Mavin Hagler Eats Bernard Hopkins

[Leeroy]

My opinion has not changed. Discuss this matchup.

[McGrain]

AGAIN?

Hopkins eaks out a horrible UD that everyone argues about for about ten years.

[Bad_Intentions]

AGAIN?

Hopkins eaks out a horrible UD that everyone argues about for about ten years.:rofl :rofl

[pjo479]

Now I want to make this perfectly clear.
The Bernard Hopkins that we see today, would not have beaten the Marvin Hagler that we all know of.

When I'm looking at this, I'm talking of the Bernard Hopkins that dismantled Tito Trinidad. That Bernard Hopkins was one of the best middleweights in the history of the game.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler and Bernard Hopkins are very much alike, they're hard men.. inside and outside of the squared circle. They both brought a very intimidating presence into the ring, and they both could fight to back up that presence.

But there is one major difference in styles that differentiates them... versatility.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler was a great fighter, but a fighter that relied on 3 things, conditioning, will, and physical strength. It was his goal to press a fight for 15 full rounds until whoever it was that was in front of him was gone. He carried this throughout his career, and he was absolutely brillaint in his work.

However, what would he do when a guy refused to stand with him, a guy that knows how to win, and that wouldn't buy into Hagler's game? Well, we all saw what he'd do, he'd keep trying. Hagler's fight with Sugar Ray Leonard set the blueprint and is the fight that I believe accurately depicts how Bernard Hopkins would have "Executed" Hagler, except in far more emphatic fashion then the much smaller Ray Leonard.

Hopkins is also, like Hagler, a HUGE middleweight. Physically powerful, and bruising. In a matchup of pure strength, this one is about as even as it gets. Many may think Hagler was stronger, but in terms of size and boxing functional strength, he was NOT.

The Hopkins at the time of the Trinidad fight would NOT have thrown a shot here and there, jumping in and out with a shot and looking to grab. He was a guy who put together punches, and found beautiful angles to land crushing shots. (His power was much more devestating a few years back, it has deteriorated with age, even Hopkins himself has admitted this) Lets not disregard the fact that Hopkins, just as Hagler was, has ALWAYS been in absolutely flawless condition.
Being as strong as Hopkins is, he would not have catered to Haglers style. He would have stuck him with a jab from the get go, letting Hagler start to bring the fight to him, and dissecting him with his overrall BETTER SKILLS and well roundedness.

Hagler was tremendous, but Hopkins just has more to work with. Hagler would be chasing Hopkins all night, but unlike the Hopkins we saw vs Eastman (a Hopkins that I like to refer to as slowing down, losing punching power, and the overall tenacity), the prime Bernard Hopkins was an absolutely murderous fighter. He would have shucked in and out (Hopkins is such a quicker fighter then the somewhat methodical Hagler) landing many series of devestating shots and leaving when any resistance was offered up from Hagler.

Certainly Hopkins would take a few shots in the bout, but with Hopkins's jaw of CAST IRON, there is absolutely no way that Hagler would have gotten to him enough to force a stoppage or even to significantly hurt Hopkins in my opinion. He would have chased him hard, he would have pressed the issue, but once Hopkins started Banging him and getting inside and mauling him, not giving Hagler any room, tapping him on the thighs, tangling him up, freeing up an arm and ripping a few uppercuts and short hooks (Hopkins is a perfectionist at this craft), he would gain control of Hagler.

Hopkins was too fast, equally strong, and had MANY MANY more options then Hagler. When Option 1 would fail for Hagler, he would have nothing else to resort to, of course The Marvelous one would try in vein, but it would be futile. Even when he beat Hearns, he had one option, go through all that punishment and do what he does best. Strength, will, and conditioning. Hopkins would NEVER get into that kind of fight with Hagler, and the result would be a hard fought Hopkins decision, potentially even stopping him late. Sugar Ray Leonard pulled it off, and he was nowhere near as strong as Hopkins, Hopkins is catlike quick, and there's no doubt in my mind he could pull off the same gimmick to perfection, except better. Just like he pulled off the gameplan set forth by Oscar De La Hoya on Felix Trinidad better.:good

[McGrain]

Hagler was better in every way. Better long range, stronger in close. Better at pretty much everything. Hopkins was crafty and skilled, but not enough to take Hagler off his game.

There is something awkward about fighting Hopkins, as you've said.

I think Hagler could "out-think" himself - I think the prospect of taking on Hopkins could worry him. I also think it's possible that Hopkins could get under Hagler's skin in the ring and before they got into the ring - Hopkins is on a different plane, mentally in my opinion. I really think Hagler could find himself unseated a bit.

Of course, this suggestion makes some people go absolutley mad, so i've got to acknowledge I could be wrong, such is the depth of feeling of otherwise rational people.

But that is my opinion.

Hopkins UD, 15.

[Bad_Intentions]

Hagler was better in every way. Better long range, stronger in close. Better at pretty much everything. Hopkins was crafty and skilled, but not enough to take Hagler off his game.:good :good

[Bummy Davis]

I like Hagler in this one, Hopkins did not have the handspeed of a Leonard or the footspeed, Hagler UD IMO

[McGrain]

Hagler appeared to me to be one of the hardest men I've seen in boxing, I don't think anyone shakes him.

Firs up, i'm not suggesting Hagler is anything other than one of the hardest that's ever seen the ring; nor am I suggesting he is weak mentally (the opposite if anything). But I do think Leonard got under his skin and had him asking himself questions. I also feel that Duran unsettled him a bit.

These guys work on a higher plane of physical communication. I've always felt that Hopkins, with his time inside, has an even better understanding of these coded messages. He's got a better handle on eye-contact (basically a challenge inside) and how to control those confrontations (he's never been faced down or unerved that i've seen). I don't think Hagler would like the sense of being "edged out" psychologically, specifically because he was not used to it. It is my opinion, and i have very little in the way of proof, he suffered something similair v Duran (a blown up lightweight, lest we forget).


Hopkins is a hard man as well, but I think Hagler is simply more skilled a boxer, from all areas, although inside it would be close as Hopkins has his tricks and tactics. It would be close.

I think Hagler is more skilled too; i'm looking at his ring generalship plus a totally hypothetical psychological edge to eke out a tight UD.

But what it boils down to, Sweet Pea, is little more than, "i ze something".

But i'd be laying money, actually.

[Leeroy]

Hagler had a steel will,not that Hopkins didn't/doesn't - but Hagler wins this fight by effective counter-punching/pressing the action.

[Jose FM]

Now I want to make this perfectly clear.
The Bernard Hopkins that we see today, would not have beaten the Marvin Hagler that we all know of.

When I'm looking at this, I'm talking of the Bernard Hopkins that dismantled Tito Trinidad. That Bernard Hopkins was one of the best middleweights in the history of the game.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler and Bernard Hopkins are very much alike, they're hard men.. inside and outside of the squared circle. They both brought a very intimidating presence into the ring, and they both could fight to back up that presence.

But there is one major difference in styles that differentiates them... versatility.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler was a great fighter, but a fighter that relied on 3 things, conditioning, will, and physical strength. It was his goal to press a fight for 15 full rounds until whoever it was that was in front of him was gone. He carried this throughout his career, and he was absolutely brillaint in his work.

However, what would he do when a guy refused to stand with him, a guy that knows how to win, and that wouldn't buy into Hagler's game? Well, we all saw what he'd do, he'd keep trying. Hagler's fight with Sugar Ray Leonard set the blueprint and is the fight that I believe accurately depicts how Bernard Hopkins would have "Executed" Hagler, except in far more emphatic fashion then the much smaller Ray Leonard.

Hopkins is also, like Hagler, a HUGE middleweight. Physically powerful, and bruising. In a matchup of pure strength, this one is about as even as it gets. Many may think Hagler was stronger, but in terms of size and boxing functional strength, he was NOT.

The Hopkins at the time of the Trinidad fight would NOT have thrown a shot here and there, jumping in and out with a shot and looking to grab. He was a guy who put together punches, and found beautiful angles to land crushing shots. (His power was much more devestating a few years back, it has deteriorated with age, even Hopkins himself has admitted this) Lets not disregard the fact that Hopkins, just as Hagler was, has ALWAYS been in absolutely flawless condition.
Being as strong as Hopkins is, he would not have catered to Haglers style. He would have stuck him with a jab from the get go, letting Hagler start to bring the fight to him, and dissecting him with his overrall BETTER SKILLS and well roundedness.

Hagler was tremendous, but Hopkins just has more to work with. Hagler would be chasing Hopkins all night, but unlike the Hopkins we saw vs Eastman (a Hopkins that I like to refer to as slowing down, losing punching power, and the overall tenacity), the prime Bernard Hopkins was an absolutely murderous fighter. He would have shucked in and out (Hopkins is such a quicker fighter then the somewhat methodical Hagler) landing many series of devestating shots and leaving when any resistance was offered up from Hagler.

Certainly Hopkins would take a few shots in the bout, but with Hopkins's jaw of CAST IRON, there is absolutely no way that Hagler would have gotten to him enough to force a stoppage or even to significantly hurt Hopkins in my opinion. He would have chased him hard, he would have pressed the issue, but once Hopkins started Banging him and getting inside and mauling him, not giving Hagler any room, tapping him on the thighs, tangling him up, freeing up an arm and ripping a few uppercuts and short hooks (Hopkins is a perfectionist at this craft), he would gain control of Hagler.

