Both at middleweight, I go for Hagler KO round 2, I think hed be too much for Hopkins and would wear him down then break him up.

Both at middleweight, I go for Hagler KO round 2, I think hed be too much for Hopkins and would wear him down then break him up.

round 2?????

hagler...UD

round 2?????


Yes I think he'd go all out to stop Hopkins once he reliased he could, it'd be similar to the Minter fight but I think Marvin would KO him.

70s Hagler wins by UD (maybe late stoppage)
80s Hagler loses a close decision

I still think the 80s Hagler would beat Hopkins, the 80s Hagler beat Hearns and I dont think Hopkins could have beaten Hearns.

hagler's 3 loses were 3 decisions. i think 70's hagler could take hopkins.

I still think the 80s Hagler would beat Hopkins, the 80s Hagler beat Hearns and I dont think Hopkins could have been Hearns.

1) Hearns was chinny, Hopkins has an iron chin.

Hearns went all out with Hagler, Hopkins fights smart.

2) 70s Hagler was a highly mobile, "super-staminic", counterpunching machine, honed by facing the entire philly middleweight scene, with an accurate and powerful right jab. All of this spells trouble for Hopkins. A lot of trouble for Hopkins.

80s Hagler made a point of coming forward and destroying his opponent. It did not serve him well with master boxers, Duran making it really close, Leonard beating him (...).

Hopkins is a master boxer, coming forward just makes his game. As great as Hagler is, his brawler version would be at a disadvantage with a taller, rangier, counterpuncher with an iron chin, who can probably match him in terms of inside fighting, and probably beat him in the rough-house department.

IMO the key thing is that Hop is one of the smartest fighters I have ever seen, while Hagler threw his ring smarts out of the window in the 80s.

I still think the 80s Hagler would beat Hopkins, the 80s Hagler beat Hearns and I dont think Hopkins could have beaten Hearns.

dammit i answered the post with the original spelling.

in this case, I would say...

Frazier beat Ali, Foreman destroyed Frazier and... you know the rest

1) Hearns was chinny, Hopkins has an iron chin.

Hearns went all out with Hagler, Hopkins fights smart.

2) 70s Hagler was a highly mobile, "super-staminic", counterpunching machine, honed by facing the entire philly middleweight scene, with an accurate and powerful right jab. All of this spells trouble for Hopkins. A lot of trouble for Hopkins.

80s Hagler made a point of coming forward and destroying his opponent. It did not serve him well with master boxers, Duran making it really close, Leonard beating him (...).

Hopkins is a master boxer, coming forward just makes his game. As great as Hagler is, his brawler version would be at a disadvantage with a taller, rangier, counterpuncher with an iron chin, who can probably match him in terms of inside fighting, and probably beat him in the rough-house department.

IMO the key thing is that Hop is one of the smartest fighters I have ever seen, while Hagler threw his ring smarts out of the window in the 80s.

not to mention hopkins had that excellent lead right hand...a terrific weapon against a southy.

Sorry about ****ing up my spelling on the post earlier, I like how this debates going so far but I still think Marvin is a cut above Hopkins.

This would be a classic case of boxer (Hagler) against brawler (Hopkins)..

I'd say they were both Boxers, and Hagler had more of a tendency to brawl then Hopkins did. Hopkins most of the time fought cautiously. Who would you pick to win Geoff???

Hagler faced and beat much better opposition than Hopkins.
Hagler didnt allow Hearns to box, it wasnt that Hearns wanted to fight with him, he was forced to.

Hagler could do too much. He could box if he wanted. Switch hit, brawl, use his great right jab. He KO'd some very tough opponents. I think he would outwork Hopkins. Throw more, land more and win by UD.

I agree on your views but I think HAgler would KO him early (round2) Hopkins hasnt had the opposition Hagler had and I dont think he could handle Marvin at all.

I agree on your views but I think HAgler would KO him early (round2) Hopkins hasnt had the opposition Hagler had and I dont think he could handle Marvin at all.

Hopkins is one of the best Middleweight champions ever.

Hagler woulnt just blow Hopkins away. Hopkins isnt esay to hit, plus he has a good chin. Hagler didnt KO everyone. He often would stop opponents in the middle rounds.
I dont see him stopping Hopkins early.

Both at middleweight, I go for Hagler KO round 2, I think hed be too much for Hopkins and would wear him down then break him up.

Hagler would get a close decision.

Hagler faced and beat much better opposition than Hopkins.
Hagler didnt allow Hearns to box, it wasnt that Hearns wanted to fight with him, he was forced to.

Hagler could do too much. He could box if he wanted. Switch hit, brawl, use his great right jab. He KO'd some very tough opponents. I think he would outwork Hopkins. Throw more, land more and win by UD.

I disagree, Hearns stepped in the ring to go to war. No one forced him.
Only after getting hurt he tried to jab from the outside, but it was too late.

I think any version of Hagler beats Hopkins. But only just. I wouldn't expect Hagler to knock out Hopkins. I agree that Hopkins is one of the smartest boxers there's been. But he's not a bicyclist and he's not a wimp, so at some point he'd inevitably mix it up with Hagler which was always a mistake.

I think any version of Hagler beats Hopkins. But only just. I wouldn't expect Hagler to knock out Hopkins. I agree that Hopkins is one of the smartest boxers there's been. But he's not a bicyclist and he's not a wimp, so at some point he'd inevitably mix it up with Hagler which was always a mistake.

I think Hagler at his peak beats Hopkins at his peak, but the Bernard Hopkins who spanked Antwun Echols, knocked out Trinidad, and beat down Joppy would out duel the mid 80's version of Hagler.

Hopkins was crafty, great from range with the right hand, rough on the inside, and was very defensively adept. As the bigger man, he'd get the better of Hagler on the outside and would hold his own in exchanges/clinches.

Hagler wins

I think Hagler at his peak beats Hopkins at his peak, but the Bernard Hopkins who spanked Antwun Echols, knocked out Trinidad, and beat down Joppy would out duel the mid 80's version of Hagler.

Hopkins was crafty, great from range with the right hand, rough on the inside, and was very defensively adept. As the bigger man, he'd get the better of Hagler on the outside and would hold his own in exchanges/clinches.

Yes, you are right. I meant to say something like "any version of Hagler beats any equivalent version of Hopkins" or somesuch. I certainly agree that a prime Hopkins will out-box a twilight Hagler!

I disagree, Hearns stepped in the ring to go to war. No one forced him.
Only after getting hurt he tried to jab from the outside, but it was too late.

I dont know what Hearns game plan was before the fight. But Hagler initiated the war. I dont see why Hearns would want to fight with Hagler when he was a great boxer with KO power.
In that first round he had no choice but to fight Hagler on the ropes, he was never given space to box.

I think Hagler would put Hopkins in the same position forcing him into a war as he'd know Hopkins was a great technical boxer,