Hagler Vs. Hopkins

[hopkinsfan07]

who would win this battle of the long time middleweight champs

[Loewe]

who would win this battle of the long time middleweight champs

Again? We had this thread already a few times. Use the search engine.

[hopkinsfan07]

Engine lol, close this thread then

[Holmes' Jab]

It's been done many times, but anyway, Hagler: UD.

[TBooze]

Cute Hagler beats puncher Hopkins

Puncher Hagler beats puncher Hopkins

Cute Hopkins beats puncher Hagler

Cute Hopkins beats cute Hagler

[JohnThomas1]

Hopkins UD.

[PowerPuncher]

Hopkins UD better boxer, better defense, better counter puncher wins out say around 8-4

[Holmes' Jab]

The championship rounds are where this fight will be won and lost, which is Haglers domain. This "southpaw" is like no-one Hopkins has ever faced in reality. Whatever the case it'd be close, real close.

[Holmes' Jab]

[quote]Hopkins UD

You're fully entitled to you opinion and yeah, Hopkins sure had a good chance. I just don't think he'd win (personally).

better boxer

Very debatable. I think Hagler is the bit more adaptable of the two actually, unpredictible switch-hitting, quick movement, and definitely as good a jab as Hopkins. This is one helluva puzzle for Hopkins to try and unscramble.

better defense

Arguable. Hagler on the other hand is the better offensive pressure fighter, Hopkins would be taken out of his comfort zone here bigtime. Hagler also beat the better opponents.

better counter puncher

I guess you have a case here. Hopkins edges it.


wins out say around 8-4

That's certainly stretching it.

[the cobra]

Marvin at times fought Duran's fight, and he fought Leonard's fight. This makes me worry about Marvin controlling the action against a guy like Hopkins. I see Bernard moving, landing a few clean lead shots or counters, tying Marvin up when he gets close, and at times exchangeing with him on the inside, where he will hold his own with Hagler. His superior height and reach, footwork, defense, slightly faster hands, and countering skills lead him to a decision in a very competitive fight that Hopkins simply controlled most of. Also, I don't know if Hagler is physically stronger than prime Hopkins. He'd have a few problems being able to back Bernard up or even get the better of inside exchanges due to Bernard's rough tactics (although Hagler was equally rough). I don't see Marvin changing this from a Hopkins fight, and I don't think he has the physical talent or even the skills (he was great in both departments though) of beating a prime Hopkins if the fight goes the way Hopkins wishes. To put it shortly, in this battle between two great all-around fighters, I simply feel Hopkins was the smarter fighter. Hagler isn't going to beat a smarter fight than him IMO. Maybe I'm overrating Hopkins here, but the only clear advantage I give Hagler is power. Apart from that, wherever there is an edge, I personally feel it goes to Hopkins. Close but clear decision for The Executioner.

[TommyV]

Hopkins 7-5.

[redrooster]

If this fight were held in Hagler's day there would be no predictions of a Hopkins win. Hopkins would not be champion in Hagler's day. Hagler, the greatest middleweight of all time would have no problems being champion in the 90s. The only real threat would be Roy Jones.

[Robbi]

Marvin at times fought Duran's fight, and he fought Leonard's fight. This makes me worry about Marvin controlling the action against a guy like Hopkins. I see Bernard moving, landing a few clean lead shots or counters, tying Marvin up when he gets close, and at times exchangeing with him on the inside, where he will hold his own with Hagler. His superior height and reach, footwork, defense, slightly faster hands, and countering skills lead him to a decision in a very competitive fight that Hopkins simply controlled most of. Also, I don't know if Hagler is physically stronger than prime Hopkins. He'd have a few problems being able to back Bernard up or even get the better of inside exchanges due to Bernard's rough tactics (although Hagler was equally rough). I don't see Marvin changing this from a Hopkins fight, and I don't think he has the physical talent or even the skills (he was great in both departments though) of beating a prime Hopkins if the fight goes the way Hopkins wishes. To put it shortly, in this battle between two great all-around fighters, I simply feel Hopkins was the smarter fighter. Hagler isn't going to beat a smarter fight than him IMO. Maybe I'm overrating Hopkins here, but the only clear advantage I give Hagler is power. Apart from that, wherever there is an edge, I personally feel it goes to Hopkins. Close but clear decision for The Executioner.

Good analysis. And your take on the match-up is pretty much how I see it.