Hopkins was too fast, equally strong, and had MANY MANY more options then Hagler. When Option 1 would fail for Hagler, he would have nothing else to resort to, of course The Marvelous one would try in vein, but it would be futile. Even when he beat Hearns, he had one option, go through all that punishment and do what he does best. Strength, will, and conditioning. Hopkins would NEVER get into that kind of fight with Hagler, and the result would be a hard fought Hopkins decision, potentially even stopping him late. Sugar Ray Leonard pulled it off, and he was nowhere near as strong as Hopkins, Hopkins is catlike quick, and there's no doubt in my mind he could pull off the same gimmick to perfection, except better. Just like he pulled off the gameplan set forth by Oscar De La Hoya on Felix Trinidad better.:good
Many holes in your argument, one is that youre refering to Sugar Ray Leonard as some guy who was fast and had no strength so therefore the fact that Bernard Hopkins is stronger would mean that he would beat Hagler? This makes no sense, SRL is an ATG was way more versitile than Bernard Hopkins can only dream of. SRL would make Bernard Hopkins look like an amateur if they fought how SRL fought Hagler in '87. I pick Hagler cause Hopkins gives away too many rounds in the begining with the hopes that he will catch towards the end of the fight due to his conditioning, this would be a big mistake if he tried that with Hagler cause Hagler would right there with him all the way til the end and eat him up.

[pjo479]

there are always going to be holes in anyones opinion. all i was referring to in saying what i said is simply this, hopkins has enough skills and wits to frustrate hagler much the same way leonard did with his hand speed , sorry for the misread but glad you mentioned it so i could clarify myself:good

[Manassa]

Marvelous Marvin Hagler was a great fighter, but a fighter that relied on 3 things, conditioning, will, and physical strength.

Utter bullshit. I didn't bother reading any further. You obviously know next to nothing about Hagler and probably only saw his later fights.

[pjo479]

IF he could make Hopkins fight his fight, then we're looking at a fight that Hagler wins with just sheer determination, using his smarts, and making Hopkins uncomfortable. I just can't see it happening. I think through anything that Hagler brings to the table, Hopkins sticks to his guns. He's smart enough to know what needs to be done to win the fight, and he knows to stick to the plan through ANY ROUGH spots that may occur.

Look how squared up Hagler's style was, he was always setting to let his punches go, and Hopkins is the kind of guy that can punch and move, stop and fire hard and quick combinations and get out, or tie up. He's just too smooth!

Hopkins has that uncanny ability to fight anyway he wants to fight. He can be smooth and fluid, he can stalk and pound, abuse the man and beat them up like a pure brawler. There is NO one set way that Bernard Hopkins can beat you! I think this would be a hard fought bout any way you look at it! :good

[pjo479]

manassa im 47 yrs old my friend and boxed the golden gloves and then some dont disrespect me im here giving my opinion like everyone else and trust me i have alot of knowledge on boxing

[Manassa]

manassa im 47 yrs old my friend and boxed the golden gloves and then some dont disrespect me im here giving my opinion like everyone else and trust me i have alot of knowledge on boxing

I couldn't care if you beat your first wife to death with her own leg, your opinion of Hagler is plain wrong. Hagler, one dimensional? Just about 99% of people would disagree with you. Watch some of his prime fights and learn.

[Jose FM]

manassa im 47 yrs old my friend and boxed the golden gloves and then some dont disrespect me im here giving my opinion like everyone else and trust me i have alot of knowledge on boxing
You have mine!:good

[Jose FM]

respect that is lol.

[pjo479]

lol ok son ill take your advice lol i never said he was one dimensional dummy learn how to read

[pjo479]

i think manassa thinks im knocking hagler and im not i could write an article on hagler and how good he was so dont be mad its only my opinion

[Thread Stealer]

Now I want to make this perfectly clear.
The Bernard Hopkins that we see today, would not have beaten the Marvin Hagler that we all know of.

When I'm looking at this, I'm talking of the Bernard Hopkins that dismantled Tito Trinidad. That Bernard Hopkins was one of the best middleweights in the history of the game.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler and Bernard Hopkins are very much alike, they're hard men.. inside and outside of the squared circle. They both brought a very intimidating presence into the ring, and they both could fight to back up that presence.

But there is one major difference in styles that differentiates them... versatility.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler was a great fighter, but a fighter that relied on 3 things, conditioning, will, and physical strength. It was his goal to press a fight for 15 full rounds until whoever it was that was in front of him was gone. He carried this throughout his career, and he was absolutely brillaint in his work.

However, what would he do when a guy refused to stand with him, a guy that knows how to win, and that wouldn't buy into Hagler's game? Well, we all saw what he'd do, he'd keep trying. Hagler's fight with Sugar Ray Leonard set the blueprint and is the fight that I believe accurately depicts how Bernard Hopkins would have "Executed" Hagler, except in far more emphatic fashion then the much smaller Ray Leonard.

Hopkins is also, like Hagler, a HUGE middleweight. Physically powerful, and bruising. In a matchup of pure strength, this one is about as even as it gets. Many may think Hagler was stronger, but in terms of size and boxing functional strength, he was NOT.

The Hopkins at the time of the Trinidad fight would NOT have thrown a shot here and there, jumping in and out with a shot and looking to grab. He was a guy who put together punches, and found beautiful angles to land crushing shots. (His power was much more devestating a few years back, it has deteriorated with age, even Hopkins himself has admitted this) Lets not disregard the fact that Hopkins, just as Hagler was, has ALWAYS been in absolutely flawless condition.
Being as strong as Hopkins is, he would not have catered to Haglers style. He would have stuck him with a jab from the get go, letting Hagler start to bring the fight to him, and dissecting him with his overrall BETTER SKILLS and well roundedness.

Hagler was tremendous, but Hopkins just has more to work with. Hagler would be chasing Hopkins all night, but unlike the Hopkins we saw vs Eastman (a Hopkins that I like to refer to as slowing down, losing punching power, and the overall tenacity), the prime Bernard Hopkins was an absolutely murderous fighter. He would have shucked in and out (Hopkins is such a quicker fighter then the somewhat methodical Hagler) landing many series of devestating shots and leaving when any resistance was offered up from Hagler.

Certainly Hopkins would take a few shots in the bout, but with Hopkins's jaw of CAST IRON, there is absolutely no way that Hagler would have gotten to him enough to force a stoppage or even to significantly hurt Hopkins in my opinion. He would have chased him hard, he would have pressed the issue, but once Hopkins started Banging him and getting inside and mauling him, not giving Hagler any room, tapping him on the thighs, tangling him up, freeing up an arm and ripping a few uppercuts and short hooks (Hopkins is a perfectionist at this craft), he would gain control of Hagler.

Hopkins was too fast, equally strong, and had MANY MANY more options then Hagler. When Option 1 would fail for Hagler, he would have nothing else to resort to, of course The Marvelous one would try in vein, but it would be futile. Even when he beat Hearns, he had one option, go through all that punishment and do what he does best. Strength, will, and conditioning. Hopkins would NEVER get into that kind of fight with Hagler, and the result would be a hard fought Hopkins decision, potentially even stopping him late. Sugar Ray Leonard pulled it off, and he was nowhere near as strong as Hopkins, Hopkins is catlike quick, and there's no doubt in my mind he could pull off the same gimmick to perfection, except better. Just like he pulled off the gameplan set forth by Oscar De La Hoya on Felix Trinidad better.:good

No, both Hopkins and Hagler were very versatile fighters.

Hopkins started off as more of an attacking right-hand puncher, but as he got older, became more tactical, and as you've seen the last few years, he picks his spots a lot and has a low workrate.

Hagler is sort of the opposite, whereas he was a boxer-puncher throughout most of his career, but became more of a brawler toward the end of his career, such as the Hearns fights and the late rounds versus Mugabi.

Hagler had heavier hands, a better jab, and was a little more proven when it came to brawling it out with big punchers. He took some big shots from Hearns and Mugabi. He changed his style to be more aggressive against the rangy, terrific boxer in Hearns and outslugged him. He jabbed the hell out of Mugabi, but eventually it was the bodyshots and in-fighting which took it out of The Beast. Hopkins's best brawling performances against big punchers weren't quite as impressive, but B-Hop is a little slicker and quicker than Hagler, IMO. He uses angles very well and is not only extremely crafty, but is also very experienced against southpaws.

I rank Hagler all-time on the MW rankings mainly due to his superior opposition level on the way to the title, but I would actually pick Hopkins to win a close decision head-to-head over Hagler.

[brooklyn1550]

Marvin Hagler UD12 Bernard Hopkins

[Thread Stealer]

Since when the fuck did Hagler rely on conditioning, will and physical strength? It amazes me how many people always seem to say that when they reflect on Hagler.

Yeah it was only that for Hagler.

It had nothing to do with his brilliant jab, underrated parrying skills, lateral movement, considerable power, combinations, ability to fight from either stance, etc...

:lol:

Funny thing is, I'm not much of a Hagler fan at all. But I always seem to be defending him against people who understate his skill.

The "Hagler was a brawler" myth is one of my boxing pet peeves.

[pjo479]

look at the pace he set in all his fights man thats what i mean about strength and conditioning and if you want look at his tapes look at the vito antuofermo fight look at the marcus geraldo fight the duran fight and then some the guy set an amazin pace each time and the antuofermo fight was 15 rds so was the duran fight

[Leeroy]

I believe Hopkins is 11-0 with 8 KO's against southpaws. Against Hagler, I see that zero going away.

Hopkins is hard, Hagler is harder. Hopkins is tough, Hagler is tougher.

Hagler reminds me like Hopkins evil, superior twin.

Hagler was one of the best counterpunchers of his day to....His boxing skills have always been underrated.

The twin metaphor is spot on - Hagler is a little better.

[Manassa]

lol ok son ill take your advice lol i never said he was one dimensional dummy learn how to read

Uh... In not so many words, you did:

But there is one major difference in styles that differentiates them... versatility.

Hopkins was too fast, equally strong, and had MANY MANY more options then Hagler.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler was a great fighter, but a fighter that relied on 3 things, conditioning, will, and physical strength.

