Do you guys think the ring generalship of Hopkins could get him past the hard punching Hagler in a 12 rounder?

IMO no but it would be close

easily imo.i don't think people quite understand what kinda monster hopkins is.he's to big for marvin, to crafty, and just as tough as marvin was.

easily imo.i don't think people quite understand what kinda monster hopkins is.he's to big for marvin, to crafty, and just as tough as marvin was.

I don't think people quite understand what kind of a monster Hagler was in his prime.

easily imo.i don't think people quite understand what kinda monster hopkins is.he's to big for marvin, to crafty, and just as tough as marvin was.

LOL @ anything involving Hagler being easy

I don't think people quite understand what kind of a monster Hagler was in his prime.

LOL @ anything involving Hagler being easy

as usual fighters of the past get overrated, and i don't blame any of you I've done the same, buts that's just my opinion.marvin was a one handed puncher, a right handed fighter turned southpaw; hop would have neutralized that,
on top of being only 5-9. believe me, I'm no hop fan, but i have respect for his ability.
he even gave, quite possibly the most gifted boxer to ever lace a pair of gloves up in his prime in jones, a tough fight.as a nobody.that's just M.O.

Didn't know this topic was already brought up. But with all the Hopkins talk i wanna know how he'd stan up to a ATG. I don't know if Hagler would knock him out, but he'd truly hurt him more than any of the fighters Hopkins has faced. I see Hagler by a UD.

as usual fighters of the past get overrated, and i don't blame any of you I've done the same, buts that's just my opinion.marvin was a one handed puncher, a right handed fighter turned southpaw; hop would have neutralized that,
on top of being only 5-9. believe me, I'm no hop fan, but i have respect for his ability.
he even gave, quite possibly the most gifted boxer to ever lace a pair of gloves up in his prime in jones, a tough fight.as a nobody.that's just M.O.

I want to know how this plays as an easy fight for Hopkins. How is it going to be that he wins rounds easily against Hagler?

as usual fighters of the past get overrated, and i don't blame any of you I've done the same, buts that's just my opinion.marvin was a one handed puncher, a right handed fighter turned southpaw; hop would have neutralized that,
on top of being only 5-9. believe me, I'm no hop fan, but i have respect for his ability.
he even gave, quite possibly the most gifted boxer to ever lace a pair of gloves up in his prime in jones, a tough fight.as a nobody.that's just M.O.

I want to know how this plays as an easy fight for Hopkins. How is it going to be that he wins rounds easily against Hagler? doesn't that answer you're question?

as usual fighters of the past get overrated, and i don't blame any of you I've done the same, buts that's just my opinion.marvin was a one handed puncher, a right handed fighter turned southpaw; hop would have neutralized that,
on top of being only 5-9. believe me, I'm no hop fan, but i have respect for his ability.
he even gave, quite possibly the most gifted boxer to ever lace a pair of gloves up in his prime in jones, a tough fight.as a nobody.that's just M.O.

How does Hagler get overrated? You are simply underrating him by saying it would be 'easy' for Hopkins.

Hopkins would have a lot more than Hagler's right hand to worry about. Hagler is no Kelly Pavlik, that I can tell you. He was an all-around great boxer with no real weaknesses.

Don't forget that Hagler had abnormally long arms while Hopkins' reach is relatively short.

I wouldn't describe the Jones-Hopkins fight as tough, just unspectacular. Neither fighter was at their best.

I know people are now finally giving Hopkins the respect deserves after beating a rather one-dimensional (but highly rated) puncher but he has had his struggles and is not invincible by any means. His MW resume looks weak next to Hagler's or Monzon's.

doesn't that answer you're question?

No, because

1) Hagler has power in 1 hand but still landed plenty of lefts, those score points even if they wouldnt shake Hopkins.

