People Fault Hopkin's For The Jones Loss...

[Russell]

As a defining statement for Bernard Hopkin's being below Roy Jones, and therefore not being mentionable in the same breath as Monzon or Hagler.

Or at least I've seen this said before.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Bernard Hopkin's was very green, only fighting consistently for three years when he lost to Roy Jones. Roy Jones was a fighter with an extremely extensive amateur career. Hopkin's did not have the benefit of this.

But how much is a green Hagler faulted for getting his ass kicked by Willie Monroe (42-48 and 41-49 on two judges scorecards) three years into HIS career? And two fights prior to that losing to Bobby Watts?

Those are some very similar situlations, two ATG's losing to fighters while still "growing", learning from the experiences and going on to greater things.

But I think losing to Roy Jones in a solid fight three years into his career is slightly less a mark against him than Hagler's loss to Watts and Monroe three years into his career.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

On Monzon's much touted unbeaten streak...

He went unbeaten from 64' to 77'. 13 years. Within those 13 years are all nine of his draws, including the famous one to Bennie Briscoe.

No mark against Monzon due to the nature of close fights and how they were scored in South America, but it's there.

Hagler went undefeated for a bit shy of a decade, but only had two fights in 85-86.

Hopkin's went undefeated for 12 years.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

No screaming of holes in anyones record nor am I putting Hopkin's over either of them. But I do feel that there is absolutely NO reason that Hopkin's name should not always be mentioned in the same breath as Monzon's and Hagler's, especially when he's proven his ability to move up in weight like neither of them dared do, and his longetivity over both.

[the cobra]

I agree 100%. I've never put to much into the Jones-Hopkins fight as both were inexperienced pro's in their first title fights, and what it ultimately came down to was who had the superior amateur background and natural talent, both of which obviously go to Jones. RJJ's best performance was just a year after his fight with Hopkins, and watching him in this fight and other fights around this time I personally don't see too much of a difference between that RJJ and the one a few years later where he is classified as "in his prime," where as watching Hopkins of that time and then watching him in the late 90's and early 2000's you can see an obvious improvement.

For what they did at 160lbs, Monzon's #1, and I'd probably put Hagler above Hopkins (although there's no certainty to that), but P4P, due to his success in a higher weight division and success into his mid-40's, I'd probably put Hopkins above Hagler.

[Russell]

I wouldn't put any of them in a concrete place above the other. There are arguments for all three and I can't dismiss any of them.

Monzon's sheer activity and number of fights.

Hopkin's longevity and his performances years past his best. Also, moving up in weight.

Hagler's absolute destruction of the men he defended his title against. He KO'ed almost every one of them.

[Mantequilla]

Hops could have been DQ'ed for holding and constantly fouling against Wright and Calzaghe.

Disgusting performances that make me wish he had been in with someone remotely talented at lightheavy to see him take a nice career ending beating.He probably would have punked out after a few rounds, like he tried to do against Calzaghe with the low blow bullshit.

That's what i will hold against Hopkins, not his loss while green to Jones.

[redrooster]

Monroe and Watts were veterans by then hitting their peaks more or less. Watts beat Monroe and Monroe beat Hagler. Hagler was actually taking a step up in opposition facing contenders ranked above him. It was a gutsy move b the Petronellis. Marvin just edged out by Watts.

The Jones fight on the other hand proves to me that Bernard could not deal with opponents possessing special abilities while Hagler could and did.

Both Roy and Hopkins turned pro the same year and were about the same point in their careers. Neither was really that young in the sport of boxing and Roy had actually proven himself the best middle by 1992.

Just consider that Leonard-Hearns 1 was fought with only 4 years under both men.

And remember how Roy won with a broken hand while weight drained.

Hopkins while he could be cute and resourceful could never beat a man like Roy because he lacked the power necessay to do the job and as I said no boxer could ever beat Roy Jones.

Even if X had a chance for a rematch with Jones what would he have done differently to change the outcome?

[Sweet Pea]

Hopkins was at the most athletic stage of his career, and he was already very technically sound. What he lacked was the experience and craftiness, and it showed. For then he did imply the best strategy, to pressure, but he was just outclassed. Prime for prime Jones was at SMW, so Hopkins would probably move up, but I'd favor that Jones over any Hopkins, while it's definitely possible a prime Hopkins does better against the young Jones.

[Russell]

Hops could have been DQ'ed for holding and constantly fouling against Wright and Calzaghe.