It was his goal to press a fight for 15 full rounds until whoever it was that was in front of him was gone.

Even though he outboxed half his opponents? Bennie Briscoe, Willie ******, Vito Antuofermo, Mustafa Hamsho, Tony Sibson... Need I go on?

You make various other references to Hagler's limited skill set throughout your post, or how Hopkins' is much better all-round. This is simply not true, and anyone who knows a prime Hagler will almost definitely agree.

Another major flaw with your argument; you allow Hopkins some slack with regards to him being past prime against Eastman or whoever, yet you are unforgiving of Hagler - he was well past his prime against Leonard. He was on the slide against Hearns, believe it or not. Take it from me, I own every filmed fight of Hagler's and have watched each one three, perhaps four times - his peak ended in '83.

[brooklyn1550]

Anybody who has seen earlier Hagler fights than Hearns and Mugabi will realize how complete of a fighter he was. He had great boxing skills, a shotgun jab, he was a tremendous counter puncher, he was a complex fighter on the inside, good speed, and great power. Anybody who claims Hagler was just a come forward brawler doesn't know what they are talking about.

[pjo479]

my intentions were not to say hagler didnt have skills i know what skills he had and i too my friend have an amazin collection of fights from hagler myself my point is simply i think hopkins wins the fight enoigh from me ok i dont have time t o debate with you all day if your from ny lets meet id be glad to talk boxing anyday with ya

[pjo479]

all be it said and done read these reasons i think he is the best mw all time then and see if i dont know what im talking about . just because i think hopkins beats him dont mean i dont see him as the best

[Leeroy]

IF he could make Hopkins fight his fight, then we're looking at a fight that Hagler wins with just sheer determination, using his smarts, and making Hopkins uncomfortable. I just can't see it happening. I think through anything that Hagler brings to the table, Hopkins sticks to his guns. He's smart enough to know what needs to be done to win the fight, and he knows to stick to the plan through ANY ROUGH spots that may occur.

Look how squared up Hagler's style was, he was always setting to let his punches go, and Hopkins is the kind of guy that can punch and move, stop and fire hard and quick combinations and get out, or tie up. He's just too smooth!

Hopkins has that uncanny ability to fight anyway he wants to fight. He can be smooth and fluid, he can stalk and pound, abuse the man and beat them up like a pure brawler. There is NO one set way that Bernard Hopkins can beat you! I think this would be a hard fought bout any way you look at it! :good

TZHIo5ylQA8

ZYHSHd1xfpY

yT9PQ2gOrnQ

Here - this will refresh your memory....Everything Hopkins does Hager did a little better.:yep

[pjo479]

Here it is. The reasons I have for placing Marvelous Marvin Hagler ahead of even Ray Robinson, Carlos Monzon, and Harry Greb in the all-time rankings at middleweight.
1: Consistency. Hagler started his career with a 26-fight unbeaten streak. After dropping two of three fights (to Bobby "Boogaloo" Watts and Willie "the Worm" Monroe, both close, both in Philly), Marvin went 37 more fights without a loss. In other words, for 14 years, 67 fights, you could bet that Marvin Hagler was showing up to fight, to win, and over 90 percent of the time he was going to get it done. Check his winning percentages against the other guys. If Hagler had fought as many times as Robinson, he'd have lost about 10 fights. Sugar Ray lost 19. When Robinson was off, against Turpin, Basilio, Fullmer: he lost. When Hagler was off, he was robbed in a controversial draw against Antuofermo, or had to rally to pull out the win over a resurgent Duran. And we won't mention the poor strategy that turned what should have been a late TKO win over Leonard into a split decision loss.
2: The tools. How many other fighters have had the physical package that Hagler did? He ranks near the top of the middleweight heap in nearly every category of skill and talent. Who had a better chin? Maybe LaMotta? But even the bull was stopped by Robinson. Who was stronger? Greb has a case, but it's hard to see even the Human Windmill pushing Hagler around. There've been harder hitters, but then, beyond a certain point punching power becomes extraneous. Hagler had enough to close the show against top fighters. Speed? So Hagler was a hair behind Robinson and Leonard. So was everybody else. He maximized his speed with a deceptive reach (ask Tommy Hearns) and superb timing. What about the now-underrated boxing skills? Starting with the second Hamsho fight, Hagler built a reputation as a stalking, menacing bomber. But prior to that, Hagler was often regarded as a 'cutie', controlling pace and distance, counterpunching, and tricking opponents into setting themselves up. And when it comes to footwork, there's more to it than Leonard doing laps around the ring edge. Hagler was a master of positioning and keeping opponents where he wanted them. Too bad he forgot he was so good at it for the first half of the Leonard fight.
3: Simple. He wanted to be the best, so he was. What a concept. Actually, it goes a little deeper. He wanted to be the best, so he put in the work he had to to get it done. Hagler was never even a little out of shape, he was never unprepared for an opponent, he never half-assed it in the ring. The Duran fight, one that always draws a lot of criticism, was a result of Duran pulling a surprise style change. The first Antuofermo bout was a first matchup with a tough, awkward opponent. And Sugar Ray, well, Marvin let his head get a little in the way of that one.



I never said he wasnt great or lacked skills just think Hopkins has the style to beat him ..... just an opinion dont attack me on it :good

[robert ungurean]

Lets be realistic here.
Two great fighters. But one is superior and that is without a doubt MMH.
No debate,No questions MMH is better period.

[Manassa]

Pjo479, what a confusing poster you are.

[pjo479]

nothing confusing about what i wrote. you insinuated basically that i know nothing about hagler . well there are my reasons i think he is the best middleweight of all time , it certainly doesnt mean he could beat hopkins so im done here say what you will its your opinion im not here to argue

[rekcutnevets]

When some of you guys are picking Hagler, I think I know some of what you're seeing. You are picturing the older Hopkins not being able to match Hagler's pace, nor output. Hopkins is 42 years old now. Ten years older than when Hagler faced Leonard. 8 years, if you take some peoples claim that Marvin was 2 years older than is on record. Hopkins was 37 when he faced Trinidad. That's 5 years younger than Hagler was in the Leonard fight, 3 in Hagler years.

Saying a prime Bernard could not match his pace is not accurate. Bernard was able to be very physical over the course of a fight, and I don't doubt his ability to go 15 rounds. Hopkins would have a significant size advantage, good mobility, good defense, a great chin, and great stamina. Hopkins would be the best fighter, at middleweight, that Hagler ever faced. You can argue Leonard, Hearns, or Duran at their respective weights before meeting Hagler, or in a pound for pound way.

I think that Bernard's defense, movement, and one-two are too much for Hagler to overcome. Hopkins by decision.

[fists of fury]

I favour Hagler, but to suggest Hopkins could beat him is hardly outlandish.

[Holmes' Jab]

Hagler, by close but clear decision.

I think Marv's relentless workrate down the final stretch of Championship rounds will make all the difference. :good

[Holmes' Jab]

I favour Hagler, but to suggest Hopkins could beat him is hardly outlandish.

Me too. You're correct it'd be a close'un.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Hagler reminds me like Hopkins evil, superior twin.



Yep, his evil, exciting twin. Hagler would open up a sizeable lead, ala Taylor, but when Hopkins comes on in the second half, Marv will just love it. Hagler UD.

[Vanboxingfan]

I don'ty see how Leonard dancing and moving around faster than Hopkins ever could against a faded Hagler is an indication of how Hopkins wins. Hagler was more versatile to me, and stronger. Hagler was a great boxer on the inside and outside. Watch more prime Hagler, not the brawler of the Leonard and Hearns fights. He actually reminded me somewhat of a MW version of Duran. Very versatile and skilled everywhere in the ring, from accuracy and putting his punches together, to banging on the inside, to his southpaw jab, etc.

I've always felt the same way about Hagler and Duran. I'm 44 and when I first started watching boxing it was Duran and Hagler that hooked me. Either one of them were amazing to watch and I remember thinking that nothing short of death was going to stop Hagler in that Hearns fight. It was amazing. Having said all that, I do think a prime Hagler beats a prime Hopkins based on skill and determination, but it wouldn't be a huge upset if Hop won. Unfortunately when fighters like Hagler or Duran retire they become legends, myths even, and of course when you compare a modern day fight to a legend or a myth, they're going to fall short. In this case I do think Hop falls short, but not by much..

[Vanboxingfan]

Look at the thread title and you know what i mean. Hagler became overrated. I´m not saying he wasn´t great, just that he became overrated a bit by some.

I agree and said as much. Once a fighter becomes a myth he becomes almost indestructible. Any thread on Ali's faults? I didn't think so. (actually if there is I missed it) Not that I don't love Ali, but he was far from perfect.

[JohnThomas1]

There is something awkward about fighting Hopkins, as you've said.

I think Hagler could "out-think" himself - I think the prospect of taking on Hopkins could worry him. I also think it's possible that Hopkins could get under Hagler's skin in the ring and before they got into the ring - Hopkins is on a different plane, mentally in my opinion. I really think Hagler could find himself unseated a bit.

Of course, this suggestion makes some people go absolutley mad, so i've got to acknowledge I could be wrong, such is the depth of feeling of otherwise rational people.

But that is my opinion.

Hopkins UD, 15.

Hopkins is also brilliant vs lefties. Strategy, adaption and difficulty of adapting to is where Hopkins shines in this one

:good

[Manassa]

Regardless of who was better, I think we can say that Hopkins was a poor imitation of Hagler on the image side of things. Hagler had a lot more dignity:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Even mid-action, there is a difference. You'll never catch Hagler in these sort of situations:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Look at the difference in their expressions:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I've always thought Hopkins was trying too hard to get people to think he was tough. He was tough, but he wanted everyone to know it, unlike Hagler, who was a much more effortless hardnut:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Not that this matters a whole lot, but it's the reason I prefer Hagler.

