Hagler vs Hopkins who would win?

[tliang1000]

A peak Hopkins vs a peak Hagler, who would win?

[scurlaruntings]

Hagler for me. B Hop is nice but his a conservative fighter. Hagler got the venom in his belly and would want it more. He was relentless. Hopkins wasnt unless he was fouling the shit out of you.

[Thread Stealer]

Tough call. They're both versatile fighters who can box and brawl. Hopkins is a little slicker and quicker, despite Hagler having nice parrying ability. Hagler was heavier handed and more proven when it came to brawling, such as when Hagler abandoned his usual boxer-puncher style, going for broke against Hearns, and it worked to perfection. Hopkins is a good, clever infighter who knows all the tricks, legal or illegal.

I also think Hopkins would be better at the mind games. I could never picture Hopkins letting Leonard get to his head like Hagler did.

Hopkins is very experienced against lefties..what is he, 9-0 against them? I lost count. Hagler could box orthodox though.

Hopkins by close decision.

[tliang1000]

I think Hopkins is smart enough to beat Hagler by decision. Leonard beat Hagler with movements and Bhop got one of the best lateral movements with good pop in peak condition. I don't think Hagler could outbox Bhop and would need to look for a KO and BHop also got one of the best beards in the business.

[Thread Stealer]

I think Hopkins is smart enough to beat Hagler by decision. Leonard beat Hagler with movements and Bhop got one of the best lateral movements with good pop in peak condition. I don't think Hagler could outbox Bhop and would need to look for a KO and BHop also got one of the best beards in the business.

Hagler was slowing down by then.

I think it's unfair to use a slowed down Hagler, much like it would be unfair to use the old Hopkins who has to pick his spots so much more and has a crap workrate, as opposed to the Hopkins of the late 90s/early 00s who had a good workrate.

[heidegger]

Hopkins close decision.

[tliang1000]

Hagler was slowing down by then.

I think it's unfair to use a slowed down Hagler, much like it would be unfair to use the old Hopkins who has to pick his spots so much more and has a crap workrate, as opposed to the Hopkins of the late 90s/early 00s who had a good workrate.

That is a good point on Hagler not being in physical prime... but neither was Leonard... and out of prime Leonard who came out from retirement movement still gave Hagler problems.

[klion22]

I think Hagler wins. Isn't Hagler one of the strongest fighters ever in terms of P4P? I mean the guy was a beast at MW.

But they are two of my all time favorite fighters because they did it the right way.

[PATSYS]

Hopkins' could pull a close win over a 12 round fight.

In a 15-ruond fight, Hagler by TKO.

[Rumsfeld]

Hopkins' could pull a close win over a 12 round fight.

In a 15-ruond fight, Hagler by TKO. Why? Hopkins is as well suited for fifteen rounders as any fighter I've ever seen.

That said, the more time passes, the more I like Hopkins's chances against Hagler. Hopkins truly is a master in the ring, but even though I give him a better chance now than I ever would have, I still reckon Hagler beats him.

[klion22]

This should've been a poll.

[Jack]

Hagler is way too good a pressure fighter for Hopkins. Remember, this is a Hopkins who lost twice to Taylor, when he was slightly past his absolute best. Physically, no, but mentally, when he lost to Taylor he was only about 2 years past it.

If it's the Hopkins in his physical prime, he loses by a TKO around 11. If it's the mentally prime Hopkins, Hagler would win an easy UD, but wouldn't stop him.

[Boro chris]

Hagler. Though Hopkins would've presented many problems as he's been very successful againsy southpaws. Haglers has faster, heavier, more accurate hands and was a better combo puncher. Hagler Ud.

[klion22]

Hagler is way too good a pressure fighter for Hopkins. Remember, this is a Hopkins who lost twice to Taylor, when he was slightly past his absolute best. Physically, no, but mentally, when he lost to Taylor he was only about 2 years past it.