Disgusting performances that make me wish he had been in with someone remotely talented at lightheavy to see him take a nice career ending beating.He probably would have punked out after a few rounds, like he tried to do against Calzaghe with the low blow bullshit.

That's what i will hold against Hopkins, not his loss while green to Jones.

Hagler himself had to deal with dirty tactics like Echols fucking body slamming him and ruining one of his arms for the rest of the fight.

*Shrugs*

Hopkin's isn't the only great fighter to fight dirty.

[JohnThomas1]

Hopkins was at the most athletic stage of his career, and he was already very technically sound. What he lacked was the experience and craftiness, and it showed. For then he did imply the best strategy, to pressure, but he was just outclassed. Prime for prime Jones was at SMW, so Hopkins would probably move up, but I'd favor that Jones over any Hopkins, while it's definitely possible a prime Hopkins does better against the young Jones.

Fair post. Hopkins has always pointed to his loss to Mercado as being the turning point of his entire career and the place where he thereafter discovered total dedication. Peak Hopkins would undoubtably give Jones more to think about but Roy would still be favoured. There's barely a 160 i pick over that Jones even at this early stage of his career.

[Russell]

Hopkin's also avenged his draw with Mercado in devastating fashion, much like Hagler would do most of his losses.

I find the parallels extremely interesting.

[JohnThomas1]

Hopkin's also avenged his draw with Mercado in devastating fashion, much like Hagler would do most of his losses.

I find the parallels extremely interesting.

And from the rematch on he was performing at his finest levels. Great consistency, dedication and application of skill fight after fight against the best of what his division had to offer. One of the great runs of all time of course.

[Russell]

All three had ridiculously good consistency, another reason I find it so hard to distinguish between the three to any kind of degree.

[Sweet Pea]

A guy like Hagler was just beating better opposition, and his smaller conquests were much better fighters. In fact, Hopkins never beat a natural MW better than any of Hagler's smaller wins like Hearns, Duran, and Mugabi. I thought he was just as dominant in his wins, but the opposition was so much better that I give him moree credit. And again, he established himself as by far the best, whereas Hopkins proved second to Jones. Losing twice to a fighter like Taylor is a bigger black eye than anything on Hagler's resume.

[JohnThomas1]

Losing twice to a fighter like Taylor is a bigger black eye than anything on Hagler's resume.

At a very similar stage Hagler lost to a blown up inactive Welterweight, Hopkins lost two very close fights to his acclaimed heir apparent. I'll take that anyday.

[Sweet Pea]

At a very similar stage Hagler lost to a blown up inactive Welterweight, Hopkins lost two very close fights to his acclaimed heir apparent. I'll take that anyday.C'mon, Taylor has proved his worth(or lack thereof) at MW since then. Those were not good losses to have. Leonard was a far better fighter all around than Taylor, even at MW, and beat a faded Hagler in one of the most controversial fights of all time. Hopkins fans seem to think he's still in his prime, and he's had plenty of success since then those losses, so it's not like he was done or even close.

[Russell]

A welterweight who hadn't fought in three years with eye problems, among other things, if you want to get into it.

[Russell]

C'mon, Taylor has proved his worth(or lack thereof) at MW since then. Those were not good losses to have. Leonard was a far better fighter all around than Taylor, even at MW, and beat a faded Hagler in one of the most controversial fights of all time. Hopkins fans seem to think he's still in his prime, and he's had plenty of success since then those losses, so it's not like he was done or even close.

Do you feel Hagler would of beaten Jermain Taylor post 40?

Or even been able to bring him to a SD?

Have two fights with him in which most sane views either scored as draws or wins for Hopkin's regardless?

Hagler was out of the game a bit past 30, including only a handful of fights in his final few years.

[Sweet Pea]

Do you feel Hagler would of beaten Jermain Taylor post 40?It's completely unfair and ridiculous to compare them that way. Hagler didn't have the longevity of Hopkins, but he did have the better success against better opposition in his prime years and throughout the larger percentage of his career(which spanned more fights in a shorter time than Hopkins's).

Have two fights with him in which most sane views either scored as draws or wins for Hopkin's regardless?Do I think Hagler at a similar stage of his career(say Mugabi) could beat Taylor twice? Most certainly, and a lot more impressively.


Hagler was out of the game a bit past 30, including only a handful of fights in his final few years.
Which is, again, why Hopkins outdoes him in longevity, nothing else.