[mcvey]

My opinion has not changed. Discuss this matchup.
I think Hopkins is a bit overated due to his lack of top competition,but no one devours him,he could hold his own with any top 160 pounder,imo,hagler and Monzon included,but I would pick both to beat him by dec.

[JimmyShimmy]

Hagler did what he did very well, but he did not do everything. He did not have the ability to solve the greater puzzles. Everyone always says that Hagler had an 'off night' when he fought Duran. He had an off night because Duran showed up who could feint and move well but did not have the strength to pull it off.

Hagler’s boxing ability was decent, but has lately been over glorified. He out boxed a lot of 'out-boxables' if you catch my drift. When did Hagler ever dissect a technician?

Hopkins has the tools - the strength, the inside ability, and he'd use the possum tactics to frustrate Hagler to a UD.

[redrooster]

pjo welcome to the forum.

You should listen to Manassa. Only he and I have seen all the Marvelous one's taped fights while you only have access to Espn big fights-Mugabi, Leonard and so on.

I'm not as old as you but even so, I really was watching Hagler in his prime after winning the championship. I remember his reputation at the time and can say he was as anonymous as any CBS sports Saturday fighter out there except that he held a title.

I see this as a one way whipping for Hagler. Bernard is fortunate he wasn't around in Hagler's day as was the case when Roy jumped from 160 to 168. He would have found the step up in class much too advanced for him.

As you can see from the above photos, Hopkins was an inferior version of Hagler. That is to say, as a physical specimen, Hagler was more refined physically and also the superior genes for warfare. Hopkins was tough but not as tough as Hagler. Hopkins was durable-more than durable when it came down to his opposition but is not in the super-elite class that Hagler is.

Only in the category of stamina did Hopkins come close to Marvin in prowess. Hopkins was workman-like in his style as described or blue collar, while Marvin was far, far more.

Marvin didn't have the burden of better than average talent (power, speed, mobility, so on) as was the case with Hopkins.

Bernard couldn't take out Roy.

He hit him enuff downstairs and upstairs. Roy was never in trouble and never so much as staggered. And it took him 600 blows or so to bring down a smaller and weaker Tito Trinidad. He should have taken him out sooner but he was taken the limit-almost to the very end. If that's the best he could, do forget it!!

Bernard was used to fighting boys but not men in the ring. I have to ask you, what if Hopkins had a real opponent on his hands? A demanding opponent who could lay you out with either hand? Say an opponent like Roldan?

I think Roldan would have knocked him out the night he went in with Hagler because the fact he was so determined, well prepared, and powerful. What would really cost X is his inability to bang. I hate to say this, but as tough as he is, he'd be no match for Roldan when he fought Hagler.

As for MMH, Hagler's footwork alone would have baffled X and X would not be able to execute with Hagler's ramrod jab spearing him, busting him up. There's no way Hopkins is getting past Hagler's jab. Remember, Hagler was able to move much more effortlessly in the ring than Hopkins.

So if Hagler wanted to he would tame X on the outside and even on the inside, Hagler wins.

X would have to get inside and work Hagler because he'd find that's his only shot--unless he wanted another Roy Jones situation on his hands where he falls behind on the scorecards.

Pjo, if you could look on all the Hagler fights you don't have, pressing a young Hagler is too dangerous (there is no way Hopkins takes more than a few minutes of that right hook). Sensing that Hopkins is fading, Hagler goes on the offensive like he did with Obel and Sibson and launches an all out assault, becoming the first man to knock out Hopkins (he does so with surprisingly little effort)

He's just on a whole other level

[Shev]

Ive got a Hagler boxset and Hagler had the edge over Hopkins in virtually all areas. After getting robbed in Philadelphia ironically and he exclaimed he was not leaving matters to the judges anymore. What fighter can change his style so drastically? Hagler wanted to fight the best not for legacy because it was in his nature not handpick other fighters. Hopkins would just be another Philly fighter on Hagler resume.

[pjo479]

thanks red rooster i have access to haglers tapes anytime i want and have seen alot of them maybe i havent watched all in detail but in any case its a good fight and i think this thread could hold up to any thread in here lol

:good i been around the boxing seen for a long time and will always enjoy others opinions thanks guys

[oblate]

Hagler was better in every way. Better long range, stronger in close. Better at pretty much everything. Hopkins was crafty and skilled, but not enough to take Hagler off his game.
i agree.

[JohnThomas1]

Hagler did what he did very well, but he did not do everything. He did not have the ability to solve the greater puzzles. Everyone always says that Hagler had an 'off night' when he fought Duran. He had an off night because Duran showed up who could feint and move well but did not have the strength to pull it off.

Hagler’s boxing ability was decent, but has lately been over glorified. He out boxed a lot of 'out-boxables' if you catch my drift. When did Hagler ever dissect a technician?

Hopkins has the tools - the strength, the inside ability, and he'd use the possum tactics to frustrate Hagler to a UD.

Tho short, this is one of the finer posts i have seen in my time here. No smoke, no mirrors, just plain hard hitting simple stuff.

[Sweet Science]

I think most people are picking Hagler to win because they like the way he fought, his crowd pleasing style, sheer guts etc. Whereas, most think Hopkins was boring and more technical, not at all exciting to watch. Our subconscious would be less likely to pick out the subtle genius of Hopkins, as opposed to the overltly skilled menace that was Hagler

Lets say Shane Mosley never fought Vernon Forrest, and we were all debating the possible outcome of a mythical match between Sugar Shane and The Viper, most people would natuarlly assume Mosley would easily win. The fact is an unremarkable/unexciting yet fundamentally sound fighter can sometimes overcome a prodigous superstar, simply because they do everything consistently well. We need to look at the sum of parts.

I pick the wily Hopkins by very close decision.

[Sweet Science]

I think most people are picking Hagler to win because they like the way he fought, his crowd pleasing style, sheer guts etc. Whereas, most think Hopkins was boring and more technical, not at all exciting to watch. Our subconscious would be less likely to pick out the subtle genius of Hopkins, as opposed to the overltly skilled menace that was Hagler

Lets say Shane Mosley never fought Vernon Forrest, and we were all debating the possible outcome of a mythical match between Sugar Shane and The Viper, most people would natuarlly assume Mosley would easily win. The fact is an unremarkable/unexciting yet fundamentally sound fighter can sometimes overcome a prodigous superstar, simply because they do everything consistently well. We need to look at the sum of parts.

I pick the wily Hopkins by very close decision.

[Street Lethal]

They are both great, but Hagler is more tested against elite middleweights. Certainly his accomplishments are greater. I also think he is more talented. He would win the fight by applying constant pressure. He wouldn't go for Hopkins dirty tactics. I think Hopkins goes the distance however.

[Vanboxingfan]

I think most people are picking Hagler to win because they like the way he fought, his crowd pleasing style, sheer guts etc. Whereas, most think Hopkins was boring and more technical, not at all exciting to watch. Our subconscious would be less likely to pick out the subtle genius of Hopkins, as opposed to the overltly skilled menace that was Hagler

Lets say Shane Mosley never fought Vernon Forrest, and we were all debating the possible outcome of a mythical match between Sugar Shane and The Viper, most people would natuarlly assume Mosley would easily win. The fact is an unremarkable/unexciting yet fundamentally sound fighter can sometimes overcome a prodigous superstar, simply because they do everything consistently well. We need to look at the sum of parts.

I pick the wily Hopkins by very close decision.

Even though I'm a huge Hagler fan I enjoyed reading this post as I believe there is an element of truth in it, not often mentioned. Personally because I'm such a huge Hagler fan, I can't objectively pick a winner. Certainly if they could have fought, I would been routing for Hagler every second of the way. But that certainly isn't going to influence what takes place in the ring. They are different fighters but what they did, they both did well.

[Drew101]

Neither of these fighters would be able to dominate one another for any extended period of time. Hagler may have had more physical talent at his very best, but I'd give peak Hopkins the edge in terms of ring generalship, and, yes, in terms of versatility as well. Because they both possessed excellent chins, and had superb stamina, we can be fairly certain that this goes the distance. We can also be fairly certain that many of the rounds would be tightly contested, with little to choose between either of them.

Hopkins, at his best, was good enough to give anyone hell. That includes Hagler. However, I think Hagler's style, in general, would enable him to steal enough of the close rounds to emerge with a close, highly contested decision.

[Sakura]

I'll take Hagler. Physically stronger and better tested Leonard, Hearns, Duran etc...

[rekcutnevets]

The main reason that I am taking Hopkins, is the pride issue. Hagler's pride is what would defeat him here. Hagler can't stand being thought of as a loser. He hates Leonard to this day for winning against him. Judges scored it for Leonard, but Hagler hates Leonard for the judges giving him the verdict.

Hagler was as tough as they come, but is touchy in how he is percieved.

I believe the winner of this fight is going to be the one doing the boxing. Which ever comes forward, is losing this one. Hagler could outbox Bernard, in my opinion. It would be a difficult task, but one I think he was capable of. The problem for Hagler is that Bernard would also find this out while they are fighting. Bernard adapts very well, and does not care if the crowd starts booing. If Bernard was getting beat coming forward, don't you know that he would stop? He would not care if the fight became boring. He would assume the role of the passive fighter until Hagler took the bait. If you know Hagler, you know he would take the bait. Let the fans start booing the fight, and he is going to try to stop them. That is when he loses. Hopkins would counter well, use his reach, and use his one-two.

Hopkins by close decision after throwing away rounds baiting Hagler, plus the rounds he loses narrowly by trying to pressure Hagler.

[Muchmoore]

My opinion has not changed. Discuss this matchup.

