. His top 4 can be argued into the top 5 but after that his list falls apart. Revolver’s list is not objective. Not having Joe Louis in the top 20 is laughable. I have never seen a competent list of any kind that didn’t have Joe Louis in the top 10. But then Revolver is not competent and therefore incapable of making a competent list.
I showed his list to a former fighter who trained out of Joe Frazier’s gym and was coached by Georgie Benton, and is now a respected boxing writer. He said it was the worst list he has ever seen and that Revolvers prejudice for Muhammad Ali (who the writer also rates # 1 all time) is obvious. I also showed his list to a respected boxing historian who called anyone making such a list “a crackpot.” Another historian said, “Nobody could possibly say that and be serious. He's probably just joking around and trying to draw attention to himself.” Another said “Why even bother to respond to such nonsense?” Revolver simply does not understand styles, match ups and the strengths and weaknesses of fighters. Boxrec click and blabber is all he can do. He clearly cannot understand what he sees.
Somehow Buster Douglas is # 9 on Revolvers list. Buster Douglas did not get a single vote in the IBRO poll conducted by credible, legit boxing historians who have seen the fighters, own the largest film collections, and have been in the gyms. Revolver tries to reason that on the night Douglas beat up Tyson he could beat a lot of great fighters. That fight was more of a result of Tyson having an off night, and the contrast of styles than how good Douglas actually was. The uppercut is one of the best punches to use against a swarmer like Tyson, and Douglas was nailing Tyson with it consistently. But that punch, the outside uppercut, is not as safe or effective against other styles. Evander Holyfield punished him for that mistake and knocked him out in 3 rounds. One might say that Douglas was out of shape against Holyfield, but that is not why he lost, it’s because Holyfield was smart enough to make him pay for his mistakes with good counter-punching. The argument that Douglas only lost to Holyfield because of conditioning doesn’t hold. Was Douglas out of shape when Tony Tucker beat him? That was Douglas physical prime and he lost. Think about it. Tony Tucker beat Douglas in Buster’s prime and David Bey knocked Douglas out in Bey’s pro debut! But Douglas is going to beat Joe Louis, Evander Holyfield , Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe? Revolver is always talking about "reality." Well, Revolver you don’t know what reality is!
Revolver wrote: “Douglas would have knocked Louis out. You guys need to be realistic about these things” …“I don't know how it is even possible to visualize Louis surviving more than a couple of rounds against the Douglas who beat Tyson.”
Evander Holyfield survived more than a couple rounds against Douglas in Buster’s next fight. Evander was about the same size and reach as Louis. It is pretty easy to visualize Louis lasting against and beating Douglas unless you are either a hater or you simply don’t know what you are seeing. Since he denies he is a hater the answer should be abundantly clear at this point.
It's prejudicial hogwash to rate Douglas in the top 10 and not rate Joe Louis 60-1 (51 ko’s) when he retired as champion (which demonstrates his ability as a fighter), in the top 20. Realistic is that Joe Louis, 10-0 in rematches when properly prepared for opponents styles, would counter that wide outside uppercut of Douglas just as Evander did. Louis was not a swarmer and would not be ducking into it like Tyson, but he will be waiting for it. Louis was the best finisher in heavyweight history. Revolver needs to get a sense of what realism in boxing is.
Revolver wrote: “Louis, his short little arms, his feet stuck in mid, would have looked silly against giants such as these. You guys don't live in the real world.”
Funny stuff. Chris Byrd, whose reach is 2 inches shorter than that of Joe Louis, has had no trouble landing punches on “giants such as these.”
Louis’ reach and body type is perfect for his style. If Louis reach were too long he wouldn’t be able to throw the type of compact power punches that he threw. Revolvers comments show that he doesn’t understand Louis or his style of fighting. He is simply unfit to judge the quality of boxers and this he proves in his posts time and again.
