In the wake of Hagler and Leonard, the only sure thing is the complete uncertainty of sure things.

I am not a fight fan, though Jack Dempsey was my boyhood hero.

I was never the same after Dempsey lost that second fight to Gene Tunney, the one that turned on the notorious “long count.”

That fight cost me my watch, my knife and every cent I had.

I lost my stomach for fighting when I saw too many beautiful young fighters reduced to punch-drunk stumblebums with scarred faces and pig eyes, robbed and abandoned by their hangers-on and hopelessly in debt to the IRS.

I like football, and football is a violent sport; but at least in football the primary object is not to damage an opponent’s brain, so he can’t function. One does not deliberately aim a fist at his opponent’s head. Not if he’s likely to get caught.

Nevertheless, when a big prizefight has captured the emotions of the entire country, as did the one last week between Marvin Hagler and Sugar Ray Leonard, dominating conversation and the sports pages, I can’t help talking about it, reading about it, and wondering about it.

If there’s enough hoopla, we can be made to care about almost anything--a dog fight--though I have never been able to work up much interest in the Long Beach Grand Prix. I can only sigh with relief that I don’t live in Long Beach when the race is going on. It’s bad enough to live in Los Angeles during the marathon.

Big fights are always steeped in psychology and philosophy. Why do the fighters do it? Why do they go out there in the ring and pound each other for 12 or 15 rounds, knowing they are likely to become damaged goods and be marked down? Easy. They do it for fame, for cars, for clothes, for women, for leisure. In a word, for money.

Maybe Hagler and Leonard were fighting for something more than the $10 million each they earned, which is enough to keep a chap in luxury for life. But I doubt it.

What fascinated me finally was the odds. The official odds in Las Vegas favored Hagler 3-1. But more than that, only four out of 50 sportswriters and boxing figures from 30 nations picked Leonard.

One of these, Tommy Hearns, a former lightweight champion who had lost to both Hagler and Leonard, may have known more about this fight than anyone else. He said: “I’m going with Leonard, and I think it’ll go the distance.”

Jim Murray was one of the few sportswriters who wasn’t so sure about a Hagler victory.

“Don’t weep for him (Leonard),” he said. “If Hagler starts to bleed, you might do well to start worrying for him .”

Almost all the other opinions foundered on the same certainties: Hagler is too strong. He’s a true middleweight, Leonard isn’t. Leonard hasn’t had a fight in five years. They never come back.

Leonard won by a split decision in 12.

My interest in all this bloodshed and clouded foresight is that it supports my conviction that no one can foresee the future. That Hagler would beat Leonard, in the minds of sportswriters and other experts, was about as foreseeable a certainty as the future holds.

Except for one thing: It didn’t turn out that way.

Most of the experts were left holding their clipboards and looking silly.

They needn’t be too ashamed. They’re in good company. The experts have been left holding the bag in every kind of American enterprise.

Consider these few examples from “The Experts Speak” (Pantheon) by Christopher Cerf and Victor Navasky:

George P. Shultz said of the Marines in Lebanon: “If attacked, the Marines will take care of themselves with vigor.”

Napoleon at breakfast before Waterloo: “I tell you Wellington is a bad general, the English are bad soldiers; we will settle the matter by lunch time.”

Thomas Alva Edison himself: “The phonograph is not of any commercial value.”

Rutherford B. Hayes, President of the United States, said of the telephone: “That’s an amazing invention, but who would ever want to use one of them?”

Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, former president of the Royal Society: “Radio has no future.”

Darryl F. Zanuck, head of 20th Century-Fox studios, of television: “Video won’t be able to hold onto any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.”

The computer fared no better at the hands of the so-called experts.

Sir George Biddell Airy, KCB, MA, LL.D., FRS, FRAS, dismissed Charles Babbage’s “analytical engine” as “worthless.”

Thomas J. Watson, chairman of the board of IBM: “I think there is a world market for about five computers.”

A deckhand on the RMS Titanic, responding to an anxious lady’s question: “God himself could not sink this ship.”

What puzzles me about the outcome of highly publicized events like the Hagler-Leonard fight is that the professional seers and psychics never tell us who’s going to win.

That’s because the fight is imminent and there will be nothing vague about the outcome--one man either wins or loses.

That’s too specific for the psychics to stick their necks out on.

I’m sticking with my prediction of a big earthquake for July 10.