Hagler beats him at his own game and roughs him up,

Hopkins isnt fighting a movie star or Robert Allen for the 50th time here :yep

Hagler UD.

[Cojimar 1945]

I should think Hopkins would be heavily favored over Roldan.

[cardstars]

Hagler wins imo. Those early rounds Hopkins likes to throw away would be eaten up by Hagler and perhaps BHop gets tagged with a few good ones in there to screw up the rest of the fight for him......if there is a rest of the fight

[fists of fury]

The main reason that I am taking Hopkins, is the pride issue. Hagler's pride is what would defeat him here. Hagler can't stand being thought of as a loser. He hates Leonard to this day for winning against him. Judges scored it for Leonard, but Hagler hates Leonard for the judges giving him the verdict.

Hagler was as tough as they come, but is touchy in how he is percieved.

I believe the winner of this fight is going to be the one doing the boxing. Which ever comes forward, is losing this one. Hagler could outbox Bernard, in my opinion. It would be a difficult task, but one I think he was capable of. The problem for Hagler is that Bernard would also find this out while they are fighting. Bernard adapts very well, and does not care if the crowd starts booing. If Bernard was getting beat coming forward, don't you know that he would stop? He would not care if the fight became boring. He would assume the role of the passive fighter until Hagler took the bait. If you know Hagler, you know he would take the bait. Let the fans start booing the fight, and he is going to try to stop them. That is when he loses. Hopkins would counter well, use his reach, and use his one-two.

Hopkins by close decision after throwing away rounds baiting Hagler, plus the rounds he loses narrowly by trying to pressure Hagler.

You bring up a very interesting point here. Pride before the fall? It's certainly possible, because Hagler had that warrior mentality that Bernard could capitalize on.

[redrooster]

I should think Hopkins would be heavily favored over Roldan.

Hopkins probably be favored but he wouldn't win. Hopkins couldn't put the power on him whereas Roldan was heavy handed with the left and the right. That's the knock on Bernard. He's a good technical fighter with adequate strength and stamina but lacks a real punch and he can't beat the elite fighters.

Put him in with a Roy Jones, a Marvin Hagler, or Monzon and he comes up a loser every time.

With Roldan, No way Hopkins is taking 12 rounds or even 10 rounds of hard knocks. he'd have hell trying to catch his head and wouldn't avoid Roldan's punches that come up at you. Most fighters train to and can avoid punches that come over the top but not from underneath.

If you saw Roldan in the Hagler fight you can plainly see Roldan holds advantages over Hopkins that count-stamina, strength, power in both hands, head movement and Bernard would never be able to hurt him.

So how would he slow his attack? He wouldn't. He'd be helpless while Roldan punched holes in him. The besthe could do is survive while Roldan grids him to a fine powder.

As for beating hopkins beating Hagler forget the crap you see about pride being Hagler's downfall. Had Marvin been that easy to beat he would have lost long before the leonard fight-several times over. Hopkins was just cut from a lesser stock.

[Thread Stealer]

You bring up a very interesting point here. Pride before the fall? It's certainly possible, because Hagler had that warrior mentality that Bernard could capitalize on.

I wonder what kind of psychological warfare Hopkins would put on Hagler before the fight, like Gay Ray did.

B-Hop has the conniving type of personality that I can see where him getting to Hagler's head.

[Drew101]

Hopkins probably be favored but he wouldn't win. Hopkins couldn't put the power on him whereas Roldan was heavy handed with the left and the right. That's the knock on Bernard. He's a good technical fighter with adequate strength and stamina but lacks a real punch and he can't beat the elite fighters.



:rofl :rofl

[gkl]

Hopkins at his age just tries to motivate himself father time is catching up to him but i still believe he beats Roldan in adecision 15 rounds

[redrooster]

:rofl :rofl

Well I'm sorry but that's the way it is

[redrooster]

Hopkins at his age just tries to motivate himself father time is catching up to him but i still believe he beats Roldan in adecision 15 rounds

Hopkins wouldn't last 15 rounds

[Shareef]

Marvin Hagler is the greater fighter of the two. Hopkins talks a good fight about war and knocking people out but he isn't really about it. When Hagler talked about knocking someone out and going to war he went to war not throwing a punch come with headbutt grab etc. Hagler defeated better fighters no doubt. Thomas "Hitman" Hearns is a much better win that Trinidad. Hearns was p4p better than Tito and accomplished much more at the higher weights. Roberto Duran is a better win than Oscar. What really gets to me is that the De La Hoya win has done so much for hopkins legacy when in actuality Oscar was shit as a middleweight he arguably lost to sturm and looked like shit in that fight. Where as Duran although not at his prime weight was still a very good middleweight because he was just a master at fighting period. His credibility as an opponent for Hagler grows when you consider 6 years later he beat Iran Barkley for the WBC middleweight title. The two biggest middleweight wins for Hopkins don't compare to Haglers. To say that Hopkins and Hagler's chin and punch resistance is equal or close is again incorrect. Hagler's chin is tested against some of the big punchers of all time Thomas Hearns, Bennie Briscoe, Eugene Hart, John Mugabi all were ranked very high on the Ring 100 Greatest Punchers list. Hopkins chin wasn't tested like Haglers but i do recall him being hurt and dropped by Mercado in there first fight. I'll take Hamsho, Roldan, Antoufermo as greater wins than Echol, Simon Brown, or Roberto Allen. Hagler's resume is better than hopkins and he was the more gifted fighter of the two. Hopkins is a chery picker and i believe he is overrated. He ducked Roy Jones for 60-40 in a fight he was offered 6 million he ducked Jones cause he knew he wouldn't win by saying 50-50 :rofl Why did he fight Tito for 30% of the purse and like 3 million dollars cause he knew it was a fight he could win. Hopkins and Toney were gonna fight at a catch weight the fight was cancelled at some last minute cause Hopkins didn't sign he wanted more money i believe he was offered 2/3 million he was going to make as much or more than James but he declined due to some bull by making more demands instead fought Hakker or somebody for like 100,000 :rofl . Damn this guy is really the baddest man in boxing. He made 10 million against Oscar but why did he take it oscar was getting 30 if we go by percentages its way less than getitng 6 million for Jones. Again cause he knew he would win and oscar is nothing at middle. He went after Tarver cause he knew that tarver was taking him for granted and the filming for Rocky 6 Tarver was out of shape as he had bulked up to heavy and the weight loss would work in a similar way it did to jones as he lost weight from Ruiz fight to go back to 175 clearly it affected his performance thus he knew Tarver would be easier fight than many expected.

Hopkins deserves credit for his longevity and is a top 5 middleweight of all time i am not totally bias and blind hate but i have strong opinions but i give hopkins credit for something but he isn't in the class of the Monzon's, Hagler, Robinsons.

[CASH_718]

I believe Hopkins is 11-0 with 8 KO's against southpaws. Against Hagler, I see that zero going away.

Hopkins is hard, Hagler is harder. Hopkins is tough, Hagler is tougher.

Hagler reminds me like Hopkins evil, superior twin.:patsch

[JohnThomas1]

:rofl :rofl

:rofl

[Tuavale]

Marvin wins. No problem. Hagler was fighting guys equal to Nard's title defenses in his 2nd year as a pro in 1974. And although younger when he retired, he had 20 more fights than Hopkins. Hearns and Mugabi would have knocked Nard out cold. :smoke

[Cojimar 1945]

I never thought of Roldan as being in Roy Jones league. Jones was very dominant against top competition for a long period of time.

[ajohnfp]

Marv might beat him, but he doesn't eat him. Negro is not that hungry

[enquirer]

Great post shareef....Guys you should really question bernards willingness to fight the best,he should have rematched jones,fought toney and fought tougher guys like clazaghe,benn,jackson,eubank or prime lt heavies for his legacy,rather than beating lesser middles and on the slide fighters.....
bernards slick yes,in avoiding the better prime fighters.....I give him credit for tito and he is great but not on the level of hagler and the other atgs....Nunn would have probably beaten nard....

[Luigi1985]

IMO Hopkins is the most overrated fighter on ESB when I read articles and posts like "He was/ is better in every thing Hagler did...", forget it, Hagler would put on a beating on Hopkins...


Hagler TKO 12 Hopkins

[Luigi1985]

Well I'm sorry but that's the way it is


I agree with you, IMO it´s out of question that Roldon had one-punch- wise at least twice the power Hopkins had...

[JohnThomas1]

I agree with you, IMO it´s out of question that Roldon had one-punch- wise at least twice the power Hopkins had...

Wha? You reckon Roldan had dopuble Hopkins power? I'm starting to think Hopkins has the most underrated power of his era. He's sure as hell no light puncher.

[Luigi1985]

Wha? You reckon Roldan had dopuble Hopkins power? I'm starting to think Hopkins has the most underrated power of his era. He's sure as hell no light puncher.


No, I wrote one-punch-wise. Roldon was a fighter, when he landed a good shot, the opponent was out cold. He scored all of his KO´s with real KO´s, you can´t go with the KO-% always, Roldon is also very underrated in the area power. Hopkins IMO isn´t underrated, his power is at the world class calibre mediocre or good, nothing more, nothing less...

[JohnThomas1]

No, I wrote one-punch-wise.

Isn't that the same? So you think Roldan has double the single shot power of Hopkins? (Can't see a difference between my question and this term)

Roldon was a fighter, when he landed a good shot, the opponent was out cold. He scored all of his KO´s with real KO´s, you can´t go with the KO-% always

So remind me what notable durable fighters Roldan sparked. My minds pretty blank. He clubbed poor Rooster's Animal Fletcher to death, Frank thought defence was summin built around de house. He was exposed by Roldan. Truth be told i think of Roldan as a clubbing puncher before i think of him as a KO puncher. He hurt Hearns but couldn't finish him where Barkley did. I am truly struggling to remember these big ko's. 2/3 of his career were spent hammering Argentine no names. I would never underrate Jaun as a fighter, i respect him as a tough strong brawler but i would never mistake the man for a sharp puncher or KO artist.