[Russell]

Nothing else?

Moving up two weight divisions is "nothing"?

[JohnThomas1]

C'mon, Taylor has proved his worth(or lack thereof) at MW since then. Those were not good losses to have. Leonard was a far better fighter all around than Taylor, even at MW, and beat a faded Hagler in one of the most controversial fights of all time. Hopkins fans seem to think he's still in his prime, and he's had plenty of success since then those losses, so it's not like he was done or even close.

Hopkins has also beaten a presumably better opponent at 175 than Taylor, well possibly two better since. I tend to wonder about Stewards (i think) comment regarding him starting to struggle with weight drainage at 160.

Leonards's subsequent battles don't shine good light on him either, struggling vs Donny at a catchweight and realistically losing to an also well past it Hearns.

Hopkins was more than due to succumb to father time and regardless of 100% hindsight he did it against the supposed heir.

Again, as for the successes i ponder if 160 simply caught up to him. But really, making out Hopkins was anything near his best is totally unfair. Lets imagine Hagler rematching Ray then going up and fighting the best fighter at 175 then taking on another top fighter next fight. After that a match vs close to the best P4P fighter in the sport rising up. Hagler has gone no-where near the waters Hopkins has end of career. Not even close.

Monzon beat his heir apparent at a similar stage to both and i bow to his greatness. This is one reason why so many have him on top of a fantastic heap. A sterling career with pretty much no drama's once he hit his considerable straps.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Sweet Pea
Do I think Hagler at a similar stage of his career(say Mugabi) could beat Taylor twice? Most certainly, and a lot more impressively.
You think Mugabi was a better fighter at 160lbs than Taylor? I don't see it. he was a brawler with a big punch, nothing more. And Hagler struggled in that fight, his skills appeared to be all but clearly gone by this time, as he was taking a good amount of clean shots from Mugabi and just trading with him.

You say Taylor proved his lack of worth at 160 after his fights with hopkins, yet what did Mugabi do after Hagler? He got his ass handed to him over and over again.

[Russell]

Yeah, outside of his initial and best weight class Mugabi did all of nothing, including being slaughtered in one round several times.

[Sweet Pea]

Nothing else?

Moving up two weight divisions is "nothing"?Yep.

[Russell]

Yep.

Concession accepted. :lol:

[Sweet Pea]

]Hopkins has also beaten a presumably better opponent at 175 than Taylor, well possibly two better since. I tend to wonder about Stewards (i think) comment regarding him starting to struggle with weight drainage at 160.Tarver was presumably better than Taylor? Not really, and Wright at 170 wasn't really better either.


Leonards's subsequent battles don't shine good light on him either, struggling vs Donny at a catchweight and realistically losing to an also well past it Hearns.
Leonard was extremely inconsistent around then, but he still managed to KO a much bigger champion in LaLonde.

Hopkins was more than due to succumb to father time and regardless of 100% hindsight he did it against the supposed heir. Cool, but even if we're taking that way as a black eye, his secondary resume doesn't compare to Hagler's.


Again, as for the successes i ponder if 160 simply caught up to him. But really, making out Hopkins was anything near his best is totally unfair. Lets imagine Hagler rematching Ray then going up and fighting the best fighter at 175 then taking on another top fighter next fight. After that a match vs close to the best P4P fighter in the sport rising up. Hagler has gone no-where near the waters Hopkins has end of career. Not even close.
But he had a better prime, again Hopkins's longevity is the only real edge you can give him, that and that he went up in weight, but at MW Hagler clearly holds the edge.


Monzon beat his heir apparent at a similar stage to both and i bow to his greatness. This is one reason why so many have him on top of a fantastic heap. A sterling career with pretty much no drama's once he hit his considerable straps.
I agree.

[Sweet Pea]

You think Mugabi was a better fighter at 160lbs than Taylor? I don't see it. he was a brawler with a big punch, nothing more. And Hagler struggled in that fight, his skills appeared to be all but clearly gone by this time, as he was taking a good amount of clean shots from Mugabi and just trading with him.

You say Taylor proved his lack of worth at 160 after his fights with hopkins, yet what did Mugabi do after Hagler? He got his ass handed to him over and over again.The version that faced Hagler, who looked quite good, showed very good power and toughness, as well as underrated countering ability. Taylor's only real attribute was his athleticism. I do concede that Hopkins just couldn't get on the ball fast enough at that stage of his career, but it doesn't bode well for him as a loss, even in comparison to Hagler's loss to Leonard.