[Holmes' Jab]

Hagler's too busy, too agressive, relentless and easily just as quick. Too much so for Hopkins (even at his best) to handle IMO. It's an even fight going down the stretch, but Hagler uppes the ante and starts landing a bit more and more, Hopkins is stunned late but clinches to make it to the final bell: dropping a 9-6 type decision in the process.

[redrooster]

Marvin at times fought Duran's fight, and he fought Leonard's fight. This makes me worry about Marvin controlling the action against a guy like Hopkins. I see Bernard moving, landing a few clean lead shots or counters, tying Marvin up when he gets close, and at times exchangeing with him on the inside, where he will hold his own with Hagler. His superior height and reach, footwork, defense, slightly faster hands, and countering skills lead him to a decision in a very competitive fight that Hopkins simply controlled most of. Also, I don't know if Hagler is physically stronger than prime Hopkins. He'd have a few problems being able to back Bernard up or even get the better of inside exchanges due to Bernard's rough tactics (although Hagler was equally rough). I don't see Marvin changing this from a Hopkins fight, and I don't think he has the physical talent or even the skills (he was great in both departments though) of beating a prime Hopkins if the fight goes the way Hopkins wishes. To put it shortly, in this battle between two great all-around fighters, I simply feel Hopkins was the smarter fighter. Hagler isn't going to beat a smarter fight than him IMO. Maybe I'm overrating Hopkins here, but the only clear advantage I give Hagler is power. Apart from that, wherever there is an edge, I personally feel it goes to Hopkins. Close but clear decision for The Executioner.

People like to bring up how medicocre Hagler could be while passing up mention of what he did in the Hearns fight. The worst of Marvin Hagler is the measuring stick they prefer to use.

I like to bring up the Hearns fight to show how good he can be and what he can do when motivated. I'm also not convinced Hopkins showed more skills than Marvin. Show me one fight where Bernard showed more skills and stamina than Marvin on the days he beat Hamsho and Sibson. I'd like to see it.

[Robbi]

I like to bring up the Hearns fight to show how good he can be and what he can do when motivated. I'm also not convinced Hopkins showed more skills than Marvin. Show me one fight where Bernard showed more skills and stamina than Marvin on the days he beat Hamsho and Sibson. I'd like to see it.

Echols II, Johnson, Trinidad, Joppy.

[redrooster]

Echols II, Johnson, Trinidad, Joppy.

I said more skills, not just any skills

[PowerPuncher]

[quote=PowerPuncher]

You're fully entitled to you opinion and yeah, Hopkins sure had a good chance. I just don't think he'd win (personally).

1. (DEFENSE)Very debatable. I think Hagler is the bit more adaptable of the two actually, unpredictible switch-hitting, quick movement, and definitely as good a jab as Hopkins. This is one helluva puzzle for Hopkins to try and unscramble.

2. Arguable. Hagler on the other hand is the better offensive pressure fighter, Hopkins would be taken out of his comfort zone here bigtime. Hagler also beat the better opponents.

3 (Counter punching) I guess you have a case here. Hopkins edges it.

4. (BHOPs 8-4) That's certainly stretching it.

Yep I usually opt for brain over brawn, Hopkins skill and defense saw him successful in old age while he lost his physical attributes.

1. NO, Haglers defense wasn't impressive, his head movement was very very predictable. Hagler is known for his great chin because he shipped so many shots. Hopkins defense with footwork, movement and shoulder rolls meant we rarely saw his chin tested.

2. Debateable, please use the Johnson-Trinidad version of BHOPs for comparitive purposes. Hagler is possibly more devastating but again hes more predictable so he'll miss more while Hopkins is being more accurate and landing cleaner

3. Good we can agree on something other than the quality of BEardsley :lol: I think BHOPs stands off and picks his counters or gets off shots when Hagler makes mistakes making Hagler pay without getting caught.

4. If you are convinced of 1 fighters advantages to outbox the other 8-4 isn't a stretch. Hopkins is the greater tactician, ring general, better adaptician and thinker. As mentioned Hagler could be persuaded to fight his opponents fight, which doesn't bode well

[robert ungurean]

Hagler any way you slice it.

[Sweet Pea]

I think Hagler was just flat out better than Hopkins, regardless of Hopkins's technical prowess. Hagler was more dominant and impressive against better opposition. Hopkins's only real edge is his height.

[PowerPuncher]

Hagler was more dominant and impressive against better opposition. .

Disagree on both counts

[Mantequilla]

I really don't think Hopkins was a particularly great thinker as many seem to.A fine ring-general for sure, but not out of the ordinary for a top boxer-puncher.