Hopkins IMO isn´t underrated, his power is at the world class calibre mediocre or good, nothing more, nothing less...

The difference between mediocre and good is VAST. What is it going to be? Tell me, was he mediocre or good?

[Luigi1985]

The difference between mediocre and good is VAST. What is it going to be? Tell me, was he mediocre or good?



Hard to say, it´s important now where we see and rank Hopkins in view of all times. For a Top 10 MW of all times, where most see him, he has/ had of course mediocre power...

[JohnThomas1]

Hard to say, it´s important now where we see and rank Hopkins in view of all times. For a Top 10 MW of all times, where most see him, he has/ had of course mediocre power...

I strongly disagree. I think you underrate Hopkins as a puncher. Name me your top 10 middleweights, and don't cheat by easing a few bangers in you normally wouldn't rate

:D

[Luigi1985]

I strongly disagree. I think you underrate Hopkins as a puncher. Name me your top 10 middleweights, and don't cheat by easing a few bangers in you normally wouldn't rate

:D


I hope I wrote my thinkings insightfully, Roldon was ordinary as a puncher, he just had power. Hopkins, all in all, was a much better puncher. He had/ have combinations, good speed, technique and precision. I only talked about one-punch-power, and there I rank B-Hop not that high, as an overall puncher I rank him much much higher...

[JohnThomas1]

I hope I wrote my thinkings insightfully, Roldon was ordinary as a puncher, he just had power. Hopkins, all in all, was a much better puncher. He had/ have combinations, good speed, technique and precision. I only talked about one-punch-power, and there I rank B-Hop not that high, as an overall puncher I rank him much much higher...

I knew exactly what you meant, and still disagree somewhat. I could never see Roldan as the KO puncher you say he is. As far as him having double Hopkins power single shot? Proposterous. When Hopkins was much more agressive early career he put the lights out on plenty of victims. Yes, they weren't top shelf, but that's the thing, neither were Roldan's. Roldan was a brawler, continuously looking for stoppages. As i say, when Hopkins was more similar he was dropping plenty of people. I'm not saying Hopkins was a big puncher, a ko artist etc. The man did hit hard however, a lot harder than many credit him for. Single shot power he is behind Roldan, but no-where near as far as you would have me believe.

[Luigi1985]

I knew exactly what you meant, and still disagree somewhat. I could never see Roldan as the KO puncher you say he is. As far as him having double Hopkins power single shot? Proposterous. When Hopkins was much more agressive early career he put the lights out on plenty of victims. Yes, they weren't top shelf, but that's the thing, neither were Roldan's. Roldan was a brawler, continuously looking for stoppages. As i say, when Hopkins was more similar he was dropping plenty of people. I'm not saying Hopkins was a big puncher, a ko artist etc. The man did hit hard however, a lot harder than many credit him for. Single shot power he is behind Roldan, but no-where near as far as you would have me believe.


Yeah, I agree, the sentence "Twice the power..." was of course hyperbolical, but IMO Roldon had more power. But cool to say that we agree again! :good

[JohnThomas1]

Yeah, I agree, the sentence "Twice the power..." was of course hyperbolical, but IMO Roldon had more power. But cool to say that we agree again! :good

Oh, and one last point, do you want to keep Hopkins on the mediocre power level and do your top 10 for me?

:hey

[Luigi1985]

Oh, and one last point, do you want to keep Hopkins on the mediocre power level and do your top 10 for me?

:hey


Hopkins is even in contrast to the best at 160 lbs. ever a good puncher, but not one-punch-wise for me.


A spontaneous Top 10 at MW in no order:


Carlos Monzon
Marvin Hagler
Harry Greb
Emile Griffith
Stanley Ketchel
Jake LaMotta
Marcel Cerdan
Nino Benvenuti
Joey Giardello
Tiger Flowers

[JohnThomas1]

Hopkins is even in contrast to the best at 160 lbs. ever a good puncher, but not one-punch-wise for me.


Nobody was saying Hopkins was a one punch man. You were saying Hopkins is mediocre as a puncher, and then when questioned expanded it to be mediocre vs his top 10 peers. Hopkins is indeed a good puncher, agreed?

[JohnThomas1]

A spontaneous Top 10 at MW in no order:

Carlos Monzon
Marvin Hagler
Harry Greb
Emile Griffith
Stanley Ketchel
Jake LaMotta
Marcel Cerdan
Nino Benvenuti
Joey Giardello
Tiger Flowers

Not many "one punch" men in that lot! Hopkins is anything but outclassed power wise against that group as a whole. I won't question how SRR didn't make the cut :D

[Luigi1985]

Nobody was saying Hopkins was a one punch man. You were saying Hopkins is mediocre as a puncher, and then when questioned expanded it to be mediocre vs his top 10 peers. Hopkins is indeed a good puncher, agreed?



Of course is Hopkins a good puncher. Ko- wins over Johnson, Trinidad, DLH, etc., you must be a respectable puncher. :D Sorry for not writing clearly what I meant...

[JohnThomas1]

Of course is Hopkins a good puncher. Ko- wins over Johnson, Trinidad, DLH, etc., you must be a respectable puncher. :D Sorry for not writing clearly what I meant...

Hey, it's all good. I enjoyed the banter pre pub :)

[Luigi1985]

Not many "one punch" men in that lot! Hopkins is anything but outclassed power wise against that group as a whole. I won't question how SRR didn't make the cut :D



I deliberated who would be in a Top 10 and I forgot the best fighter ever... :lol:



what a start in the day... :hey

[JohnThomas1]

I deliberated who would be in a Top 10 and I forgot the best fighter ever... :lol:



what a start in the day... :hey

I knew it was a simple mistake mate. You just rushed up a list quick for me.

[Luigi1985]

I knew it was a simple mistake mate. You just rushed up a list quick for me.



:thumbsup

[redrooster]

I agree with you, IMO it´s out of question that Roldon had one-punch- wise at least twice the power Hopkins had...

Can you imagine little Tito lasting 12 with Roldan? :lol:

[redrooster]

Of course is Hopkins a good puncher. Ko- wins over Johnson, Trinidad, DLH, etc., you must be a respectable puncher. :D Sorry for not writing clearly what I meant...

Don't weaken Luigi. We both know Bernard was mostly an arm puncher.

Watch the Trinidad fight and you'll see I'm right. But this level of offense only works on smaller, weaker men moving up but doesn't work on bigger men with talent. Notice how easily Roy shook off the effects of his blows.

Bernard doesn't have real power and he's no Hagler.

Have you had the chance to view Hagler-Roldan? Roldan was a great fighter that night, even staying competitive with one eye shut closed. He's a dying breed that you don't see any more.

Leonard, who was doing the commentary for the fight, had great admiration for Juan and quite impressed with his upper body movement which you don't see much of today and would give anyone fits. combine that with his strength and power and you have one tough nut to crack. Leonard himself mentioned that Roldan had the most devestating uppercut he'd seen.

Hagler shook it off but Hagler was Hagler. had Bernard actually whipped Roy then I would would hold him in the same esteem as John but he is misguided. Hopkins lost one sidedly in a title match to a weight drained, one handed middleweight fighting a conservative match as one might expect from someone using a broken hand.

[Mendoza]

My opinion has not changed. Discuss this matchup.

It is a great match up between two guys who are tougher than leather. Neither guy is likely to TKO the other. I do think Hopkins has more skill and smarts by a small margin. In close fights, I got the feeling that Hagler gave away too many rounds and in some cases lacked a killer instinct. I’ll take Hopkins via a close, but clear decision.

[JohnThomas1]

Can you imagine little Tito lasting 12 with Roldan? :lol:

Probably not, i'd say Tito would knock Roldan out before that.

[Executioner]

Hopkins matches up with Hagler very well styilistically. Infact, I think Hopkins would manipulate Hagler into fighting his fight. I don't think you're going to beat Hagler by going to him otherwise you're going to get chopped up.

[JohnThomas1]

Watch the Trinidad fight and you'll see I'm right. But this level of offense only works on smaller, weaker men moving up but doesn't work on bigger men with talent.

Bernard doesn't have real power and he's no Hagler.

Strange how Marvin's "level of offense" didn't do much to "smaller, weaker man moving up" Sugar Ray Leonard hey? Face it, not only did Hopkins win the fight but he also got his man out of there. When smaller peeps moved on up to have a crack at Hopkins title she was Goodnight Irene sonny boy

:good

Have you had the chance to view Hagler-Roldan? Roldan was a great fighter that night, even staying competitive with one eye shut closed. He's a dying breed that you don't see any more.

Great? Roldan was never great, never. He put up a fine effort vs Hagler for sure, but he wasn't great on any given night. The ending was a bit disappointing from memory. Dying breed? Take note and admire Hopkins fighting on and winning when he could have taken the easy win with a dislocated shoulder or whatever it was. It's rare tho.

Leonard, who was doing the commentary for the fight, had great admiration for Juan and quite impressed with his upper body movement which you don't see much of today and would give anyone fits. combine that with his strength and power and you have one tough nut to crack. Leonard himself mentioned that Roldan had the most devestating uppercut he'd seen.

I thought you'd find a way to bring your main man into it ;)

Ray says a lot of things on air but do you really believe he meant it? Roldan's uppercut is hemisphere's away from many a fine blow. You're making him sound like some sort of great fighter, he didn't even win a title for goodness sakes. It all comes back to him beating big Animal Fletcher (great C level warrior) i'd say.

Hopkins lost one sidedly in a title match to a weight drained, one handed middleweight fighting a conservative match as one might expect from someone using a broken hand.

