I want to know who you guys think will win this fight prime 4 prime?

Hagler no question

How dare you even ask this question!!

Log off NOW!

How dare you even ask this question!!

Log off NOW!

he just ask a question in the aussie lounge is david beckham the best football player from England :lol1:

Hagler TKO 12 Hopkins. After about three rounds, Hagler really start to pour it on, and makes the referee stops it.

Prime 4 Prime it's going to be Hagler. No Doubts.

Over 30, I pick 'Nard

Hopkins tko/ko round 3

Hagler.

One of the easier questions lately.

definetly hagler

How dare you even ask this question!!

Log off NOW!
Why? What is so absurd about it?

The Hopkins of the late 90's or thereabouts, the Johnson fight, etc. would be a great matchup for Hagler. He has some edges in this fight as well. Very difficult fight to judge, about 50/50. We're talking a prime Hopkins, not old man Hopkins of today.

i'll go with hagler in a split decision

i'll go with hagler in a split decision

Yeah, that's what I was thinking also. How the hell are you supposed to pick a winner in this one?

I think I have to go with Hagler on this one. But it would definitely be close and I don't think he would KO Hopkins.

How dare you even ask this question!!

Log off NOW!

hehehe, I want to know why nobody gives Hopkins a chance , 20 odd defences of his title, undefeated for 11 years...
why can't he compete with hagler.

I know how good Hagler is , but you guys need to get over the fact that fighters of previous generations shouldn't be held in the highest regard and be put on a pedastal.

I know how good Hagler is

It seems odd that someone who knows how good Hagler is would have a question about this. The reason B-Hop could never be competitive with Hagler is that no matter what the best B-Hop could do the best Hagler would walk through it and land with terrific force. The best version of Hagler would KO Hopkins over the middle rounds, I'd even pick the version of Hagler that cruised against Duran to beat the best Hopkins ever. Comparing Hopkins and giving him a "legend of today" tag still doesn't put him in the same league as Hagler, who more than earned the very high esteem he is given. Marvin Hagler was something special and rare. Hopkins is just rare. In the best scenario I can come up with for Hopkins I see him trying to fight Hagler the same way he fought Roy Jones or Jermain Taylor; very little effective offense and failing imposing his will. The difference between fighting RJJ / Taylor and fighting Hagler is that when Hagler landed it wouldn't just shake Hopkins the way the other guys did, it would HURT B-Hop. All that hurtin' from a prime Hagler is something very few fighters at Middleweight could endure, and B-Hop just ain't one of them.

of course hagler.

Hagler by decision.

Hagler by late stoppage. If it was the Hagler that came out against Hearns then God help B-Hop. Hagler was a man possessed in that fight.

It seems odd that someone who knows how good Hagler is would have a question about this. The reason B-Hop could never be competitive with Hagler is that no matter what the best B-Hop could do the best Hagler would walk through it and land with terrific force. The best version of Hagler would KO Hopkins over the middle rounds, I'd even pick the version of Hagler that cruised against Duran to beat the best Hopkins ever. Comparing Hopkins and giving him a "legend of today" tag still doesn't put him in the same league as Hagler, who more than earned the very high esteem he is given. Marvin Hagler was something special and rare. Hopkins is just rare. In the best scenario I can come up with for Hopkins I see him trying to fight Hagler the same way he fought Roy Jones or Jermain Taylor; very little effective offense and failing imposing his will. The difference between fighting RJJ / Taylor and fighting Hagler is that when Hagler landed it wouldn't just shake Hopkins the way the other guys did, it would HURT B-Hop. All that hurtin' from a prime Hagler is something very few fighters at Middleweight could endure, and B-Hop just ain't one of them.
Awful post, and I like Hagler more than Hopkins. A Lightweight in Duran can make a good fight with him and make him look bad but Hopkins gets destroyed? LMAO. How do you suppose Hopkins couldn't take what Hagler dished out? Hopkins has some of the best defense, ring savvy, and punch resistance I've seen. His inside game and craftiness are a match for Hagler, and Hagler was more of an accumulation puncher than a big punch KO artist, so he's not stopping Hopkins with one, especially given Hopkins chin and defense. I am usually on Hagler's side of this argument, but your post was terribly ignorant.

And you're acting like the Hopkins who fought Taylor was in his prime. LMAO! Watch Hopkins of the late 90's, the guy who fought Glenn Johnson or Echols or even Trinidad. That was Hop at his best. No MW in history outclasses that guy, in fact maybe Hagler and maybe Monzon are the only two I pick to beat him other than Jones.

Hagler by late stoppage. If it was the Hagler that came out against Hearns then God help B-Hop. Hagler was a man possessed in that fight.

If that Hagler came out, Hopkins would have a better shot than against the Hagler from say, the Sibson fight. The Hagler that fought Hearns was just a come forward brawler fighting someone who couldn't take his punches in Hearns. Not the case with Hopkins. Hopkins is not going to try to brawl like Hearns, and he's not going to get hit like Hearns was.