It appeared more to me that he was simply a lot better fundamentally than most of the nondescript fighters he fought.

He was dirty as hell and knew how to fight inside, in an era where most of his opponents were clueless there.

Monzon in comparison was making technically sound and crafty fighters dance to his tune every single time...Hopkins for the most part made crap fighters look crap.

[Sweet Pea]

Disagree on both countsObviously.

[laxpdx]

Clearly Hagler. Overall, he beat tougher competition.

[Robbi]

I think Hagler was just flat out better than Hopkins, regardless of Hopkins's technical prowess. Hagler was more dominant and impressive against better opposition. Hopkins's only real edge is his height.

Hagler being more dominant and impressive against better opposition? Hagler was actually less dominant in his era than Hopkins was in his in terms of defenses and length of reign. But I do concede that both fought different opponents and it's anyones guess how they would have done reversing each other. Hopkins in the 80's and Hagler in the 90's.

And your saying Hagler was more impressive against better oppostion. I agree that he fought better opposition, although not by a country mile. But Hagler wasn't anymore impressive in terms of the way he won. Thats where the styles of both must be respected and balanced fairly.

Hopkins wasn't the type of fighter who would destroy his opponents like Hagler did with Minter and Hearns. Although IMO he dominated his opposition as thoroughly as Hagler did, but in a different manner.

[Sweet Pea]

Hagler being more dominant and impressive against better opposition? Hagler was actually less dominant in his era than Hopkins was in his in terms of defenses and length of reign. But I do concede that both fought different opponents and it's anyones guess how they would have done reversing each other. Hopkins in the 80's and Hagler in the 90's.

And your saying Hagler was more impressive against better oppostion. I agree that he fought better opposition, although not by a country mile. But Hagler wasn't anymore impressive in terms of the way he won. Thats where the styles of both must be respected and balanced fairly.

Hopkins wasn't the type of fighter who would destroy his opponents like Hagler did with Minter and Hearns. Although IMO he dominated his opposition as thoroughly as Hagler did, but in a different manner.I think a guy like Tony Sibson was better than anyone Hopkins beat as a MW, and Hagler outclassed and disected him in spectacular fashion. His resume at MW is just far better and I think he performed more impressively against top opposition for the most part, aside from a bout like Trinidad.

[Loewe]

I think a guy like Tony Sibson was better than anyone Hopkins beat as a MW, and Hagler outclassed and disected him in spectacular fashion. His resume at MW is just far better and I think he performed more impressively against top opposition for the most part, aside from a bout like Trinidad.

That´s just not true but only a biased oppinion. Hopkins never struggled like Hagler with his opposition. I think Hopkins reign is similar to Joe Louis´ his opponents didn´t look as good because he was so dominant.

[JohnThomas1]

That´s just not true but only a biased oppinion. Hopkins never struggled like Hagler with his opposition. I think Hopkins reign is similar to Joe Louis´ his opponents didn´t look as good because he was so dominant.

:good

[fists of fury]

This is never an easy fight to call.

I'll just say this: 2 of Hagler's losses were against Philly fighters. Where was Hopkins from again?

Tough fight no matter which way it goes.

[redrooster]

That´s just not true but only a biased oppinion. Hopkins never struggled like Hagler with his opposition. I think Hopkins reign is similar to Joe Louis´ his opponents didn´t look as good because he was so dominant.

Take it from me, Sibbo was better by far than anyone Hopkins faced and probably stronger than Hopkins himself. I'm not sure Hopkins could take all that Sibbo would dish out. It would be a fight for survival.

Personally, I believe Sibbo would have dispensed with the frail Trinidad rather quickly in the same manner Tony Ayala did with his victims. This might be another Carter-Griffith type match or perhaps Sibson-Collins. Sibbo would definitely be champion in this era.

I also have doubts as to whether Hopkins could weather an assault the kind which Hagler had to endure from Roldan, Mugabi, Hearns.

Hopkins could probably defeat Caveman Lee in a bruising bout by around the fifth round but he would be just another contender in Hagler's day struggling to move up the ranks.

[Loewe]

Take it from me, Sibbo was better by far than anyone Hopkins faced and probably stronger than Hopkins himself. I'm not sure Hopkins could take all that Sibbo would dish out. It would be a fight for survival.

Personally, I believe Sibbo would have dispensed with the frail Trinidad rather quickly in the same manner Tony Ayala did with his victims. This might be another Carter-Griffith type match or perhaps Sibson-Collins. Sibbo would definitely be champion in this era.