Rumour has it he was also living in the bottom of the lake.

[redrooster]

Take note and admire Hopkins fighting on and winning when he could have taken the easy win with a dislocated shoulder or whatever it was. It's rare tho. [/quote]

yet he couldn't anything against a one handed fighter while fighting at full strength. :smoke

i was watching the discussion between you and Luigi. He was holding his own in the beggining, sticking to his guns until you eventually seduced him into taking your side, begging him to see things your way-even tho we all know your a troll and a liar!

Thats too bad. But his first impression was correct which is that Bernard is weak in the delivery department. Everyone knows this which is why supporters make up intangibles "hopkins has better instincts and smarts" and so on. :deal

Yes, Ray did mean it. :yep leonard may not be the most admirable fighter but as a commentator I give him high marks :good

his words were most prophetic. :yep Did you not hear his comment at the conclusion of the 9th "he doesn't want to fight anymore" before Roldan bowed out in the following round. Right on the button.

Over the years I had seldom heard leonard as liberal, as generous with the comments as he was towards the great Roldan. Only a young Camacho could command that kind of praise from Leonard.

The fact is, he was in awe of Juan Roldan. In awe over the fact that he was still standing and won the last round until Hagler put him away. In awe of the power of his uppercuts. In awe of his physical strength. In awe of his head movement. In awe of his ability to punch thru any obstacle. In awe of this whirlwind flailing non stop round after round against the game's best p4p champion.

Roldan fought like Marciano that night with nearly perfect symmetry between offense and defense. But since you only remember it from the accounts you read in your magazine then maybe you should go back and review the tape. That way you can hear it for yourself.

[JohnThomas1]

Take note and admire Hopkins fighting on and winning when he could have taken the easy win with a dislocated shoulder or whatever it was. It's rare tho.
yet he couldn't anything against a one handed fighter while fighting at full strength. :smoke
[/quote]

Impartial fans know this wasn't the best of Hopkins. Hopkins developed a lot more after this than Jones did. Even at this early stage Jones would be a handful and more for any 160 in history. Hopkins wouldn't have been. Later on tho, lookout.

i was watching the discussion between you and Luigi. He was holding his own in the beggining, sticking to his guns until you eventually seduced him into taking your side, begging him to see things your way-even tho we all know your a troll and a liar!

Begging? Seducing? Troll and liar? Go give your real life size SRL monument a bit of luvvin' and come back when you're clear headed.

Thats too bad. But his first impression was correct which is that Bernard is weak in the delivery department. Everyone knows this which is why supporters make up intangibles "hopkins has better instincts and smarts" and so on. :deal

Wipe your chin, it's got poo dripping off it.

Yes, Ray did mean it. :yep leonard may not be the most admirable fighter but as a commentator I give him high marks :good

Only because his comments suit your agenda here haha. Any other time you dispell every single word he speaks. It's funny how the worm turns when it suits :lol:

his words were most prophetic. :yep Did you not hear his comment at the conclusion of the 9th "he doesn't want to fight anymore" before Roldan bowed out in the following round. Right on the button.

It's statements like these that make you the resident whipping boy. Just prior you were telling me

Have you had the chance to view Hagler-Roldan? Roldan was a great fighter that night, even staying competitive with one eye shut closed. He's a dying breed that you don't see any more.

Now you tell me he basically quit. You have a helluva battle making your mind up on anything.

Over the years I had seldom heard leonard as liberal, as generous with the comments as he was towards the great Roldan. Only a young Camacho could command that kind of praise from Leonard.

Re- the chin man, the chin.

The fact is, he was in awe of Juan Roldan. In awe over the fact that he was still standing and won the last round until Hagler put him away. In awe of the power of his uppercuts. In awe of his physical strength. In awe of his head movement. In awe of his ability to punch thru any obstacle. In awe of this whirlwind flailing non stop round after round against the game's best p4p champion.

Question time -

Where historically do you rate Roldan at 160? Actually do P4P as well because your description hints you might have him top 5 P4P and maybe 2 at 160.

Roldan vs Monzon?
Roldan vs Valdez?
Roldan vs Greb?

Roldan fought like Marciano that night with nearly perfect symmetry between offense and defense. But since you only remember it from the accounts you read in your magazine then maybe you should go back and review the tape. That way you can hear it for yourself.

You should never ever mention Roldan and defense in the same post, let alone the same sentence.

[redrooster]

it seems as tho I asked you this question before but were unable to find the answer.

What exactly would bernard do differently against Roy if given a rematch, say at 168?

The first time they faced off, Roy proved his superiority in every area I could think of.

Roy outsped him on the inside and from the outside Roy beat him to the punch something like 99 % of the time.

Even when bernard would trap Roy in a corner and went to the body, his attack had no effect, even late in the fight. And his best shots to the head didn't make Roy blink. You don't like this fact but all you can do is try and deny it.

Another question, as fair as the first. As Bernard progressed in his career, did he ever go on to become a big puncher? Because I never noticed it. Certainly didn't show it with Felix Trinidad. It took an extraordinary volume of blows to put him away whereas Roldan would have smoked him no later than 3 or 4. Maybe less the way he was going at it with Hagler.

To answer your question. Roldan has to be ranked near the top the night he faced Hagler. Many of the outstanding titlists and contenders of the past and future would have wilted under his non stop attack and bludgeoning power.

[redrooster]

My minds pretty blank.

:yep

That's something we can both agree on.

[buzzsaw]

Hopkins will not be appreciated for what he has been able to do until he has long been out of the sport. As far as how he would do vs Hagler I think he would’ve been one of Hagler’s toughest fights and he might have beaten Marvelous. Hagler was not perfect before he won the title or afterwards. His early losses (Monroe and Watts) and his struggles with Seales are proof that it was just not age that was exposed vs Duran and Leonard. Hagler’s ranking as an all time great like others has climbed with time. Hagler knocked out Hearns because he had no other choice. The damage Tommy laid on him put Marvin in a “Kill or be Killed” gear, as far as a stratigic ko I would have to classify it as more of a epic contest of survival. Hopkins would not need to knock out Hagler he might be able to outbox him. As far as Roldan being such a greater challenger then those that Hopkins has faced I’m not so sure about that. My friend “Irish” Teddy Mann fought him tough shortly before Roldan fought Hagler and Teddy gave him fits. That was on the Hagler/Scypion card.

[JohnThomas1]

:yep

That's something we can both agree on.

Not the fastest or sharpest tool in the shed are ya, going back a day and a dozen posts. Of course you might just be going back re-reading my posts to further your knowledge

;)

[redrooster]

Wow, what a great way to debate ... insulting other people. You are really a class act. :good:good:good

I didn't do it to John. He did it to himself and I'm just going along with with what he said.

[redrooster]

Not the fastest or sharpest tool in the shed are ya, going back a day and a dozen posts. Of course you might just be going back re-reading my posts to further your knowledge

;)

What are you doing? You're were supposed to answer my questions weren't you?

[JohnThomas1]

What are you doing? You're were supposed to answer my questions weren't you?

Got visitors, so sticking to simple stuff. I'll answer later. By the way, you didn't answer my question at all, does he beatthe guys i named or not? Valdez, Greb and Monzon Rooster. Come clean :D

Oh, and you can have the "night he faced Hagler" Roldan. Starting to sound like the night he fought Tyson Douglas isn't it. Then we have the Mugabi of the night he fought Hagler :lol:

[redrooster]

[quote=buzzsaw]Hopkins will not be appreciated for what he has been able to do until he has long been out of the sport. As far as how he would do vs Hagler I think he would’ve been one of Hagler’s toughest fights and he might have beaten Marvelous. Hagler was not perfect before he won the title or afterwards. His early losses (Monroe and Watts) and his struggles with Seales are proof that it was just not age that was exposed vs Duran and Leonard. Hagler’s ranking as an all time great like others has climbed with time. Hagler knocked out Hearns because he had no other choice. The damage Tommy laid on him put Marvin in a “Kill or be Killed” gear, as far as a stratigic ko I would have to classify it as more of a epic contest of survival. Hopkins would not need to knock out Hagler he might be able to outbox him. As far as Roldan being such a greater challenger then those that Hopkins has faced I’m not so sure about that. My friend “Irish” Teddy Mann fought him tough shortly before Roldan fought Hagler and ...>>>>


Well, I know he has a lot of people rooting for him now, trying mightily to to bolster his image even as I have taken apart leonard's image. But it took me years to accomplish the deed and even then, my argument was foolproof and having tons of material to back me up didn't hurt either.

But with Bernard, it's a much tougher sell because you have to point to Hagler's last fight and argue that was the typical pattern he set for all his fights-giving away rounds, letting the opponent into his head, instead of admitting the truth the way I would have ie; that Hagler was a shell who took the fight for the money and never put on the gloves again.

That argument would never work with me. You can even ask John Thomas. :yep

I'll admit Hopkins wouldn't have had a problem with the Hagler of 1987 but who wouldn't, considering his condition?

How can you expose a fighter who's having his last fight??

Did Larry Holmes expose Ali as being an impotent, lifeless fighter? Did Willard expose Jack Johnson? Did Mustafa Wassaja expose Bob Foster?

The fact is, no one, not even myself has seen Hagler in the Seales or the Monroe fights except for the short work Hagler made of both of 'em. Why, you could practically see stars spinning around Monroe's head as he got to his feet in the rubber match.

And Seales? Can you even call that a fight?

[redrooster]

Got visitors, so sticking to simple stuff. I'll answer later. By the way, you didn't answer my question at all, does he beatthe guys i named or not? Valdez, Greb and Monzon Rooster. Come clean :D

Oh, and you can have the "night he faced Hagler" Roldan. Starting to sound like the night he fought Tyson Douglas isn't it. Then we have the Mugabi of the night he fought Hagler :lol:

You must have visitors every time I ask you a question. In the time it took for you to write this you could have answered it.