I don't understand how people are writing off Hopkins like he is some nobody. He has a very good possibility of ruining Hagler's gameplan. It really could go either way IMO.

B-Hop by tko/ko round 3

I don't understand how people are writing off Hopkins like he is some nobody. He has a very good possibility of ruining Hagler's gameplan. It really could go either way IMO.

Agreed. It is ridiculous the way they are calling this.

B-Hop by tko/ko round 3
Well I'd assume this is to piss off the people that are saying Hagler destroys him, so I guess it's not too big a deal, unless you really believe that.

Ignorant or not I don't see Hopkins doing anything remotely competitive vs Hagler. Talking in terms of absolute best vs. absolute best. The Hopkins who hustled Trinidad or Glenn Johnson it doesn't look to me to be anything other than a good effort from a good fighter. Hagler was more than good, he was great, all time great even. I used Hopkins vs Taylor and Hopkins vs Jones as templates I'd see him employing to have a good chance vs. Hagler because I don't see Hopkins efforts vs. any other opponents giving him a close shot vs. the best Marvin Hagler. And there's no suggesting that Hagler ends the fight in the mid rounds on one shot either, only that is would take that long for the best version of Marvin Hagler to grind down the best version of Hopkins.


<shrug<

It would go to decision, probably for hopkins.

Hagler is a beast but overall I think B-hop is a superior fighter. People are writing him off because he's from a newer generation.

who has Hopkins fought vs Hagler ?
Hagler fought the Duran's , Hearns , Ray Leonards
Hopkins lost to Roy Jones who got Kayod by Tarver
Hagler would win without a doubt ...

who has Hopkins fought vs Hagler ?
Hagler fought the Duran's , Hearns , Ray Leonards
Hopkins lost to Roy Jones who got Kayod by Tarver
Hagler would win without a doubt ...Hagler lost to Leonard who got KO'd by Camacho. Hopkins wins without a doubt.

Anyone can use that retarded logic. This fight is virutally even. Hagler couldn't grind down much lesser fighrers(including a past prime, way past best weight class Duran) than Hopkins and you guys expect me to believe he does it to one of the most savvy, skilled, tough fighters of our time who has never even been hurt? No thanks.

Again, could go either way, may go with Hagler, but by Decision, and not how you guys say.

Hopkins is a dirty fighter though ...
he holds alot as well ...

How dare you even ask this question!!

Log off NOW!

:haha: :lol1:

*DIES*

Hagler wins K.O anytime after 6

Hagler wins K.O anytime after 6
Agreed Hagler would stalk him down and Hopkins can not dish out what Hearns could. I can't see anything but a Hagler KO or a Hagler UD if it was a UD granted it would be close.

Given that i think Hagler would beat RJJ at middle then i think he would demolish Hopkins.

Agreed Hagler would stalk him down and Hopkins can not dish out what Hearns could. I can't see anything but a Hagler KO or a Hagler UD if it was a UD granted it would be close.

Given that i think Hagler would beat RJJ at middle then i think he would demolish Hopkins.

Well then, as much as I didn't want it come to this, even as I pick Hagler in this matchup and like him more, but it's clear as day that you guys simply overrate Hagler. The Hagler that fought Hearns was nowhere near the best Hagler, that guy likely gets picked off by a great mover and boxer like Jones. A prime Hagler arguably beats any MW, but sure as hell does not KO Hopkins ever.

Again, Hopkins skill, savvy, defense, and toughness easily see him to the finish, possibly even a win. I really think you guys either just haven't seen enough prime Hopkins or have only seen Hagler destroy Hearns.

Hopkins is a dirty fighter though ...
he holds alot as well ...

We're talking a PRIME HOPKINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And being dirty could be to his advantage, as it may get inside Hagler's head, as has been proven can be done.

how can you compare a legend like Hagler
against a 'so called legend' in hopkins
hopkins looks good only because the competition
in this era sux ...
the only other legends hopkins fought were jones and de la hoya
also back in the day fighters were tougher ... these
days fighters if they hurt their thumb they will back out of a fight - lol
hagler was in an era where he had to fight other legends

how can you compare a legend like Hagler
against a 'so called legend' in hopkins
hopkins looks good only because the competition
in this era sux ...
the only other legends hopkins fought were jones and de la hoya
also back in the day fighters were tougher ... these
days fighters if they hurt their thumb they will back out of a fight - lol
hagler was in an era where he had to fight other legends

LOL, so it is obvious you only write what you have heard from different posters. You have no knowledge of your own.

In Hagler's day they were tougher? It's not like Hagler fought back in the 30's and 40's when they were fighting twice a week fella, he fought in the late 70's and 80's.

The competition in this era sucks? No, it sure as hell doesn't. You forgot Trindad from your list or De La Hoya and Jones. Also he beat the bigger Tarver, Wright, and defended his MW title 20 times, regardless of competition.

Here's the thing, Hagler rates a lot higher by my estimation because he did more and fought better fighters, This isn't about who had a better career or who rates higher though, it's about who would win between them.