I also have doubts as to whether Hopkins could weather an assault the kind which Hagler had to endure from Roldan, Mugabi, Hearns.

Hopkins could probably defeat Caveman Lee in a bruising bout by around the fifth round but he would be just another contender in Hagler's day struggling to move up the ranks.

I take nothing serious you post about Leonard, Hagler, Ayala or Norris or anything that anybody could anyhow relate to them. :thumbsup

[Robbi]

Take it from me, Sibbo was better by far than anyone Hopkins faced and probably stronger than Hopkins himself. I'm not sure Hopkins could take all that Sibbo would dish out. It would be a fight for survival.

Personally, I believe Sibbo would have dispensed with the frail Trinidad rather quickly in the same manner Tony Ayala did with his victims. This might be another Carter-Griffith type match or perhaps Sibson-Collins. Sibbo would definitely be champion in this era.

I also have doubts as to whether Hopkins could weather an assault the kind which Hagler had to endure from Roldan, Mugabi, Hearns.

Hopkins could probably defeat Caveman Lee in a bruising bout by around the fifth round but he would be just another contender in Hagler's day struggling to move up the ranks.

Truely astonishing opinion. Infact, unbelieveable. Hopkins' chin was granite when tested.

[Sweet Pea]

That´s just not true but only a biased oppinion. Hopkins never struggled like Hagler with his opposition. I think Hopkins reign is similar to Joe Louis´ his opponents didn´t look as good because he was so dominant.So which of Hopkins's MW conquests were the equivalent of Schmeling, Walcott, Baer, Farr, Lewis, or hell even Braddock? Robert Allen?:lol:

If it's not true tell me which of Hopkins's MW opposition was as good as someone like Sibson or Antuofermo. As a matter of fact, find me a single MW Hopkins beat that was even as good as the naturally smaller fighters Hagler fought such as Hearns, Mugabi, and Duran. Or Leonard if you feel Hagler deserved that one. Hagler's opposition was far better, and he dominated pretty much all of it. If we are really going to get into comparing their opposition I suggest you stop now, it's really very one-sided in Hagler's(or Monzon's) favor when you actually take a look at it.

[McGrain]

I think Hopkins reign is similar to Joe Louis´ his opponents didn´t look as good because he was so dominant.

Not a helpful comparison in my view.

Hopkins doesn't have anything like the resume or the dominance over individual opponents

[Loewe]

Not a helpful comparison in my view.

Hopkins doesn't have anything like the resume or the dominance over individual opponents

Well, I didn´t compare their resumes, accomplishments or achievements. I just compared their dominance during their reign and that is comparable. Everything else is all Louis that´s for sure.

[Loewe]

So which of Hopkins's MW conquests were the equivalent of Schmeling, Walcott, Baer, Farr, Lewis, or hell even Braddock? Robert Allen?:lol:

If it's not true tell me which of Hopkins's MW opposition was as good as someone like Sibson or Antuofermo. As a matter of fact, find me a single MW Hopkins beat that was even as good as the naturally smaller fighters Hagler fought such as Hearns, Mugabi, and Duran. Or Leonard if you feel Hagler deserved that one. Hagler's opposition was far better, and he dominated pretty much all of it. If we are really going to get into comparing their opposition I suggest you stop now, it's really very one-sided in Hagler's(or Monzon's) favor when you actually take a look at it.

Read what I answered McGrain. Beeing disrespectful and trying to make me looking ridiculous just makes you looking like a fool. Think about it.

The best wins Hopkins and Hagler combined at mw had were:
1. Hearns
2. Trinidad
3. Duran
4. DLH
The rest of their competition is pretty comparable, perhaps Hagler´s slightly better but that is equaled by Hopkins greater dominance. Both ruled in a pretty mediocre era when you look at the average competition not the greats. Saying that Hagler fought the by far better opponents is just biased but not much else.

Imo Monzon is above everybody at mw, the clear numero uno. Then there are SRR, Greb, Hagler and Hopkins all about even and a step above the rest and who you rank above who is only based on what you like more.

If you want to compare their standing p4p than it´s clearly Hopkins above Hagler for everything he did above mw when he was methusalem.

[Robbi]

Read what I answered McGrain. Beeing disrespectful and trying to make me looking ridiculous just makes you looking like a fool. Think about it.