2) I guess you are suggesting Hopkins would just dance around the ring for 15 rounds to impose his reach on Hagler. Although I have seen Hopkins pick his shots from the outside, it doesnt seem to me it is his most natural role.

as usual fighters of the past get overrated, and i don't blame any of you I've done the same, buts that's just my opinion.marvin was a one handed puncher, a right handed fighter turned southpaw; hop would have neutralized that,
on top of being only 5-9. believe me, I'm no hop fan, but i have respect for his ability.
he even gave, quite possibly the most gifted boxer to ever lace a pair of gloves up in his prime in jones, a tough fight.as a nobody.that's just M.O.

Present day fighters get overrated just as easily, if not more so. Believe it or not, there are people out there who believe Floyd Mayweather is the greatest boxer of all time.

As for this fight, there's no way Hopkins has it easy. Fights involving him are usually ugly, but I don't see Marv getting sucked into his fight the way Pavlik did. Calzaghe and Taylor didn't, and they both won. I'd pick Hagler to take it on punch output and aggression.

Present day fighters get overrated just as easily, if not more so. Believe it or not, there are people out there who believe Floyd Mayweather is the greatest boxer of all time.

As for this fight, there's no way Hopkins has it easy. Fights involving him are usually ugly, but I don't see Marv getting sucked into his fight the way Pavlik did. Calzaghe and Taylor didn't, and they both won. I'd pick Hagler to take it on punch output and aggression.

it is true present day fighters get overrated as well. But the kinda people who think PBF is all time number one are the same idiots who think bruno would beat Ali coz he was more ripped! They think Klit too is an 'advanced' modern day athelte.

calzaghe lost, and so did Taylor second time round. even if you don't think they did then you would definitely agree that it was not a prime Hopkins they foight. people seem to forget B-Hop existed before beating the overrated Tito. A prime Executioner would give a prime Marvellous a run for his money. :boxing:

it is true present day fighters get overrated as well. But the kinda people who think PBF is all time number one are the same idiots who think bruno would beat Ali coz he was more ripped! They think Klit too is an 'advanced' modern day athelte.

calzaghe lost, and so did Taylor second time round. even if you don't think they did then you would definitely agree that it was not a prime Hopkins they foight. people seem to forget B-Hop existed before beating the overrated Tito. A prime Executioner would give a prime Marvellous a run for his money. :boxing:

I had Hopkins winning Taylor 1, and losing Taylor 2 and Calzaghe

Considering I believe both to be top-5 ATG Middleweights I think both are capable of beating the other. I rate Hagler a bit higher but not so much to make it an easy fight or an assured win by any means.

How is Hagler a one-handed fighter? Didn't he routinely switch back and forth from lefty to righty during his fights? How do you do that one handed? Doesn't your lead AND your power change sides when you do that? Have we really reached the point where we've forgotten how dominant Hagler was in his prime? This isn't to detract from Hopkins. I rate him higher on the Middleweight ATG list than practically anyone I know.

Poet

How does Hagler get overrated? You are simply underrating him by saying it would be 'easy' for Hopkins.

Hopkins would have a lot more than Hagler's right hand to worry about. Hagler is no Kelly Pavlik, that I can tell you. He was an all-around great boxer with no real weaknesses.

Don't forget that Hagler had abnormally long arms while Hopkins' reach is relatively short.

I wouldn't describe the Jones-Hopkins fight as tough, just unspectacular. Neither fighter was at their best.

I know people are now finally giving Hopkins the respect deserves after beating a rather one-dimensional (but highly rated) puncher but he has had his struggles and is not invincible by any means. His MW resume looks weak next to Hagler's or Monzon's.maybe i crossed the line a bit with the easy.i should have said "comfortably".
and its true that legends get overrated in hypothetical match ups.

I had Hopkins winning Taylor 1, and losing Taylor 2 and Calzaghe

:rofl: Nice one! very funny indeed. They do say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit though.

:rofl: Nice one! very funny indeed. They do say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit though.

I thought frenchies were supposed to not see sarcasm when present, not the other way round.

and its true that legends get overrated in hypothetical match ups.

