Hagler/Leonard v Hamilton/Grudem

Whilst on holiday I read a great book on boxing: 'The Four Kings', by George Kimbrall, whcih recalls the careers of Roberto 'Hands of Stone' Duran, Thomas 'Hitman' Hearns, 'Sugar' Ray Leonard and the 'Marvellous' Marvin Hagler, documenting the remarkable effect they had on boxing. It's a great read and you can taste the adrenaline at the back of your throat when he writes of the big fights. I was too young to remember the early bouts but I remember watching Hearns v Hagler in all it's 3 round ferocity. If only Hearns had stayed away there's no way Hagler could have kept going. You can watch nearly all the fights on youtube.

I was trying to search through the book for illustrations but couldn't find any. However.....

The fight that always divides opinion is Hagler/ Leonard. Leonard boxed cleverly, he outpointed Hagler who still to this day believes he was the victor. For those who watched the bout, who you think won the fight depends on who was your favourite boxer and what boxing style you prefer. Kimbrall's view is that Leonard boxed clever, quick punches that the judges would score allowing him to keep ahead of Hagler. Those of a simpler disposition such as Carl still believe that Hagler won.

It reminds me somewhat of the friendly and very profitable debate that Ian Hamilton had with Wayne Grudem on the whole issue of continuing prophecy at EMA in 2010. I had to listen to the debate from the tent outside as the Proc Trust stewards would not allow me entrance for the petty reason that I'd not paid for the conference (wouldn't have happened before Free Church Reynolds watch). Anyway, as you talk to people about the debate afterwards I was amazed to find people that didn't think Hamilton had wiped the floor with Prof Grudem. I was convinced it had been a unanimous points victory with a couple of knockdowns thrown in.