The best wins Hopkins and Hagler combined at mw had were:
1. Hearns
2. Trinidad
3. Duran
4. DLH
The rest of their competition is pretty comparable, perhaps Hagler´s slightly better but that is equaled by Hopkins greater dominance. Both ruled in a pretty mediocre era when you look at the average competition not the greats. Saying that Hagler fought the by far better opponents is just biased but not much else.

Yes certainly in terms of marquee names. Those were probably the biggest wins they had in terms of purses and public attention.

[Bummy Davis]

Hagler SD 12...Close fight but Hagler the agresser

[Sweet Pea]

Read what I answered McGrain. Beeing disrespectful and trying to make me looking ridiculous just makes you looking like a fool. Think about it.

The best wins Hopkins and Hagler combined at mw had were:
1. Hearns
2. Trinidad
3. Duran
4. DLH
:lol: After posting that BS list I'm the one who looks like a fool?

Oscar was well below elite at MW. Guys like Sibson and Antuofermo were far better. And putting Tito above Duran is laughable at best. That Duran would've easily beaten Tito. Add to it that Hagler arguably beat Leonard, though not in my personal opinion.

The rest of their competition is pretty comparable, perhaps Hagler´s slightly better but that is equaled by Hopkins greater dominance. Hagler was just as dominant, and if you compare their resumes, Hagler's clearly comes out on top:

Hagler: Hearns, arguably Leonard, Duran, Sibson, Antuofermo, Hamsho, Mugabi, Roldan, Minter, Scypion, Briscoe, etc.

Hopkins: Arguably Taylor(not very good losses to have), Trinidad, Eastman, Joppy, Johnson, Eastman, Echols, Vanderpool, etc.

Hagler had many better fights before winning the title as well.

I think if you look at that you see Hagler had a very distinct advantage, considering most of his top wins were mostly better than any of Hopkins's.


Both ruled in a pretty mediocre era when you look at the average competition not the greats. Saying that Hagler fought the by far better opponents is just biased but not much else.
That's simply nonsense, compare the resumes.


Imo Monzon is above everybody at mw, the clear numero uno. Then there are SRR, Greb, Hagler and Hopkins all about even and a step above the rest and who you rank above who is only based on what you like more.
Top 10 MW's

1. Greb
2. Monzon
3. Hagler
4. Robinson
5. Fitzsimmons
6. Ketchell
7. Hopkins
8. Flowers
9. Tiger
10. LaMotta


If you want to compare their standing p4p than it´s clearly Hopkins above Hagler for everything he did above mw when he was methusalem.
Compare their above resumes and add only the smaller Winky at catchweight and weight-drained and mediocre Tarver, as well as his loss to Jones though. Add Hagler's early rematch wins over Monroe, Watt, Briscoe(older), and multiple wins over Sugar Ray Seales.

[Sweet Pea]

Yes certainly in terms of marquee names. Those were probably the biggest wins they had in terms of purses and public attention.But not in terms of quality opposition.

[Loewe]

:lol: After posting that BS list I'm the one who looks like a fool?

Oscar was well below elite at MW. Guys like Sibson and Antuofermo were far better. And putting Tito above Duran is laughable at best. That Duran would've easily beaten Tito. Add to it that Hagler arguably beat Leonard, though not in my personal opinion.

Hagler was just as dominant, and if you compare their resumes, Hagler's clearly comes out on top:

Hagler: Hearns, arguably Leonard, Duran, Sibson, Antuofermo, Hamsho, Mugabi, Roldan, Minter, Scypion, Briscoe, etc.

Hopkins: Arguably Taylor(not very good losses to have), Trinidad, Eastman, Joppy, Johnson, Eastman, Echols, Vanderpool, etc.

Hagler had many better fights before winning the title as well.

I think if you look at that you see Hagler had a very distinct advantage, considering most of his top wins were mostly better than any of Hopkins's.

That's simply nonsense, compare the resumes.

Top 10 MW's

1. Greb
2. Monzon
3. Hagler
4. Robinson
5. Fitzsimmons
6. Ketchell
7. Hopkins
8. Flowers
9. Tiger
10. LaMotta

Compare their above resumes and add only the smaller Winky at catchweight and weight-drained and mediocre Tarver, as well as his loss to Jones though. Add Hagler's early rematch wins over Monroe, Watt, Briscoe(older), and multiple wins over Sugar Ray Seales.

Oh, man. Talking up one opposition and talking down the opposition of the other guy does nothing to prove your point it just proves you are biased. And so the discussion ends here because it makes absolutly no sense. Believe what you want but in the futere you should show more respect when you discuss with somebody, perhaps you will be taken serious then.