Louis was NOT too small for “giants such as these.” Louis was about the same size as Evander Holyfield. Their height is about the same and their reach about the same. Holyfield started off as a 190 pounder and moved up to heavyweight at age 24. Holyfield weighed 208 when he won the title. Louis was 207 in his rematches with Abe Simon and Buddy Baer at a similar age. Holyfield beat Riddick Bowe, Mike Tyson and was competitive past his prime with Lennox Lewis in their close second fight. Where Holyfield bulked up a little, Louis trained his @ss off to get down to the weight he fought at. Holyfield tired several times in 12 round fights, against Holmes, Foreman, Bowe 1 and 3 and Moorer for example, whereas Louis kept his power until the last minute of the last round. Guys who have been around the gyms understand this rather obvious fact but Revolver is too blinded by his prejudice to see this simple truth.
Joe Louis was just as "big" as Sonny Liston and Larry Holmes. Louis was slightly taller than Liston, and weighed about the same as Holmes in his prime who was 209 against Norton. Louis was almost the exact same size as Evander Holyfield, who competed with and defeated modern "giants."
In another thread Revolver said that, “Ron Lyle was just too big, strong, and skilled for Louis.” Revolver just doesn’t get it.
Jerry Quarry was 6’0” almost 2 inches shorter than Louis, he weighed 200 pounds for Lyle about the same as Louis, and Quarry’s reach was shorter than Louis. Lyle at 6’3 ½ and 219 pounds towered over Quarry and made him look small. But that had NOTHING to do with it! Quarry beat Lyle, who was in his physical prime, decisively. Quarry was primarily a counter-puncher like Louis. But he lacked Louis hand speed, two handed power, combinations, and powerful left jab. Yet, Lyle wasn’t “too big, strong or skilled” for Quarry. Neither would he be for Louis. In 10 fights Lyle might catch Louis once and get him, but 9 times out of 10 Louis just has too many weapons for Ron Lyle. This is not too difficult to see.
What people like Revolver don’t understand is that Joe Louis had the power to destroy big men. He actually defeated as many large men as any modern heavyweight champion. The fact, as testified by many knowledgeable boxing men, is that The “Brown Bomber” had as much skill, speed and power as any heavyweight who ever lived. Louis knocked out 250-260 pound men and absolutely annihilated them. That is a proven fact.
The reasoning behind Revolver's attacks on Joe Louis are not sound. He argues that Louis was often out-boxed and had to rally to win. This happens to all great fighters, it’s the ones who don’t rally to win like Mike Tyson that should be questioned, not the ones who do come back to win. Facing adversity and winning is a sign of a great fighter. Revolver is trying to say Joe Louis was just lucky to win those fights. He was lucky a lot I guess since Joe Louis was champion longer than anyone else and made more successful title defenses than anyone else and barred no one. All the guys he fought were contenders when they got a title shot. He scored 51 knockouts prior to his initial retirement. He must have thrown a lot of lucky punches in his career. The fact is Louis was a highly skilled boxer, “a textbook fighter” as Freddie Roach said. Anyone who would not include him in their top 10, little own top 20 has issues.
Revolver says Louis’s feet were “stuck in the mud” but Cleveland Williams, Ernie Terrell and Ingemar Johannson who made his top 20 were not? That is hilarious. Louis footwork was designed for a long fight and to conserve energy while cutting down the ring on the opponent and setting them up for his counter-punches. He was a master of distance and knew how to draw his opponents into his lethal counterpunches. Footwork is part of this. There are different types of footwork for different styles. The fact that Revolver does not understand this further demonstrates his lack of real boxing knowledge.
Mike Spinks is rated as the # 7 all time heavyweight by Revolver. Spinks fought 5 fights at heavyweight, twice against Holmes (he should have lost the 2nd fight), Steffen Tangstad, Gerry Cooney, and Mike Tyson. He effectively lost 2 of 5 fights at heavyweight. Spinks record is not as good at heavyweight as was Gene Tunney. Tunney was a very good mobile boxer with a great chin. Tunney likely belongs in that spot before Mike Spinks.
To make matters even more ridiculous he says that Spinks "would beat all of the fighters rated below him." HAHAHA. How long would Mike Spinks last against Joe Louis? He would never see the second round. Nor would he make it past the first round with Jack Dempsey. Lennox Lewis annihilates Spinks early. Riddick Bowe beats Spinks in the early rounds; Evander Holyfield clearly beats Mike Spinks. Jack Johnson with his speed and defense beats Spinks without trouble. Rocky Marciano knocks out Mike Spinks. Mike Spinks is not a top 10 all time heavyweight on ability, head to head or any other method. He is vastly under-rated by some as a great light-heavyweight champion, but he is not a top 20 all time heavyweight. Anyone who thinks so is ready for the loony bin, which Revolver clearly is.