[Sweet Pea]

Concession accepted. :lol:He beat a weight drained Tarver and a smaller Wright at a catchweight to favor Hopkins's size advantage. That's really all he has to add to his MW career, aside from the Calzaghe loss. If he beats Pavlik we'll talk again.

[OLD FOGEY]

sorry--mistaken entry

Have a good day.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Sweet Pea
but it doesn't bode well for him as a loss, even in comparison to Hagler's loss to Leonard.
I disagree. Leonard had not fought in 3 years, had only fought once in 5 years (and it was a horrible showing), and had never once been at 160lbs. After his fight with Hagler he had problems with a completely weight-drained fighter in Lalonde, who was never really impressive, should have lost the decision to Hearns, who himself was past his best, and decisioned a way, way past his prime Duran. Other than that, Terry Norris ran him over, and then 5 years later Hector Camacho did the same inside of 4 rounds.

Leonard was likely more past it than Hagler, naturally smaller, and still beat him.

I pick the Hopkins that lost to Taylor to beat the Leonard that fought Hagler. Taylor's size and overall athleticism gave Hopkins problems (I though Hopkins clearly won the first fight, but Taylor deserved the 2nd), This version of Leonard would not do so against Hopkins. SRL outsmarted Hagler, he made him fight his fight. He isn't going to make Hopkins fight his fight.

I think very close decision losses to Taylor, who isn't a bad fighter, when your 40 years old (I personally feel Joppy was the last performance of an absolute prime Hopkins, and he may have been a little past it there as well), isn't any worse than a close decision lost to an inactive and clearly past his best Leonard in his middleweight debut.

[JohnThomas1]

[quote=JohnThomas1]Tarver was presumably better than Taylor? Not really, and Wright at 170 wasn't really better either.


Going into the Hopkins match Tarver was a huge fave and considered quite hot property after what he did to Jones. Highly thought of without doubt. It seems as if it is convenient to write off Hopkins wins after the event for many. Tarver's now shyte because he lost to Hopkins, hey he had to be.

One things for certain, Hopkins is here taking on and sometimes beating the best in boxing at a stage when Monzon and Hagler were long long gone. It sure impresses me.

Leonard was extremely inconsistent around then, but he still managed to KO a much bigger champion in LaLonde.
Inconsistent? The man wasn't even fighting really. 4 fights in 7 years.

As for Lalonde, all his weight advantages were stripped away when he agreed to fight at a catchweight and came in 8 pounds under his norm. He had a big right hand, not enough to beat a Leonard especially when we add the weight factor.

Cool, but even if we're taking that way as a black eye, his secondary resume doesn't compare to Hagler's.
It's not far off. Hamsho, Obel, Sibbo and numerous others weren't exactly given much due back in the day either. I have articles that portray Valdez and Briscoe as pretty ordinary too back right in the day of Monzon. Opponents almost always grow in stature a couple of decades later. They did with Hagler and they did with Monzon. They could well with Hopkins too. Who is to say he didn't snuff out a decent champion or two's career?

In simple facts and figures Hopkins surpasses Hagler in both length of reign and title defenses.

But he had a better prime, again Hopkins's longevity is the only real edge you can give him, that and that he went up in weight, but at MW Hagler clearly holds the edge.
Marvin has slightly better opposition due much to Hearns. Mugabi, Hamsho, Obel etc were decent fighters but anything but worldbeaters. Hagler too had plenty of fodder. Hopkins has the edge in longevity, title defenses etc.

I agree.
Yeah Monzon's probably the sterling example of 160 excellence via record. An incredible run. I have no problem with him number one, i'd probably insist TBH.

[Sweet Pea]

OK well I'm not going back and forth between the two of you so I'll just say that I'm speaking in literal terms when I'm mentioning a fighter's worth at the time of the fight, I couldn't care less about their paper resumes.

[JohnThomas1]

Yeah, outside of his initial and best weight class Mugabi did all of nothing, including being slaughtered in one round several times.

Yet he's still nominated as a great win. Why? Because he had good success in this one fight. A good example of awesome power not being enough when opponents got better.

[JohnThomas1]

OK well I'm not going back and forth between the two of you so I'll just say that I'm speaking in literal terms when I'm mentioning a fighter's worth at the time of the fight, I couldn't care less about their paper resumes.