Accomplishments don't mean **** in a head to head matchup, it's how the fighter fights. You watch a fighter fight and analyze his skills, not his wins on paper, to decide who would win between the two of them. This is a very even matchup.

these
days fighters if they hurt their thumb they will back out of a fight

you say sumthing like this but I guess you dont know about the originally scheduled hagler/hearns where it had to be postponed cause hearns hurt his pinky.

LOL, so it is obvious you only write what you have heard from different posters. You have no knowledge of your own.

In Hagler's day they were tougher? It's not like Hagler fought back in the 30's and 40's when they were fighting twice a week fella, he fought in the late 70's and 80's.

The competition in this era sucks? No, it sure as hell doesn't. You forgot Trindad from your list or De La Hoya and Jones. Also he beat the bigger Tarver, Wright, and defended his MW title 20 times, regardless of competition.

Here's the thing, Hagler rates a lot higher by my estimation because he did more and fought better fighters, This isn't about who had a better career or who rates higher though, it's about who would win between them.

Accomplishments don't mean **** in a head to head matchup, it's how the fighter fights. You watch a fighter fight and analyze his skills, not his wins on paper, to decide who would win between the two of them. This is a very even matchup.

Its an even matchup....to you only, pretty much. You like to point out others bias but you yourself are biased.

I love how Hagler is giving so much credit for destroying Hearns and beating Duran, but they were basically "Blown up" welterweights...atleast that's how he would be known today. He's a great fighter and those were great wins.

As for this fight, it's a lot closer then people who say Hagler blows him out of the water. I'm not sure who takes it honestly.

well don't forget Bernard's hero is the Marvellous one himself

No one who is picking Hagler is saying Hagler wins because Hopkins is a terrible fighter. It's just that the best version of Hagler is quite possibly peerless. No slight to Hopkins, his best just isn't as good as Hagler's best.

<shrug<

Tarver and Wright would have been sparring partners in Hagler's era

hagler defo way to ruff for hopkins it wud be a ugly fight i tel u

I mean people make a big deal that he beat Wright and Tarver
but who are Tarver and Wright ?
they is nobodies ..

you say sumthing like this but I guess you dont know about the originally scheduled hagler/hearns where it had to be postponed cause hearns hurt his pinky.



Its an even matchup....to you only, pretty much. You like to point out others bias but you yourself are biased.
I am? I believe I said I have to give the slight edge to Hagler in this matchup, and like him more. I am just the only one who has a clue what he is talking about and is objective. To say it is not close when Hagler was beaten by two nobodies and lost to the smaller Leonard(and fought a hard decision with a LW in Duran) is ****ing ridiculous. Hopkins has everything to give Hagler fits, and this is coming from a bigger Hagler fan and someone who rates him much higher all time(by about 20 spots).

No one who is picking Hagler is saying Hagler wins because Hopkins is a terrible fighter. It's just that the best version of Hagler is quite possibly peerless. No slight to Hopkins, his best just isn't as good as Hagler's best.

<shrug<Not as good a career, but in a head to head sense, the Hopkins that beat Glenn Johnson was just as good as any Hagler I've seen, and I have seen EVERY SINGLE HAGLER FIGHT. I have them all on DVD, have watched some about 3-4 times, including his best performance against Sibson, and even there he doesn't outdo Hopkins of the Johnson fight, though it's about even.

I mean people make a big deal that he beat Wright and Tarver
but who are Tarver and Wright ?
they is nobodies ..

Well that post right there proves you don't know anything, so stop arguing.

And it's "they are" not "they is".

hagler defo way to ruff for hopkins it wud be a ugly fight i tel u
Hopkins is easily the dirtier fighter. Hagler was very strong and tough, but not nearly as crafty and dirty as Hop.

Anyone who thinks this fight is a blowout either hasn't seen enough of EITHER fighter or is biased.

I love how Hagler is giving so much credit for destroying Hearns and beating Duran, but they were basically "Blown up" welterweights...atleast that's how he would be known today. He's a great fighter and those were great wins.

As for this fight, it's a lot closer then people who say Hagler blows him out of the water. I'm not sure who takes it honestly.
wtf? de la hoya and trinidad are blown up welters and the best fighter on Hopkins resume and worse fighters that Hearns and Duran, Hearns would blow DLH and Trinindad out of the water. Hearns won a title at light heavy. Granted the Tarver victory was amazing, I don't give him much credit for fighting Wright as he doesn't seem effective above 160. Hopkins lost to the 2 best middleweight that he fought, RJJ and Taylor. Hagler did not.

...I watched that fight and Hagler was robbed...but there are people that even back then were more impressed with a "pretty boy" then an honest "fighter"...at least Ali could take an ass whoopin unlike most of the other "pretty boys"...