[redrooster]

John, I was curious. While you're responding each time to me, do you tell your guests that you have to excuse yourself because you need to use the restroom? What kind of excuse are you using?

[JohnThomas1]

You must have visitors every time I ask you a question. In the time it took for you to write this you could have answered it.


You still haven't answered the question

:rofl

[redrooster]

You still haven't answered the question

:rofl

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

[JohnThomas1]

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

I asked first

;)

[redrooster]

I asked first

;)

I don't care.

* Inching my way to post # 3,000

[JohnThomas1]

I don't care.

* Inching my way to post # 3,000

Count all your id's and it's closer to 10 000

:D

[JohnThomas1]

John, I was curious. While you're responding each time to me, do you tell your guests that you have to excuse yourself because you need to use the restroom? What kind of excuse are you using?

Well the guest is mom and i just go spend a few minutes in here while she reads. If i answer a deep post it might take 10 mins, a bit too long.

[redrooster]

Well the guest is mom and i just go spend a few minutes in here while she reads. If i answer a deep post it might take 10 mins, a bit too long.

10 minutes to come up with an answer? Deep posts? Like you said, your mind's blank. :D

[redrooster]

I can almost see you sweating John Thomas.

Pushed to your limits by the superior intellect of Redrooster.

[JohnThomas1]

Well, I know he has a lot of people rooting for him now, trying mightily to to bolster his image even as I have taken apart leonard's image. But it took me years to accomplish the deed and even then, my argument was foolproof and having tons of material to back me up didn't hurt either.


The only image you damaged was your own due to the absurd lengths you go to discrediting Ray. If anything you've raised the appreciation of the man :lol:

I'll admit Hopkins wouldn't have had a problem with the Hagler of 1987 but who wouldn't, considering his condition?

How can you expose a fighter who's having his last fight??

Did Larry Holmes expose Ali as being an impotent, lifeless fighter? Did Willard expose Jack Johnson? Did Mustafa Wassaja expose Bob Foster?

It's posts like these yet again that permanently destroy your credibility. Biased sly posts that surely show you take us for stupids.

Bob Foster was 4 years removed from the title. The man was 40 odd years of age. Ali was a year removed from the title, had lost his second to last fight against an ordinary fighter and was about 38 years old. By contrast Hagler was the reigning world middleweight champion, was 32 years old and was on about a 37 fight winning streak along with about a dozen successful defenses.

Smokescreens like this just aren't going to cut the mustard sorry.

The fact is, no one, not even myself has seen Hagler in the Seales or the Monroe fights except for the short work Hagler made of both of 'em. Why, you could practically see stars spinning around Monroe's head as he got to his feet in the rubber match.

And Seales? Can you even call that a fight?

Um, somebody better tell you Seales fought Hagler 3 times and one of them was a draw.

[redrooster]

:lol: I haven't had this much fun since I squeezed SRL off the forum.

[JohnThomas1]

:lol: I haven't had this much fun since I squeezed SRL off the forum.

Hahahaha, i have wondered what happened to him actually. He just disappeared. Hope things are ok for him. Don't take offense at my exposing of you and your methods, no hard feelings. You're a necessary evil around here

:good

[sues2nd]

Now I want to make this perfectly clear.
The Bernard Hopkins that we see today, would not have beaten the Marvin Hagler that we all know of.

When I'm looking at this, I'm talking of the Bernard Hopkins that dismantled Tito Trinidad. That Bernard Hopkins was one of the best middleweights in the history of the game.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler and Bernard Hopkins are very much alike, they're hard men.. inside and outside of the squared circle. They both brought a very intimidating presence into the ring, and they both could fight to back up that presence.

But there is one major difference in styles that differentiates them... versatility.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler was a great fighter, but a fighter that relied on 3 things, conditioning, will, and physical strength. It was his goal to press a fight for 15 full rounds until whoever it was that was in front of him was gone. He carried this throughout his career, and he was absolutely brillaint in his work.

However, what would he do when a guy refused to stand with him, a guy that knows how to win, and that wouldn't buy into Hagler's game? Well, we all saw what he'd do, he'd keep trying. Hagler's fight with Sugar Ray Leonard set the blueprint and is the fight that I believe accurately depicts how Bernard Hopkins would have "Executed" Hagler, except in far more emphatic fashion then the much smaller Ray Leonard.

Hopkins is also, like Hagler, a HUGE middleweight. Physically powerful, and bruising. In a matchup of pure strength, this one is about as even as it gets. Many may think Hagler was stronger, but in terms of size and boxing functional strength, he was NOT.

The Hopkins at the time of the Trinidad fight would NOT have thrown a shot here and there, jumping in and out with a shot and looking to grab. He was a guy who put together punches, and found beautiful angles to land crushing shots. (His power was much more devestating a few years back, it has deteriorated with age, even Hopkins himself has admitted this) Lets not disregard the fact that Hopkins, just as Hagler was, has ALWAYS been in absolutely flawless condition.
Being as strong as Hopkins is, he would not have catered to Haglers style. He would have stuck him with a jab from the get go, letting Hagler start to bring the fight to him, and dissecting him with his overrall BETTER SKILLS and well roundedness.

Hagler was tremendous, but Hopkins just has more to work with. Hagler would be chasing Hopkins all night, but unlike the Hopkins we saw vs Eastman (a Hopkins that I like to refer to as slowing down, losing punching power, and the overall tenacity), the prime Bernard Hopkins was an absolutely murderous fighter. He would have shucked in and out (Hopkins is such a quicker fighter then the somewhat methodical Hagler) landing many series of devestating shots and leaving when any resistance was offered up from Hagler.

Certainly Hopkins would take a few shots in the bout, but with Hopkins's jaw of CAST IRON, there is absolutely no way that Hagler would have gotten to him enough to force a stoppage or even to significantly hurt Hopkins in my opinion. He would have chased him hard, he would have pressed the issue, but once Hopkins started Banging him and getting inside and mauling him, not giving Hagler any room, tapping him on the thighs, tangling him up, freeing up an arm and ripping a few uppercuts and short hooks (Hopkins is a perfectionist at this craft), he would gain control of Hagler.

Hopkins was too fast, equally strong, and had MANY MANY more options then Hagler. When Option 1 would fail for Hagler, he would have nothing else to resort to, of course The Marvelous one would try in vein, but it would be futile. Even when he beat Hearns, he had one option, go through all that punishment and do what he does best. Strength, will, and conditioning. Hopkins would NEVER get into that kind of fight with Hagler, and the result would be a hard fought Hopkins decision, potentially even stopping him late. Sugar Ray Leonard pulled it off, and he was nowhere near as strong as Hopkins, Hopkins is catlike quick, and there's no doubt in my mind he could pull off the same gimmick to perfection, except better. Just like he pulled off the gameplan set forth by Oscar De La Hoya on Felix Trinidad better.:good

WOW...that is a good post.

:good

[JohnThomas1]

WOW...that is a good post.

:good

It was a great post, but i can't agree with the stopping him late possibility. Even tho i favour Hopkins Hagler ain't getting stopped in this one. Cuts would be the only way.

[robert ungurean]

This post needs to end .
There is no way in hell Hopkins beats Hagler. NO WAY IN HELL!

[redrooster]

WOW...that is a good post.

:good

You mean it's a good work of fiction

[buzzsaw]

Hopkins recently added to his resume the Light Heavyweight title. Not bad for somebody who can only throw arm punches. I don’t see Hagler being able to do that in his era. Hopkins is a very versatile and adaptable fighter, he would frustrate Hagler and Marvin would keep plugging away as the rds slipped away.

[redrooster]

Hopkins recently added to his resume the Light Heavyweight title. Not bad for somebody who can only throw arm punches. I don’t see Hagler being able to do that in his era. Hopkins is a very versatile and adaptable fighter, he would frustrate Hagler and Marvin would keep plugging away as the rds slipped away.

Versatile yes. But up to a point. Why wasn't he versatile enough to win more than 3 rounds from Roy Jones jr? Maybe a good punch would have helped him out.

He certainly didn't get anywhere against an acid test like Jones jr. All other foes were just so-so but the second title at an old age helps his rep that much more so that he seems more than what he really is.

That's what people here love about me-my brutal honesty.

[enquirer]

Hopkins fought in a much weaker era of lt heavies than marvin....Can you imagine hop taking a lt heavy strap with spinks and the quality that was around in spinks' reign?
Taking a weak lt heavy champ does not necessarily improve your status as a middle,is nigel benn an atg middle because he also won a super middle title? Hopkins has a style to beat many guys but his resume is lacking and he did not fight the best...The man should have bust a gut to rematch jones,and fight toney,calzaghe,g-man,eubank,jackson or some decent prime lt heavies...He benefited from a relatively poor middleweight scene...At least marvin took on all comers...
And losing twice or being run close by taylor doesnt speak a lot for hoppo does it......? Anybody see even the 1987 marvin losing to taylor twice in a row?
Marvins opposition is also better,nobody on hopkins record would trouble marvin at all except for possibly jones.....You think hoppo easily beats hearns,leonard,duran etc....?

[buzzsaw]

.....You think hoppo easily beats hearns,leonard,duran etc....?
No maybe not easily but then again Hagler struggled with each of these.

[enquirer]

Yes hagler struggled with each of these but he beat two of them and had a competitive fight with leonard...Im not sure if hoppo could beat any of them decisively,and my point was more that marvin would beat all of hops opponents easily with the exception of possibly jones....Hagler would not struggle with bernards middle challengers,wheras i think bernard would definately struggle with haglers,even those challengers outside of marvins big three atg opponents....