Revolver likes to say that Joe Louis was out-boxed by light-heavyweights but in 4 bouts against "light-heavyweights" he won 3 by knockout (Conn twice and JH Lewis) and lost to Ezzard Charles when Louis had only 4 fights in the previous 8 years including coming off a period of recent inactivity of 2 years and 3 months prior to the Charles fight. Ray Robinson coming off a lay-off of almost the exact same length lost to Ralph “Tiger” Jones who wasn’t near the class that Ezzard Charles was. Further Robinson did not have near the total period of inactivity that Joe Louis had, as Robby was very active in the war years.
Applying Revolver’s reasoning to his # 2 pick shows that Larry Holmes did in fact lose to light-heavyweight Mike Spinks. Louis won his fights against light-heavyweights and lost only to Charles after retiring and suffering a long period of inactivity. Holmes lost when he was champion. So how is Larry Holmes # 2 and Joe Louis not in the top 20?? That makes his bias obvious.
Ken Norton is # 8. Why? Oh let me guess. He beat Muhammad Ali. Norton's style gives boxer types like Ali and Holmes trouble, but HE LOST TO EVERY BIG PUNCHER HE FACED. He didn’t want to face Ron Lyle for that reason. Jose Luis Garcia knocked him out in 7 rounds. George Foreman destroyed Norton in 2 rounds. Both Earnie Shavers and Gerry Cooney blitzed him in 1 round. Joe Louis annihilates Norton. Marciano knocks out Norton. Dempsey crushes Norton. Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe knock out Norton. Evander Holyfield likely beats Norton; Holyfield is a better all around boxer, has better hand speed and the better chin and should be rated ahead of Norton. Norton might be considered top 25 maybe but not top 10. No way. Revolver proves time and again he does not understand styles or how to break them down.
Ernie Terrell is not a top 20 all time heavyweight. Why is he on Revolvers hapless list? To make Ali even greater? There is simply no other reason. Look at his list. 8 of his top 20 are Ali opponents. Why they are there is confusing. Norton is his # 8 yet is 1-4 against others on that list. No objectivity. This isn’t a reasonable all time head to head list. It’s simply the ramblings of an unknowledgeable fans favorite heavyweight list that is slighted for a purpose. Terrell has nothing but a jab. He is a jab and clutch fighter. He has no real power; he doesn’t have speed or great fundamental mechanics. Terrell on that list is a joke. And it’s getting funnier all the time.
Cleveland Williams is in the top 20? How? We will excuse all of his fights post Ali. The best fighter’s Cleve faced were Sonny Liston who knocked him out twice (exciting fights, but he lost both), Ernie Terrell whom he won and lost to and of course Ali who knocked him out. And that’s it. The only other boxer with a record worth mentioning is Billy Daniels, who fought in a boxer puncher style similar to that of Joe Louis but he lacked the punching power needed to make the style effective. Daniels went 10 rounds to a decision with Williams but Revolver claims that Joe Louis, a superior fighter in every category with a far more outstanding record than either Daniels or Williams, could not?? That makes no sense.
Williams was a strong but limited puncher, who could also be knocked out. Besides Liston, in the years prior to facing Ali, Bob Satterfield, a light-heavyweight, also knocked him out. He was also down twice against Sylvester Jones in a loss and dumped by Mel Turnbow, none of those opponents of Williams were the quality of Max Baer, Max Schmeling, Buddy Baer, or Tony Galento as punchers. As a fighter Cleve lacked the boxing skills and accuracy of Joe Louis. Louis beat better fighters than Williams. His record in NO WAY compares to Joe Louis.
Revolver says: “Williams punched a lot harder” than Joe Louis. He did huh? How many fighters did Williams drive their teeth threw their mouthpiece? Williams =Zero, Louis =2. How many fighters did he blind from body punches? Williams =Zero. Louis =1. Revolvers comments are based on his biased opinions not on facts.
Did any of Cleveland Williams opponents take the beating that Arturo Godoy did?