It all boils down to personal perception and interpretation. You will say Tarver was really no good and weight drained etc while i point out his good points. This will happen with numerous sub topics.

The bottom line is you don't think much at all of Hopkins and will take the negative route on every point, i will go other. I think highly of Hopkins, you think lowly. I think Hagler is mildly overrated you think other.

Each to their own of course. That's the beauty of debate.

[Russell]

Yet he's still nominated as a great win. Why? Because he had good success in this one fight. A good example of awesome power not being enough when opponents got better.

And running into power equal or great than his.

You know... Benn. McClellan. :lol:

[Russell]

He beat a weight drained Tarver and a smaller Wright at a catchweight to favor Hopkins's size advantage. That's really all he has to add to his MW career, aside from the Calzaghe loss. If he beats Pavlik we'll talk again.

So weight draining isn't a acceptable excuse for a ancient Hopkin's against Taylor?

Wow. :think

Interesting double standard.

[Sweet Pea]

So weight draining isn't a acceptable excuse for a ancient Hopkin's against Taylor?

Wow. :think

Interesting double standard.Tarver had just weighed around HW standard just prior to fighting Hopkins for the Rocky movie, it showed in the fights, though Hopkins was better overall anyway, because aside from his one shot win over a fading Jones he didn't prove much in the way of skills outside of power. Hopkins had been fighting successfully at the MW limit for years, I don't see how his situation compared to Tarver's, he was just aging and thus his stamina was faltering.

[PowerPuncher]

I can't believe Hopkins gets ragged on for controversally losing to Taylor the heir apparent at 40 YEARS OF AGE when he had notably declined far more than Hagler ever declined (who retired at 32)

[Bokaj]

I can't believe Hopkins gets ragged on for controversally losing to Taylor the heir apparent at 40 YEARS OF AGE when he had notably declined far more than Hagler ever declined (who retired at 32)

Fair enough. But he was obviously "very green" at the tender age of 28, so when was his prime then? A couple of weeks before his 34th birthday?

[BritInvasion]

The problem for Hopkins is that his 160 pound career is bookended by defeats to the 2 best MWs he faced. And no, I don't buy the 'green' Bernard losing to the younger Roy. As 'Nard is fond of saying 'it is what it is'. He couldn't beat the best Middleweights he faced.

[JohnThomas1]

Fair enough. But he was obviously "very green" at the tender age of 28, so when was his prime then? A couple of weeks before his 34th birthday?

Hopkins entered his prime at 30 and it definitely went thru to at least the Trinidad fight at 36. An undoubted and 100% proven late bloomer and a rarity. A modern day Archie Moore in this respect.

[he grant]

Sweet Pea seems to have nailed this one ... that being said it really was a very close fight from a competition standpoint ... Roy won but in no way dominated ...

[the cobra]

Hopkins did not start boxing professionaly until he was in his mid-20's, and he had virtually no amateur career, so by the time he became an experienced pro and had reached his absolute peak, he was in his early 30's. You can tell by his performances, the best showings he ever gave were from '97 to about '02.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by BritInvasion
The problem for Hopkins is that his 160 pound career is bookended by defeats to the 2 best MWs he faced. And no, I don't buy the 'green' Bernard losing to the younger Roy. As 'Nard is fond of saying 'it is what it is'. He couldn't beat the best Middleweights he faced.
Hopkins lost early in his career, just like Hagler and Monzon did, and lost very late in his career when he had shown obvious signs of being past his best, just like Hagler did. In between that 12 year period, he never lost. Hagler went unbeaten for a decade, Monzon for 13 years, Hagler in 13 title fights, Monzon in 15, and Hopkins in 21.

[PowerPuncher]

Fair enough. But he was obviously "very green" at the tender age of 28, so when was his prime then? A couple of weeks before his 34th birthday?

I don't think he was green at 28, he was pre-prime and inexperienced and not as savy but physically he was prime

I think that Jones Jr would have owned any version of Hagler and won convincingly against Monzon.

[BOGART]

I always thought Hopkins had a good amatuer career before he went to prison then boxed some in prison before going pro. I thought his lack of amatuer experience was after he left prison he went straight to the pro ranks but before prison he was a good looking amatuer.