Kabuki Joe

wtf? de la hoya and trinidad are blown up welters and the best fighter on Hopkins resume and worse fighters that Hearns and Duran, Hearns would blow DLH and Trinindad out of the water. Hearns won a title at light heavy. Granted the Tarver victory was amazing, I don't give him much credit for fighting Wright as he doesn't seem effective above 160. Hopkins lost to the 2 best middleweight that he fought, RJJ and Taylor. Hagler did not.
Hagler lost to worse Middleweights than that actually, and lost to natural Welterweight Leonard. And no, it was not a robbery, it was just a very difficult fight to score, depending upon how you judge.

Again, Hagler had a better MW career than Hopkins, noone is arguing that, this is about a head to head matchup though, not what they accomplished. You have to watch them and analyze their styles to determine who wins, not look at their list of opponents.

Marvin Hagler KO's BHop late in the 10th round, @ 160! and that's "with" Hopkins throwing elbows!

For one, Hagler's chin was granite, never been stopped, maybe a late starter, but relentless. Hagler was used to those 15 rounders...and as bad *ss as BHop is, he can't hang with Hagler.

Marvin Hagler KO's BHop late in the 10th round, @ 160! and that's "with" Hopkins throwing elbows!

For one, Hagler's chin was granite, never been stopped, maybe a late starter, but relentless. Hagler was used to those 15 rounders...and as bad *ss as BHop is, he can't hang with Hagler.

But a Lightweight in Duran could. Makes sense.

:pat:

But a Lightweight in Duran could. Makes sense.

:pat:

Roberto Duran fought in 14 (fourteen!) 15 rounders...5 went the distance, one to the 14th. That pretty much says Duran can hang.

20 push-ups! START PUSHIN, PETE!

Roberto Duran fought in 14 (fourteen!) 15 rounders...5 went the distance, one to the 14th. That pretty much says Duran can hang.

20 push-ups! START PUSHIN, PETE!

What is your point? Hopkins has never once had a stamina problem in his entire career, what makes you think he would have a problem doing 15? Is that what your whole argument is based on? Would Baldomir have a better shot against Hagler because he can go 15?

This argument should be about skill, unless the fighrer has actually had stamina problems before, which doesn't apply to Hopkins. The fact that Durean went 15 from smaller fighters says he can hang with Hagler, arguably the best MW of all time? Nah, it says more about Hagler perhaps not being the superbeing you think he is. He was fantastic, but don't overrate him for God's sake.

I'll except no less than 30 from you.

I think the overall thing with this match-up would be the fact that Bernard Hopkins has never faced anyone as merciless, relentless and damn near indestructible as Marvelous.

Hops has a good chin and is a good technical fighter but he doesn't have the power to keep a prime Hagler off him. Hagler was utterly relentless. And I'm sorry, Bernard Hopkins never faced anyone that is close to Hagler's class. A blown up Trinidad? Antonio Tarver? Winky Wright?? Puh-lease.

Hagler was truly old school in that he could, and would, go hard for 15 rounds and never let up. He would take everything 'Nard could dish out inroute to a 10 round demolition TKO/KO.

I think the overall thing with this match-up would be the fact that Bernard Hopkins has never faced anyone as merciless, relentless and damn near indestructible as Marvelous.

Hops has a good chin and is a good technical fighter but he doesn't have the power to keep a prime Hagler off him. Hagler was utterly relentless. And I'm sorry, Bernard Hopkins never faced anyone that is close to Hagler's class. A blown up Trinidad? Antonio Tarver? Winky Wright?? Puh-lease.

Hagler was truly old school in that he could, and would, go hard for 15 rounds and never let up. He would take everything 'Nard could dish out inroute to a 10 round demolition TKO/KO.

Hagler was utterly relentless....in the Hearns fight where he would had lost the physical capabilities to box like he used to. Otherwise he fought like this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bzoSDSlSE6s

Hopkins had better movement, defense, and was craftier on the inside. Hagler had a better outside game I'd say, a better jab, and at least as good counter-punching. However, why was he not able to go relentless on a Lightweight in Duran? He boxed with him, which is what a prime Hagler did. You seem to think Hagler was a Henry Armstrong or Aaron Pryor type fighter, when in actuality calling him relentless was like calling Hopkins the same.

Hagler was a boxer and a skilled counter-puncher in his prime, not some kind of animal that you saw in the Hearns fight against someone who chose to brawl with him, as Hopkins wouldn't(in case hagler decided to fight like that).

Duran made Hagler look bad in the boxing aspect(though clearly losing), and Duran was never known as the best pure boxer, so how do you think Hagler destroys and runs through someone bigger, stronger, with a better chin, and with better boxing skills at 160 than Duran?

You guys underestimate Hopkins to the fullest. What I think is going on is you guys are comparing Hagler to the Hopkins who is fighting now, instead of a prime Hopkins. This is a young, pre-prime Hopkins, and watch how much better he looks than the old man who is fighting now.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pr9LKERbagA

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ddDMkOdzybg

And if you get a chance, watch his fight with Glenn Johnson.

The Hagler I posted in the vid way up above you think demolishes that Hopkins? I don't see how.