Louis would be highly favored against Williams. Louis was the better boxer, had greater speed, and more explosive power. Williams simply cannot be rated ahead of Joe Louis or Jack Dempsey. Revolver doesn’t know and doesn’t want to.
Ingemar Johannson in the top 20 is a disgrace. Why is he there? I will tell you why. Because Ali outboxed him sparring when Ali was 19 years old. Therefore he fits into Revolvers scheme of boosting Ali opposition to before unknown heights. The problem is, of course, that its nonsense and no one of any boxing knowledge could possibly take such a ridiculous list seriously. Besides the fact that it is unnecessary, Ali beat Liston, Frazier and Foreman and that is enough to consider him for the # 1 spot.
Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johannson DO NOT belong on this list ahead of Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis! That is Asinine! Patterson rated Louis as the greatest heavyweight ever and I am sure if you asked either Floyd or Ingo if they thought they could beat Joe Louis they would both quickly say no. Louis was a fundamentally sound boxer-puncher and counter-puncher who excelled when his opponents came to him. Patterson is a swarmer who would have to bring the fight to Louis and he cannot beat Louis coming into him. That is a bad match up for Floyd. Louis would ruin Floyd as he moved in with his devastating counterpunches. Pete Rademacher dropped Floyd in Pete's pro debut, Louis and Dempsey would have finished him. Ingemar lost 2 of 3 to Floyd by knockout and was too slow for the fast hands of Joe Louis, nor could he match him in boxing skills, durability or any other department. Louis crushes Johannson. It would be no contest. Anyone who knows anything about boxing could see this. But alas Revolver knows absolutely nothing.
Revolver tries to defuse my irrefutable expose' on his ignorance by making it sound like I twisted his words. However all of the quoted text is accurate as to what he said. He has since tried to say, "I never said Leonard lost all the first 4 rounds against Hagler." As if I mis-quoted him. BUT I NEVER said Revolver said that. Read the article, it remains uunchanged. I accurately wrote that Revolver said, "Leonard didn't WIN ANY of the first 4 rounds." Not that he didnt lose any. Revolver had 2 of those rounds for Hagler and 2 even. Virtually every ringsider and boxing insider had Leonard winning at least 3 of the first 4 rounds.
Interesting here are some comments made by the author of a site dedicated to Marvin Hagler. The author rates Hagler as the # 1 all time middleweight, but notice what he says about the Leonard fight:
"Okay, all those things I wouldn't say about the Leonard fight: now I'm gonna say them. For starters, Leonard tried everything he could to tilt the fight in his favor. First, he got Hagler to concede the champion's rights to him. Leonard chose the ring, the gloves, everything but Hagler's trunks, and probably tried to pick those. Then, knowing that not even he could last 15 rounds with Marvelous, he called in the WBC. With the WBA belt being taken away, and the IBF withholding recognition, it was about to become a non-title bout. But Hagler agreed to the WBC's 12-round mandate, and Leonard let out another sigh of relief. Even at all these manufactured disadvantages, Hagler could've, SHOULD'VE, won. But, determined to beat Ray at his own game, Hagler threw away a third of the fight by boxing out of an orthodox stance and following Leonard around the 22-foot ring. Finally snapping out of his 12 minute coma, Hagler cut Leonard off starting in the fifth, and took control of the middle frames. I still swear that if Hagler had pressed the action from the start, he would've stopped Leonard during that ninth-round barrage. But the wear of 66 fights in 14 years started to show on Hagler, and the freshness of a three-and-a-half year layoff spurred Leonard in the championship frames, and Sugar Ray scored the upset by a split and still much-debated decision. I hate to do it, but I do score the fight for Leonard. 4 free rounds from Hagler and late surges in the 10th and 12th rounds are hard for even the Marvelous One to overcome. Why, Marvin, why didn't you make him fight?"
Anyone who would think that Leonard DIDN'T WIN any of the first four rounds against Hagler just doesn't know that he doesn't know. Revolver doesnt understand what he sees. Why listen to anything he has to say?
Revolver has an agenda against Joe Louis which is perfectly outlined in the above article and proven beyond any doubt. I have nothing further to say about him. Anyone who can read can see that he is incompetent.
Revolver's remarks are unworthy of comment, but he was begging to be exposed and this I have accurately done.