[Sweet Pea]

So Hopkins is considered far more declined at age 40 despite the fact that Hagler had been boxing longer by the age of 32(some say older) than Hopkins had? That's ridiculous, as has been said Hopkins was just a late bloomer. You can't fault Hagler for not continuing on as long or I'll fault Hopkins for not starting nearly as early and accomplishing what he did then.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Sweet Pea
So Hopkins is considered far more declined at age 40 despite the fact that Hagler had been boxing longer by the age of 32(some say older) than Hopkins had? That's ridiculous, as has been said Hopkins was just a late bloomer. You can't fault Hagler for not continuing on as long or I'll fault Hopkins for not starting nearly as early and accomplishing what he did then.
Hopkins was at the same stage of his career when he lost to Taylor as Hagler was when he lost to Leonard. I personally feel that is obvious by how each man looked in the ring at and around the time of these fights compared to a few years earlier when they were in their primes.

Hopkins deserves credit for what he has done in his 40's because he had been clearly past his best since the Joppy fight, as he never again looked to be on the level he was before and through this fight, so B-Hop beat DLH, Eastman, Wright, and Tarver when he was obviously (by simply watching him in the ring) past his prime. Plus, even though he was less ring worn than Hagler was by the time he was 32, the physical advantages you lose at 40 are going to come, whether you've been boxing for 20 years or 5 years.

[Sweet Pea]

Hopkins was at the same stage of his career when he lost to Taylor as Hagler was when he lost to Leonard. I personally feel that is obvious by how each man looked in the ring at and around the time of these fights compared to a few years earlier when they were in their primes.

Hopkins deserves credit for what he has done in his 40's because he had been clearly past his best since the Joppy fight, as he never again looked to be on the level he was before and through this fight, so B-Hop beat DLH, Eastman, Wright, and Tarver when he was obviously (by simply watching him in the ring) past his prime. Plus, even though he was less ring worn than Hagler was by the time he was 32, the physical advantages you lose at 40 are going to come, whether you've been boxing for 20 years or 5 years.All true. Hopkins is a trooper though, I give him credit for that, and be able to have success when past his prime, whereas Hagler was pretty much done after the circumstances of the Leonard bout.

Their careers played out in different ways, I just think Hagler accomplished more in terms of fighting quality opposition, though Hopkins is making more of a run in that sense while past his prime than ever before.

[PowerPuncher]

Hopkins was at the same stage of his career when he lost to Taylor as Hagler was when he lost to Leonard. I personally feel that is obvious by how each man looked in the ring at and around the time of these fights compared to a few years earlier when they were in their primes.
.

Completely disagree, Hopkins was far far far further past his prime at 40 than Hagler was at 32. Hopkins physical prime would have been from 28-32, his physical level markedly declined each year after this, his technical prime in terms of skills may have hit around 32-35, but if you compare the physical output of a 32yo BHOPs to a 40yo BHOPs it is far more of a gap than the physical disparity between Prime Hagler and a 32yo Hagler.

Its a testiment to Hopkins that he has kept on top of boxing despite being way way past his physical prime. Hagler never attempted to keep boxing when he was past his significantly past his physical prime and I doubt he would have been as successful as Hopkins into his 40s

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Sweet Pea
All true. Hopkins is a trooper though, I give him credit for that, and be able to have success when past his prime, whereas Hagler was pretty much done after the circumstances of the Leonard bout.

Their careers played out in different ways, I just think Hagler accomplished more in terms of fighting quality opposition, though Hopkins is making more of a run in that sense while past his prime than ever before.
I'm as big a fan of Hopkins as anyone else, but I too feel Hagler accomplished more in terms of quality opposition. I love seeing guys argue in Hopkins' favor, but some of the posts (most of them were trying to argue with you) are simply ridiculous when trying to argue that Hopkins' list of opponents at 160lbs are on the same level of Hagler's.

I'm kind of on the fence as to whom rate higher P4P, but if Hopkins can pull of a win over Pavlik it will be enough for me to feel confident in placing him above the Marvelous One.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by PowerPuncher
Completely disagree, Hopkins was far far far further past his prime at 40 than Hagler was at 32. Hopkins physical prime would have been from 28-32, his physical level markedly declined each year after this, his technical prime in terms of skills may have hit around 32-35, but if you compare the physical output of a 32yo BHOPs to a 40yo BHOPs it is far more of a gap than the physical disparity between Prime Hagler and a 32yo Hagler.