Possibly, or possibly not. Hopkins is said to be a legend, even before beating Pavlik, but how many people picked him at 43 to practically shut out Pavlik and dominate him from start to finish? He even had more of a punch output. Those who said that would happen, if anyone, were believed to be overrating Hopkins. In hindsight they were the only ones rating him correctly.

This subject always comes up, and I'm too lazy to right out a new analysis, so I'll copy what I've been saying.

As I've always said, this is a very close fight between two great, versatile fighters.

Both guys are complete fighters. Hagler was a terrific boxer-puncher with a great jab, good combos, heavy hands, good set of legs, terrific chin, nice parrying skills and head movement, and he could slug it out as well and fight on the inside.

Hopkins is a master of controlling the pace and picking his spots. He knows the angles and knows where to position himself to land good shots and avoid the incoming. Like Hagler, he is versatile. He can box from the outside using the ring, or maul guys up close and "stink it out". He has a big of dirty tricks to frustrate opponents. As proven throughout his career, he is very effective against lefties.

Hagler had the heavier hands, superior jab, and was more proven in the slugging/pressure department. Hopkins was a little quicker and slicker, and just has a brilliant fighting brain in there.

No matter how the fight takes place, I see it being very close. I doubt either guy gets stopped. Hopkins is slick and has a sound chin. Hagler's chin was great, and he didn't exactly have a soft body either.

Over the years, Hagler was developed a reputation as a face-first brawler from people who don't watch enough of his fights, but he usually boxed behind his jab and broke guys down over the course of the fight. It'll probably be a pretty tactical fight, and I see Hopkins winning a close decision, with his straight right hand being the key.

As for their all-time rankings. Hagler with the slight edge at middleweight. He beat better opposition, fighting lots of good middleweights on the road to the title. I also thought he definitely won the first Watts fight and scored the Leonard bout even.

I can see Hopkins being ranked a little higher overall though. Not only was Hopkins a long-time middleweight champ, but also dominated the Ring champ at 175 in Antonio Tarver. At age 43, he fought very close with Joe Calzaghe and dominated the undefeated Kelly Pavlik.

maybe i crossed the line a bit with the easy.i should have said "comfortably".
and its true that legends get overrated in hypothetical match ups.

I guess that's why everyone thinks Rocky Marciano would beat Lennox Lewis.

Isn't Hopkins a legend himself?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ap1alAtgsxE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ap1alAtgsxE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JtieCWpmWJw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JtieCWpmWJw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vWoqfDvJzxU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vWoqfDvJzxU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Hagler could do it all.

Do you guys think the ring generalship of Hopkins could get him past the hard punching Hagler in a 12 rounder?

Yes he is more then capable of doing that

easily imo.i don't think people quite understand what kinda monster hopkins is.he's to big for marvin, to crafty, and just as tough as marvin was.

Bad post!!

I guess that's why everyone thinks Rocky Marciano would beat Lennox Lewis.

Isn't Hopkins a legend himself?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ap1alAtgsxE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ap1alAtgsxE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JtieCWpmWJw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JtieCWpmWJw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vWoqfDvJzxU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vWoqfDvJzxU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Hagler could do it all.well those, "everyones" think wrong.

This subject always comes up, and I'm too lazy to right out a new analysis, so I'll copy what I've been saying.

As I've always said, this is a very close fight between two great, versatile fighters.

Both guys are complete fighters. Hagler was a terrific boxer-puncher with a great jab, good combos, heavy hands, good set of legs, terrific chin, nice parrying skills and head movement, and he could slug it out as well and fight on the inside.

Hopkins is a master of controlling the pace and picking his spots. He knows the angles and knows where to position himself to land good shots and avoid the incoming. Like Hagler, he is versatile. He can box from the outside using the ring, or maul guys up close and "stink it out". He has a big of dirty tricks to frustrate opponents. As proven throughout his career, he is very effective against lefties.