If it's the Hopkins in his physical prime, he loses by a TKO around 11. If it's the mentally prime Hopkins, Hagler would win an easy UD, but wouldn't stop him.

That's the thing about Hopkins. Unlike most fighters, his prime years were in his late 30's. While he was great before that, he really didn't became that master boxer until later in his career. But by then, he didn't have the same energy level because of his age. It almost never works that way but that's why you have to respect Hopkins so much. When he wasn't in his physical prime, he became better.

But a young and active fighter can slow Hopkins down. Look at JT as you mentioned. So which Hopkins do you consider "prime" Hopkins? The younger one who was more aggressive and less technical or the master boxer who fought at the tail end of his career and picked his spots and never got hit?

[Jack]

But a young and active fighter can slow Hopkins down. Look at JT as you mentioned. So which Hopkins do you consider "prime" Hopkins? The younger one who was more aggressive and less technical or the master boxer who fought at the tail end of his career and picked his spots and never got hit?
Nice question.

I think they both have a fair share of weaknesses and strengths. Against agressive fighters, I think the more defensive Hopkins would fair better. although, if that agressive fighter is relentless, B-Hop wouldn't have the physical abilities to keep up with that pace. However, he is a smart fighter now, so would be able to manipulate one dimensional fighters.

Against more defensive fighters, the early Hopkins would be better, as he had more speed, better reflexes and hit harder. However, he could be outboxed, so I'd expect someone like Carlos Monzon to not lose manyrounds against this version, whereas Jake LaMotta would lose to him.

I think both versions are beatable against the elite middleweights. That's why I don't rate Hopkins highly, because he never had an true peak. He is either physically great or mentally great. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and someone like Hagler would probably beat either.

[theblackmeow]

Not even close! I've been a fan of both fighters from their beginnings and Hagler would have annihilated Hopkins. In order to show against the Hag, a fighter had to be very busy and move constantly. Hopkins never was a busy fighter even in his prime. He was the master of punch selection and calculated damage. Bhop would not have been able to even slow Marvin down. Marvin marched through the like of Mustapha Hamsho, Tommy Hearns, John Mugabi, Juan Roldan, Vito Antuofermo, Alan Minter (a superb southpaw!), Roberto "Hands of Stone" Duran, Fulgencio Obelmejias and many more. Some of these guys he whipped twice. Bhop would have been closest in style to Duran, I believe, just not as busy. Yes he would have given Hagler a good fight and he might have been able to avoid being KO'ed as did Duran, but Bernard is far too defensive and not active enough to beat the likes of Hagler. Most of the guys I've mentioned as opponents of Hagler would probably have beaten BHop. The Leonard fight was a combination of Hagler slowing down, a bad, bad decision w/a possible fix in, the choice of 12 rounds over 15 and Leonard's saleablility as a media star. Remember, the decision was split, and the ringer judge they brought in scored the fight 10-2 Leonard and later publicly admitted making mistakes in his scoring in some rounds. Even Leonard's wife said he lost the fight. SURVIVING Hagler is not the same as BEATING Hagler. People seem to confuse the two. Hagler would have used his swarming style to overwhelm Hopkins and his power punches would have kept BHop constantly on the defensive because they would have hurt him severely. The Hag was a harder puncher than BHop and a better switch hitter. With the exception of Leonard, Hagler always found a way to win, and whatever the way he chose, he hurt you badly. That's one of the reasons the powers that be in boxing wanted Hagler out of the picture. He hurt boxers when he beat them. He was a human meat grinder which, unfortunately, Hopkins is not. When the name of Hagler is spoken, it is mentioned in the same vein as other superstar middleweight champs such as Sugar Ray Robinson, Carlos Monzon, Emile Griffith and the like. BHop is definitely in the top 20 middleweights of all time, but equal to Monzon and Hagler? I don't think so. Result: Marvin Hagler UD Bernard Hopkins over 12 rounds; Marvin Hagler TKO Bernard Hopkins round 14 of 15 rounds.;)

[brooklyn1550]

Hagler by UD