[redrooster]

I take nothing serious you post about Leonard, Hagler, Ayala or Norris or anything that anybody could anyhow relate to them. :thumbsup

That's because you know nothing about this era and havent seen Roldan or Sibson except in losing battles to Hagler. Don't blame me for YOUR ignorance. Hell, prove me wrong if you know so much.

Sibbo and Juan surely would conquer Bernard with superior strength, power, and tenacity. Bernard is a mere cutie which leads many to mistakenly believe in his resourcefulness as a fighter.

Bernard would never hurt Sibbo. Sibbo on the other hand would make X hurt, hurt him worse than X ever imagined possible with a body assault that would leave him gasping. X would never be able to keep up with him. A bruised and badly beaten X would barely hang on to hear the decison.

And Juan with his head and movement would make X miss all night long while scoring heavily to the body and head. As good as X was in his day this type of opponent is something he's never encountered.

And both would have blown over the scrawny Trinidad just by walking by.

Even Ayala was inexperienced as he was, I'm betting would make mince meat out of the marginally talented X. X was a marginally talented fighter who thrived as as long as he did because the division had never dropped to this kind of low in all its history. Bernard with his marginal talent, speed, and power would be no threat to Marvin.

Can you imagine X in the days of Hagler leading up to the Hearns fight? You don't honestly believe that fight would be in jeopardy because of someone like Bernard Hopkins? :lol:

"Bernard Hopkins-a bigger threat than Thomas Hearns"

Please! Hopkins was more on the same level as say, James Kinchen or Shuler but with a better chin. What decent middleweight wouldn't do well in the 90s? He did great with the exception of Roy Jones (another of my favorites)

Everyone of Hagler's opponents was superior to those of Hopkins as well as Hopkins himself. Leonard was surely superior to DLH in skills if not in durability.

I personally don't hold that fight against Marvin because I realize he was a shell trading jabs with an opponent he once would have destroyed in ten seconds. But still, one can say Leonard was overrall the most skilled Hagler had seen who had given the best performance of his career. Oscar was just an over the hill piece of meat by boxing standards.

[redrooster]

Oh, man. Talking up one opposition and talking down the opposition of the other guy does nothing to prove your point it just proves you are biased. And so the discussion ends here because it makes absolutly no sense. Believe what you want but in the futere you should show more respect when you discuss with somebody, perhaps you will be taken serious then.

he's not biased. He just knows more than you. I can testify having seen for myself and knowing the background of these fighters because I was around at the time. There was a surplus of talent in those days. Even before winning the title Marvin had already conquered Kevin Finnegan (twice) Willie Monroe, Mike Colbert, Norberto Cabrera and gave Watts a tough fight in their first go around.

I'm not throwing in Hart or Briscoe because both were on their way out. After winning the title the comp got even better with each challenger at their utmost peak. Fighters like Sibson, Hamsho, Obel, and Roldan actually peaked at they reached the number one contender status. And Hearns of course was at his absolute peak as well, judging from how quickly he disposed of both Duran and Shuler

[Robbi]

But not in terms of quality opposition.

I think I explained that with my awnser without actually saying "not in terms of quality opposition"

[Sweet Pea]

Oh, man. Talking up one opposition and talking down the opposition of the other guy does nothing to prove your point it just proves you are biased. And so the discussion ends here because it makes absolutly no sense. Believe what you want but in the futere you should show more respect when you discuss with somebody, perhaps you will be taken serious then.Perhaps if you could come up with a quality retort you'd be taken seriously.

[Sweet Pea]

I think I explained that with my awnser without actually saying "not in terms of quality opposition"So you were being sarcastic. Good.

[Robbi]

Speaking of the Hagler-Sibson fight. I watched it the other night. Hagler's jab was at it's absolute best. Sometimes when out of range he reached in with it almost leaping to reach the target and it never missed. And during the 6th round the onslaught was simply too much for Sibson to handle. IMO if Hagler wasn't as dominant as he was then Sibson would have grabbed the title for a period of time like Minter did back in 1980. Hagler actually said "Sibson hit me as hard as anyone else did"

I appreciate Hagler and Hopkins immensely. They easily make my top 10 favs of all time.

[Mantequilla]

Sibson was a smooth, classy fighter.

at least as good as someone like Nigel Benn, though his reputation hasn't aged as well.

[Robbi]

So you were being sarcastic. Good.


Just thought I'd point it out. Never tried to be sarcastic.