Hagler was a boxer and a skilled counter-puncher in his prime, not some kind of animal that you saw in the Hearns fight against someone who chose to brawl with him, as Hopkins wouldn't(in case hagler decided to fight like that).



First off, I'm not some 15 year old kid man, I know precisely what kind of fighter Hagler was. He was relentless in that he kept on coming, getting stronger as the fight goes on.

Anyways, Hopkins never fought anyone close to Hagler's level. The only true great Hopkins fought he got beat and thats Jones. Nothing about a Trinidad, Tarver, Wright fight is any kind of indicator of how Hop would do against Marvin.

It's not underrating Hopkins, moreso it's giving Hagler the full credit due him.

Anyways, Hopkins never fought anyone close to Hagler's level. The only true great Hopkins fought he got beat and thats Jones. Nothing about a Trinidad, Tarver, Wright fight is any kind of indicator of how Hop would do against Marvin.

Classic misconception, the only fighters than beat him must be the only good fighters he fought. Thats sounds so ridiculous.

I might give Hagler a slight advantage but I'm not going to write Hopkins off as a tomato can.

Hopkins beat Wright, big deal, Fat Boy Vargas beat Wright too,
Like I've been saying all these guys would not be good enough
to be sparring partners in the Hagler era

Classic misconception, the only fighters than beat him must be the only good fighters he fought. Thats sounds so ridiculous.

I might give Hagler a slight advantage but I'm not going to write Hopkins off as a tomato can.

Misconception?? You are one to speak of misconceptions. Nowhere did I say anything about Bernard being a 'can.

Surprised you didn't mention Mike Tyson in this thread LOL

Hopkins beat Wright, big deal, Fat Boy Vargas beat Wright too,
Like I've been saying all these guys would not be good enough
to be sparring partners in the Hagler era
Right here, as I explained earlier, you lost the right to post about boxing. Do your research, and come back when you've learned something.

And yes, I stand by that all of you are overrating Hagler. This is coming from someone who has seen EVERY SINGLE FIGHT of his career. I know his style and career back to front. He is one of few fighters I have full DVD's of, in a career box set. I have seen most of Hopkins's fights as well. Prime for prime, these guys are damn near even. Yoy guys overrate Hagler or underrate Hopkins if you think it is any kind of blowout either way. Learn to analyze a fight between two fighters and their styles, not how much you like a fighter or how highly he rates among historians.

Hagler rates about 20 places higher in greatness, but in a head to head matchup at MW, it is virtually even. You underestimate Hopkins so badly on some points(or overrate Hagler in comparison) that it is laughable.

Learn to analyze a fight between two fighters and their styles, not how much you like a fighter or how highly he rates among historians.

Wise words

how can anyone who lost to jermaine taylor (twice)
beat hagler ? - lol

Right here, as I explained earlier, you lost the right to post about boxing. Do your research, and come back when you've learned something.

And yes, I stand by that all of you are overrating Hagler. This is coming from someone who has seen EVERY SINGLE FIGHT of his career. I know his style and career back to front. He is one of few fighters I have full DVD's of, in a career box set. I have seen most of Hopkins's fights as well. Prime for prime, these guys are damn near even. Yoy guys overrate Hagler or underrate Hopkins if you think it is any kind of blowout either way. Learn to analyze a fight between two fighters and their styles, not how much you like a fighter or how highly he rates among historians.

Hagler rates about 20 places higher in greatness, but in a head to head matchup at MW, it is virtually even. You underestimate Hopkins so badly on some points(or overrate Hagler in comparison) that it is laughable.
in a 15 rounder i believe Hagler would come on much stronger and really tire Hopkins out. In a 12 rounder It much closer and if Hagler doesn't win by stoppage I can see Hopkins giving Hagler a really tough battle with a Hagler close UD. I don't underestimate Hopkins, I just don't think he could hurt Hagler and if Hagler keeps coming forward and picking Hopkins off i see Hopkins unable to keep up but I think it would be close.

What is your point? Hopkins has never once had a stamina problem in his entire career, what makes you think he would have a problem doing 15? Is that what your whole argument is based on? Would Baldomir have a better shot against Hagler because he can go 15?

This argument should be about skill, unless the fighrer has actually had stamina problems before, which doesn't apply to Hopkins. The fact that Durean went 15 from smaller fighters says he can hang with Hagler, arguably the best MW of all time? Nah, it says more about Hagler perhaps not being the superbeing you think he is. He was fantastic, but don't overrate him for God's sake.

I'll except no less than 30 from you.

Cool beans man! never said BHop has a stamina problem, just that I grew up watching Hagler (since ABC Wide World of Sports - Howard Cosell) his style was a like a runaway freight train.....starts slow....and then just keeps building up steam as he goes, and that unpredictable pace overwhelmed just about everybody he faced. A relentless persuit to put some leather on a dude's face. Hopkins pretty much stays at one pace (Trinidad, Taylor, De La Hoya) and "WAITS" for the fight to come to him. I'm just saying....that counter punching that Hopkins will try on Hagler won't do much damage...Hagler can hit AND TAKE A HIT!

