Because both were past their prime at that point. Hagler went into decline about two to three years before the fight against Leonard. He changed his style of boxing due to this decline. He was still a fantastic boxer when he was in decline, but the Hagler that fought Leonard, Mugabi, and to a lesser degree Hearns, was not the slick uber tough technician that beat the likes of Minter, Obelmejias, Hamsho (first fight) and Sibson.
Hagler is my favourite boxer of all time, but no way was he close to his best when he took on Leonard. Leonard was nowhere near his best either at that point but he was not as battle worn as Hagler.
For my money if a peak Hagler (1979 to 1984) had met a peak Leonard then it would not have needed judges to decide it as I feel that Hagler would have out thought and out fought Leonard.
I'm not trying to say that Hagler and Leonard were not still high level fighters when they finally met, but they were not the elite level fighters they both once were. It was a mega fight in terms of money, in terms of reputation, and in terms of it being two greats meeting, but it was also two greats who were meeting after their best days had gone and it is for that reason I do not see it as a true super fight.
It may come across as a bit of a snobbish take I will admit, but for better or worse I am a somewhat of a purist when it comes to boxing.
Hagler - Hearns I view differently as both were closer to their prime when they met.
RAFA 
Comment