Its a testiment to Hopkins that he has kept on top of boxing despite being way way past his physical prime. Hagler never attempted to keep boxing when he was past his significantly past his physical prime and I doubt he would have been as successful as Hopkins into his 40s
He wouldn't have, but the point is that Hagler had far more fights and had been fighting longer when he was 32 then when Hopkins was 32. By looking at each man's absolute best performances and each man against their respective conqueror, they both look quite equally past their peak., you can't simply compare age because Hopkins started later and had less fights.

Part of the reason I would favor Hopkins over Hagler when ranking them P4P is Bernard's continued success after his prime, something Hagler never had.

[Loewe]

I'm as big a fan of Hopkins as anyone else, but I too feel Hagler accomplished more in terms of quality opposition. I love seeing guys argue in Hopkins' favor, but some of the posts (most of them were trying to argue with you) are simply ridiculous when trying to argue that Hopkins' list of opponents at 160lbs are on the same level of Hagler's.

I'm kind of on the fence as to whom rate higher P4P, but if Hopkins can pull of a win over Pavlik it will be enough for me to feel confident in placing him above the Marvelous One.

Wait 10-15 years and everybody thinks Hopkins opposition was as good as Haglers. Look at the press of every era, despite some exceptions they are always mourning that the fighters of their era aren´t as goo as the fighers of the past. and then, 10-15 years later they were good and the current fighters are shyte. That happened with Hagler´s opposition and it will happen with Hopkins´.

[Sweet Pea]

Completely disagree, Hopkins was far far far further past his prime at 40 than Hagler was at 32. Hopkins physical prime would have been from 28-32, his physical level markedly declined each year after this, his technical prime in terms of skills may have hit around 32-35, but if you compare the physical output of a 32yo BHOPs to a 40yo BHOPs it is far more of a gap than the physical disparity between Prime Hagler and a 32yo Hagler.

Its a testiment to Hopkins that he has kept on top of boxing despite being way way past his physical prime. Hagler never attempted to keep boxing when he was past his significantly past his physical prime and I doubt he would have been as successful as Hopkins into his 40sHopkins was past his physical prime, but most of his success actually came in those years in case you missed that part of the equation. Considering he started much later than Hagler, his career bloomed much later and he was hitting his prime by the time Hagler was already finished. Hopkins's prime skill-wise and in terms of ring smarts and whatnot has been in recent years.

Only his physical prime has been gone for a while. The comparisons you're making between the two are so inept it's laughable.

[Sweet Pea]

I just don't understand how anyone can compare their resumes at MW and come to the conclusion that they're even. If you know the fighters in question, you know very clearly that Hagler fought the better MW's.

Hopkins has the edge in longevity, and he was able to move up in weight(to his natural weight) and beat two other notable fighters. But at MW, Hagler's opposition reigns superior.

[Loewe]

I just don't understand how anyone can compare their resumes at MW and come to the conclusion that they're even. If you know the fighters in question, you know very clearly that Hagler fought the better MW's.

Hopkins has the edge in longevity, and he was able to move up in weight(to his natural weight) and beat two other notable fighters. But at MW, Hagler's opposition reigns superior.

Your oppinion, not fact.

[JohnThomas1]

Part of the reason I would favor Hopkins over Hagler when ranking them P4P is Bernard's continued success after his prime, something Hagler never had.

Allied to the fact that this success was up another division and he beat the best 175 of that time for the title where Marvin stayed put. It puts him a little ahead for me P4P but others milage may vary.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Sweet Pea
Hopkins has the edge in longevity, and he was able to move up in weight(to his natural weight) and beat two other notable fighters. But at MW, Hagler's opposition reigns superior.
I know very well that Hamsho, Sibson, Roldan, and the majority of Hagler's middleweight opposition were superior to the likes of Eastman, Joppy, David-Jackson (but their not on different levels), and I can see why this would make you rank Hagler higher.

Personally, I feel Hopkins' beat his challengers in more impressive fashion overall (I know you disagree with this), he has had multiple wins, all of them top level wins, past his prime where as Hagler really had none, I feel Bernard would win H2H and have always considered him the slightly superior fighter when taking everything in (I know you disagree with this as well), and Bernard had success above his NATURAL weight. Hopkins made 160lbs for 15 years and often came in under 160lbs, he was a middleweight just like Hagler was, but Hopkins could have success up in weight because he had superior footwork, defensive skills, and IMO was the smarter fighter, where as Hagler depended more on his punching power and physical strength more so than Hopkins did. That's why I consider them virtually even and probably would lean towards Hopkins.