"And I pumped out 50 for ya"!

how can anyone who lost to jermaine taylor (twice)
beat hagler ? - lol
How can anyone who lost to scrubs like Willie Monroe and Bobby Watts beat Hopkins?

Your posts get worse and worse, if I were you I would just stop.

in a 15 rounder i believe Hagler would come on much stronger and really tire Hopkins out. In a 12 rounder It much closer and if Hagler doesn't win by stoppage I can see Hopkins giving Hagler a really tough battle with a Hagler close UD. I don't underestimate Hopkins, I just don't think he could hurt Hagler and if Hagler keeps coming forward and picking Hopkins off i see Hopkins unable to keep up but I think it would be close.What makes you think he would tire Hopkins out? Hopkins is a cardio machine, never once tired out. Duran is one who has had cardio problems before, and is inferior to Hopkins in every single category at MW, yet he not only lasted, but made Hagler look somewhat bad.

A crafty, strong, smaller guy not known for his boxing skills was able to last because he was able to outfox Hagler early on. Another smaller guy was able to win because he was able to outfox Hagler. Hopkins, being one of the crafiest fighters of all time, and one of the most versatile in his prime(again, we are NOT talking abouit today's Hopkins) would most CERTAINLY last the decision. Many lasted with Hagler. His KO's were for the most part on accumulation, and againt someone with the toughness, craftiness, and defense of Hopkins, I find it very hard to see a stoppage, almost as hard as for anyone to stop Hagler.

You guys like he would just be pounding on him from the opening bell, when early on it would've been a boxing match, with a gameplan of either fighting then coming into play, causing either fighter to react how they would. There would be no finish, both have too good chins, and/or too good defense.

Hops has a good chin and is a good technical fighter but he doesn't have the power to keep a prime Hagler off him. Hagler was utterly relentless. And I'm sorry, Bernard Hopkins never faced anyone that is close to Hagler's class. A blown up Trinidad? Antonio Tarver? Winky Wright?? Puh-lease.

See I don't get this? Tito was blown up from 147, but Hearns and Duran weren't blown up Welterweights (Duran lightweight) in their fights with Hagler?

Hell they were great wins for each of them and Tito was still known as a beast at 160 at the time. Hopkins just kicked his ass is what he did. Hopkins was also the underdog in Tarver and Winky yet managed to dominate Tarver and beat Winky.

I'm not taking anything away from Hagler being great, but it's kinda sad about how people have this misconception of Hopkins wins not counting because they were "blown up welterweights" and "out of their primes"

See I don't get this? Tito was blown up from 147, but Hearns and Duran weren't blown up Welterweights (Duran lightweight) in their fights with Hagler?

Hell they were great wins for each of them and Tito was still known as a beast at 160 at the time. Hopkins just kicked his ass is what he did. Hopkins was also the underdog in Tarver and Winky yet managed to dominate Tarver and beat Winky.

I'm not taking anything away from Hagler being great, but it's kinda sad about how people have this misconception of Hopkins wins not counting because they were "blown up welterweights" and "out of their primes"
Let's be honest on a couple of things though, Hopkins was not the underdog against Winky, though he was against Tito, which is one you could mention in Winky's place.

Also, Hearns fought up to CW and was weight-drained at WW, and proved himself a lot more at higher weights, which is why he isn't considered blown up. Hagler fought the better competition, though Hopkins is no slouch.

What are your thoughts on a head to head matchup though, which is what this thread is about. I have no problem with anyone going either way, as I am on the fence, I only have a problem with anyone claiming it would be a one-sided affair, which everyone seems to be doing with this one after seeing how everyone else is doing it.

Let's be honest on a couple of things though, Hopkins was not the underdog against Winky, though he was against Tito, which is one you could mention in Winky's place.

Was he the favorite against Winky? I thought he wasn't. I knew it was close in betting, but Winky had a slight advantage. Though I'll take your word for it.

Hearns fought at higher weights because he was getting old and couldn't make the weight anymore. While I'm not taking anything away from Hagler for beating Hearns, Hagler would be simply more criticized nowadays for beating a "blown up welter." Great victories, which I don't think you could take away from any fighter. I just think Hopkins gets to much **** for it. I can see people arguing with De La Hoya about being blown up, but he was just 6 pounds away and was doing pretty good against Hopkins till he got knocked out. I just think Bernard gets more **** for it, but he has great wins and so does Hagler.


As for the match up, you guys both make good points. Hopkins could definitely last 15 with Hagler. Hopkins also used to be very offensive too, but yet still pick his shots in his fights.

However, Hagler also had a higher activity rate then anyone who was southpaw that Bernard faced. Bernards pretty solid against Southpaws, but with Haglers punches and workrate it'd be interesting to see how Bernard could deal with it.

Hopkins though had better defense and threw people off their gameplans and he did it the way he wanted.

