It was simply referred to as” The Super Fight.” That’s it. No other brands were needed. And on April 6, 1987, they met in Caesars Palace to compete in the WBC heavyweight title. What happened over the next 12 sessions has been argued, debated, and fought over for almost 40 times.
Advertisement
I’m speaking, of course, of the famous battle between Sugar Ray Leonard and Marvelous Marvin Hagler.
At the time, Hagler was The Movie, mowing over all. Leonard was the pretty-boy interest, with his film star good looks and Olympian lineage, he was seen as more display than element but a big box office draw. Hagler was the long-reigning fighter, Leonard was coming out of retirement and had never before fought at heavyweight.
When sportswriters were polled, 46 out of 50 predicted that Hagler do succeed. Many said he’d gain by knock.
But when the whistle sounded, something extraordinary happened:
Hagler undoubtedly won the majority of the battle. For the majority of the 12 rounds, Hagler imposed his will and suffered much more abuse than his opponent if you squeeze the numbers. Usually, to take the title aside from a champion, the burden is on the challenger to do something extraordinary. There’s an illegal law in boxing that relationships go to the fighter, it’s the challenger’s responsibility to prove he’s the better person. By that history, Hagler winning the court’s decision should’ve been a no-brainer:” Your success and STILL lightweight world hero, Marvelous Marvin Hagler”!
Yet when the dust settled, it was Leonard who won a broken selection.
Leonard did two notable things to help him steal much rounds, despite losing the majority of the fight: He fumbled his way into the fight’s opening and closing flurry. Leonard did wow the courts with bright shots and angry combos especially in the final 30 seconds of each round. In the judges ‘ heads, this helped to give off the impression of success.
Advertisement
At the national conversation last night in Philadelphia, Kamala Harris began frail and stressed. She completely avoided the question,” Are you better off now than it was four years ago?” opting rather for her word-salad nonsense. It was an abominable second idea.
Physically, she seemed Lilliputian, personality-wise, she came across as a pushy, arrogant girl who’s utterly beyond her degree.
Then at the close, Trump had his finest time: His closing speech. ” So she just started by saying she’s going to do this, she’s going to accomplish that, she’s going to do all these beautiful things. Why has n’t she done it? She’s been there for three and a half times. They’ve had three and a half years to correct the border. They have had three and a half times to work and accomplish everything we discussed. Why has n’t she done it”?
Trump won the first place and stayed in place at the end. ( The center element, yet? Trump was underprepared and he underperformed. I suspect he spent far more time golfing than debate prepping … and it showed. )
Trump outperformed Harris when it was most important, but Harris did so more often than Trump did. In this respect, it was Hagler-Leonard all over again.
Ignore the quick post-debate elections. The Frank Luntz school of thought, whereby citizens press a button after hearing a particular word and adding up the list, is unquestionable in November. It’s the profound impact that counts, not a series of specific times. This is the only problem that’s going to determine who truly “won” the conversation: Will the voters ‘ lasting memory been Trump’s rambling, vague answers, or Kamala Harris’s rude, uncomfortable, deceptive demeanor?
Advertisement
That’s it. Everything else matters.
Trump’s notoriety is now cast in stone. There’s not a lot of stiffness left. Even if he totally mopped the ground with Harris, his numbers would n’t have budged that much. Trump is Trump, we know what he is.
But Harris is in a unique type: She’s not nearly as well known. For the first time in a long time, the general public has heard a lot of her, and I’m not sure that many people in the country liked what they saw. There is something incredibly dishonest about her, a judgmental, off-putting disingenuousness that would be difficult to endure for four years.
She’s an incredibly uncharismatic personality. Perhaps her habits are fabricated.
There’s more to the account, of course. There usually is: Unfortunately enough, ABC’s editors David Muir and Linsey Davis did support Trump’s post-debate PR. Had it been a good, one-on-one struggle, Trump’s efficiency would’ve looked even worse. But because ABC’s discrimination was so very heavy-handed, at least Trump has an excuse. ( Frankly, Trump needs one. That was n’t a good performance. ) In specific, Muir was nearly in Kamala’s bag.
When we recollect past events, we do n’t remember every detail. Alternatively, we remember the end, the ending, and a few personal snapshots. Our thoughts are streamlined and economized. The public’s lasting memory of Kamala’s performance wo n’t be anything specific she said, it’ll be how we felt when we watched her make weird faces at the camera, her words and gestures dripping with condescension.
Advertisement
We’re certainly straight philosophers. We’re personal thinkers.
Do n’t believe me? Get ask Marvin Hagler.