[Robbi]

I know very well that Hamsho, Sibson, Roldan, and the majority of Hagler's middleweight opposition were superior to the likes of Eastman, Joppy, David-Jackson (but their not on different levels), and I can see why this would make you rank Hagler higher.

Personally, I feel Hopkins' beat his challengers in more impressive fashion overall (I know you disagree with this), he has had multiple wins, all of them top level wins, past his prime where as Hagler really had none, I feel Bernard would win H2H and have always considered him the slightly superior fighter when taking everything in (I know you disagree with this as well), and Bernard had success above his NATURAL weight. Hopkins made 160lbs for 15 years and often came in under 160lbs, he was a middleweight just like Hagler was, but Hopkins could have success up in weight because he had superior footwork, defensive skills, and IMO was the smarter fighter, where as Hagler depended more on his punching power and physical strength more so than Hopkins did. That's why I consider them virtually even and probably would lean towards Hopkins.

When Hopkins was at middleweight he wouldn't go above 166lbs between fights and he had a 28 inch waist. Not sure if Hagler liked a beer or a burger between fights, but Hopkins certainly never.

And with Hopkins weighing 156lbs for his fight with De La Hoya in 2004 he could have made jr middleweight no problem five years earlier when he talked about fighting De La Hoya at 154lbs.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Robbi
When Hopkins was at middleweight he wouldn't go above 166lbs between fights and he had a 28 inch waist. Not sure if Hagler liked a beer or a burger between fights, but Hopkins certainly never.

And with Hopkins weighing 156lbs for his fight with De La Hoya in 2004 he could have made jr middleweight no problem five years earlier when he talked about fighting De La Hoya at 154lbs.
Yes, Hopkins had no problems making 160lbs for 15 years, I don't feel that he ever looked weight-drained on fight night, he could have made 160 in any era whether it was day-before weigh-ins or day-of weigh-ins.

As far as Hopkins' enjoying a beer or a burger between fights, I'm pretty sure I saw somewhere that he was a vegetarian excluding Buffalo meat, which for some reason he's fine with eating. I'm not sure where, but I remember hearing this.

[Sweet Pea]

Well I'd favor Hagler over Hopkins head to head as well. Interesting debate, but we just disagree.

[Robbi]

Well I'd favor Hagler over Hopkins head to head as well. Interesting debate, but we just disagree.

It would be an interesting fight. IMO a stoppage is not happening. Hopkins' defense and durability would mean he'd withstand Hagler's punches, although that depends to a certain extent how he fights and how long their is fierce exchanges during rounds. However, Hagler doesn't quite have the chilling power required to floor or stop Hopkins. And Hopkins for sure isn't stopping Hagler.

I watched Hagler-Minter last night.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Sweet Pea
Well I'd favor Hagler over Hopkins head to head as well. Interesting debate, but we just disagree.
Exactly. I have absolutely no problem with Hagler ranking higher, I just tend to lean towards Hopkins.

[Russell]

e=the cobra]I know very well that Hamsho, Sibson, Roldan, and the majority of Hagler's middleweight opposition were superior to the likes of Eastman, Joppy, David-Jackson (but their not on different levels), and I can see why this would make you rank Hagler higher.
[/quote]

Wait, Hamsho's beyond John David Jackson why?

The JDJ that was unbeaten for a decade and avoided by nearly everyone?

[Sweet Pea]

Wait, Hamsho's beyond John David Jackson why?

The JDJ that was unbeaten for a decade and avoided by nearly everyone?Jackson was old when Hopkins got to him, whereas Hagler beat Hamsho on multiple occasions.

[the cobra]

Yeah, Jackson retired after one or two fights following the knock out loss to Hopkins. Hamsho at his best was superior to this version of JDJ.

[Russell]

Yeah, Jackson retired after one or two fights following the knock out loss to Hopkins. Hamsho at his best was superior to this version of JDJ.

Hamsho was the far easier fighter to fight as well. One of the crudest fighters you'll ever seen.

Guess it depends on if you want ultra slick with skills and chin problems or crude with a great chin when measuring fighters.

[the cobra]

The majority of JDJ's slickness and skills had been diminished by the time B-Hop fought him. He was still far more polished fighter than Hamsho, but his chin was far more exposed by this time and he had slowed down.

[Sweet Pea]

Hamsho was definitely the more effective fighter by the time they were fought.