I could see it going either way honestly.

Hearns fought at higher weights because he was getting old and couldn't make the weight anymore. That's really not true, he was very young at WW, which is why he was able to make weight, in his prime he was at 154 though, and even 160. He won belts up to CW, his body had the amazing versatility to fight at a number of weights. He was special, he was not like a De La Hoya or Trinidad. Also, the thing is, he proved himself at higher weights, while DLH really didn't, and though Trinidad was feared, in hindsight, he didn't prive much at MW. Though hindsight can be a misleading thing sometimes, because at the time I don't see too many MW's beating Trinidad either.

While I'm not taking anything away from Hagler for beating Hearns, Hagler would be simply more criticized nowadays for beating a "blown up welter."I really hope not. Oscar and Tito were good wins, just not as good as Hearns, for the reasons above and for the simple fact that he was better than both.

I get your point though, people may very well say he beat a blown up Welter at the time of the fight, but I'd hope upon seeing how Hearns's career turned out they'd think different.

Yeah I see where you are getting at, but Hearns never really proved himself at Middleweight before Hagler. He was at 154 when he smashed Duran and others, but if kwown nowadays it'd be "Well he just belonged at 154 anyway."

I realzie Hearns is a freak of nature, but that still doesn't stop critics. Honestly it would be like saying Williams going up to fight someone like Pavlik at Middleweight, losing in a 3 round war, and people would say that Williams was just at welterweight or Jr.Middleweight if he decides to move up.

hagler would outbox hopkins
hagler is better than roy jones

hagler would outbox hopkins
hagler is better than roy jones

Hagler is a better pure boxer than Roy Jones? Or a greater fighter? I don't know if I agree that Hagler outboxes Hopkins, though it is close.

Roy Jones would outbox Hagler, Hagler would have to rely on bulling his way in and pressing Roy to take that one, but as Leonard showed, Hagler can have trouble with movers(though that was clearly a past his prime Hagler).

Either way, Hagler is a greater fighter based on what he achieved, but not a better pure boxer, and I'd probably go with Jones in a head to head matchup between the two.

to the guy who keeps touting his Hagler fanhood and claiming to be the only objective voice you sure do confuse me. Ignorant as you say i am, and that you have all haglers fights on dvd, you rate hagler higher all time, etc etc....your credentials as a hagler fan are obviously well established, no need to continue to justify yourslef since the debate was never "who is the biggest hagler fan that gives hopkins a chance". all you've been doing is spewing hateful diatribe towards anyone whos opinion differs from yours. your continuing bitter / only enlightened person on this topic has taken the fun right out of it. So I'll relent, you're right, Hagler barely beats hopkins in one of the most competitive, evenly made matches in history! because a huge hagler fan thinks thats the way it goes.

some fan !!

What makes you think he would tire Hopkins out? Hopkins is a cardio machine, never once tired out. Duran is one who has had cardio problems before, and is inferior to Hopkins in every single category at MW, yet he not only lasted, but made Hagler look somewhat bad.

A crafty, strong, smaller guy not known for his boxing skills was able to last because he was able to outfox Hagler early on. Another smaller guy was able to win because he was able to outfox Hagler. Hopkins, being one of the crafiest fighters of all time, and one of the most versatile in his prime(again, we are NOT talking abouit today's Hopkins) would most CERTAINLY last the decision. Many lasted with Hagler. His KO's were for the most part on accumulation, and againt someone with the toughness, craftiness, and defense of Hopkins, I find it very hard to see a stoppage, almost as hard as for anyone to stop Hagler.

You guys like he would just be pounding on him from the opening bell, when early on it would've been a boxing match, with a gameplan of either fighting then coming into play, causing either fighter to react how they would. There would be no finish, both have too good chins, and/or too good defense.
The Prime Bernard we are talking about is not as crafty in his defense as he is now he evolved to that now because of his age. The Prime Hopkins was a dirty brawler.

Hopkins used to start fast swinging from the bell on the inside whereas Hagler was a slow starter. That's why i pick Hopkins in the opening rounds but Hopkins has never been 15 rounds and starting fast against Hagler will prove to be his downfall because of Hagler's relentless coming forward and never tiring.

Hopkins would've tired in the later rounds and been stopped, Hagler is by and large the best opponent Hopkins will ever have fought, I believe Hearns would've outboxed Hopkins at middle if he was smart maybe even knocked him out with that devastating straight right.

Hagler's defense was amazing and always kept his hands up making him hard to hit flush which would be where Hopkins get frustrated and start to let his hands go miday in the fight as well as the early ones which is why i think Hopkins gets tired and then Hagler would pick up steam and pick him off with rights and this is where his stamina comes in and where he destroys Hopkins. Close fight up into the later rounds.

Hopkins would make Hagler look bad in the opening rounds but later on is where the experience of fighting the better fighters and having amazing stamina kicks in.

Hagler......Maybe even by stoppage.I know he wouldn't take that **** Bernard pulls in the ring and bust his ****ing ass.

Hagler is a better pure boxer than Roy Jones? Or a greater fighter? I don't know if I agree that Hagler outboxes Hopkins, though it is close.

Roy Jones would outbox Hagler, Hagler would have to rely on bulling his way in and pressing Roy to take that one, but as Leonard showed, Hagler can have trouble with movers(though that was clearly a past his prime Hagler).

Either way, Hagler is a greater fighter based on what he achieved, but not a better pure boxer, and I'd probably go with Jones in a head to head matchup between the two.

Actually I think Hagler could beat Jones if he came out blasting like he did against Hearns. I mean yes he's fast, but I don't think Jones could handle the pressure. Jones also has a questionable chin. Jones is the better outboxer and way faster, but I think Hagler crushes him.

The Prime Bernard we are talking about is not as crafty in his defense as he is now he evolved to that now because of his age. The Prime Hopkins was a dirty brawler.

Prime Hopkins is what I consider the tito/antwon echols/ etc in that range of fights, not the fights where he'd chase down them. He had offensive power and speed, but yet he could move around the ring and still be smart. His defensive was very impresive.

if the milkman (tarver) can kayo jones
hagler would kayo jones with total ease
Woop ! there it is !!!

The Prime Bernard we are talking about is not as crafty in his defense as he is now he evolved to that now because of his age. The Prime Hopkins was a dirty brawler.

Hopkins used to start fast swinging from the bell on the inside whereas Hagler was a slow starter. That's why i pick Hopkins in the opening rounds but Hopkins has never been 15 rounds and starting fast against Hagler will prove to be his downfall because of Hagler's relentless coming forward and never tiring.

Hopkins would've tired in the later rounds and been stopped, Hagler is by and large the best opponent Hopkins will ever have fought, I believe Hearns would've outboxed Hopkins at middle if he was smart maybe even knocked him out with that devastating straight right.

Hagler's defense was amazing and always kept his hands up making him hard to hit flush which would be where Hopkins get frustrated and start to let his hands go miday in the fight as well as the early ones which is why i think Hopkins gets tired and then Hagler would pick up steam and pick him off with rights and this is where his stamina comes in and where he destroys Hopkins. Close fight up into the later rounds.

Hopkins would make Hagler look bad in the opening rounds but later on is where the experience of fighting the better fighters and having amazing stamina kicks in.I stopped reading where I highlighted.

hopkins used to fight
then he became like holyfield in his old age - lol
hagler would walk throug hopkins with total ease

hopkins used to fight
then he became like holyfield in his old age - lol
hagler would walk throug hopkins with total ease
Ok, we're talking a prime Hopkins, as the one you originally mentioned, so your post was a failure.

I bet people will think otherwise about Hopkins if he beats Calzaghe.

I bet people will think otherwise about Hopkins if he beats Calzaghe.

Well, that won't happen, so it won't help my case. But we're talking about a prime Hopkins, not the old man of today.

Hagler would wipe the floor with a prime hopkins
Hagler was a beast

Hagler would wipe the floor with a prime hopkins
Hagler was a beast

oh yo yeah no dowt B dats fo sho my nizzle!

to the guy who keeps touting his Hagler fanhood and claiming to be the only objective voice you sure do confuse me. Ignorant as you say i am, and that you have all haglers fights on dvd, you rate hagler higher all time, etc etc....your credentials as a hagler fan are obviously well established, no need to continue to justify yourslef since the debate was never "who is the biggest hagler fan that gives hopkins a chance". all you've been doing is spewing hateful diatribe towards anyone whos opinion differs from yours. your continuing bitter / only enlightened person on this topic has taken the fun right out of it. So I'll relent, you're right, Hagler barely beats hopkins in one of the most competitive, evenly made matches in history! because a huge hagler fan thinks thats the way it goes.

damn sweet pete, you wont stop getting pissy over ppl who pick hagler. Whats the matter you cant deal with others with a differing opinion or what?

Hagler makes hopkins nose even more crooked in 8 rounds.:kiss:

Hagler by a hair in a damn good fight!

Poet

Hagler wins UD 15 close for 8 rds then Marvin takes over and gives BHop a beat down.

This would be one great fight but I'd probably give the edge to Hagler. It wouldn't be the landslide everybody is saying it would be.

damn sweet pete, you wont stop getting pissy over ppl who pick hagler. Whats the matter you cant deal with others with a differing opinion or what?

Hagler makes hopkins nose even more crooked in 8 rounds.:kiss:

I picked Hagler you retard! I am getting irritated at the morons like you who think it would be one-sided or that Hagler stops Hopkins, which has about a 4% chance of happening.

language !!!

12 grueling rounds in which Hopkins frustrates the bejeebers out of Hagler. Hopkins 3 1/2 inch height advantage would be more of an issue if they didn't have the exact same reach. Hagler has the power advantage, but I don't see him getting past Hop's defence enough to stop him. Hagler in a fairly close UD.