Hagler had the heavier hands, superior jab, and was more proven in the slugging/pressure department. Hopkins was a little quicker and slicker, and just has a brilliant fighting brain in there.

No matter how the fight takes place, I see it being very close. I doubt either guy gets stopped. Hopkins is slick and has a sound chin. Hagler's chin was great, and he didn't exactly have a soft body either.

Over the years, Hagler was developed a reputation as a face-first brawler from people who don't watch enough of his fights, but he usually boxed behind his jab and broke guys down over the course of the fight. It'll probably be a pretty tactical fight, and I see Hopkins winning a close decision, with his straight right hand being the key.

As for their all-time rankings. Hagler with the slight edge at middleweight. He beat better opposition, fighting lots of good middleweights on the road to the title. I also thought he definitely won the first Watts fight and scored the Leonard bout even.

I can see Hopkins being ranked a little higher overall though. Not only was Hopkins a long-time middleweight champ, but also dominated the Ring champ at 175 in Antonio Tarver. At age 43, he fought very close with Joe Calzaghe and dominated the undefeated Kelly Pavlik.

Good post.

well those, "everyones" think wrong.

I wasn't serious.

Just about everyone knows that Marciano would lose to Lewis, atleast from what I saw in the Lewis vs Marciano thread.

Old fighters might be overrated by some but they can be as underrated by others who believe modern fighters are superior in every way.

There is no way Hopkins would have an easy fight against Hagler.

Ofcourse not

http://i34.tinypic.com/35lxi87.jpg

I wasn't serious.

Just about everyone knows that Marciano would lose to Lewis, atleast from what I saw in the Lewis vs Marciano thread.

Old fighters might be overrated by some but they can be as underrated by others who believe modern fighters are superior in every way.

There is no way Hopkins would have an easy fight against Hagler.

i think i all ready stressed that i crossed the line with the easy part.

Styles make fights, Hopkins will be leaning on Hagler the entire night, brawling on the inside and outside. Hagler is an excellent inside brawler but not when Hopkins is grabbing your arms and leaning on you.

Hagler is equally as great as Hopkins if not more, but I see Hopkins winning this scenario..and not just because he beat Pavlik.

I wasn't serious.

Just about everyone knows that Marciano would lose to Lewis, atleast from what I saw in the Lewis vs Marciano thread.

Old fighters might be overrated by some but they can be as underrated by others who believe modern fighters are superior in every way.

There is no way Hopkins would have an easy fight against Hagler.

The Manchine I hope you aren't secretly referring to me every time you mention stuff like "Old fighters might be overrated by some but they can be as underrated by others who believe modern fighters are superior in every way" I say stuff like that in scenarios like Lewis vs Marciano. It's not like i'm completely brain dead, from viewing tapes you can pretty much tell that Marciano has no chance in hell because he's slower, smaller and can't box as well.

I don't think every new fighter is better than every old fighter.

don't get pissed at me for picking Hopkins over Hagler ether, I think Hagler beats a lot of guys Hopkins lost to that's for sure.

The Manchine I hope you aren't secretly referring to me every time you mention stuff like "Old fighters might be overrated by some but they can be as underrated by others who believe modern fighters are superior in every way" I say stuff like that in scenarios like Lewis vs Marciano. It's not like i'm completely brain dead, from viewing tapes you can pretty much tell that Marciano has no chance in hell because he's slower, smaller and can't box as well.

I don't think every new fighter is better than every old fighter.

don't get pissed at me for picking Hopkins over Hagler ether, I think Hagler beats a lot of guys Hopkins lost to that's for sure.

You aren't the only one I'm referring to. I'm often told that 'old fighters' are overrated (not only boxers from the early 1900's but the 1990's as well) which might be true in some cases but not always.

For example many Floyd Mayweather fans don't believe that Whitaker was better or even at the same level as Floyd.

I don't have a problem with anyone picking Hopkins over Hagler since both are great and I have trouble deciding who would win a fight between them myself.

<div><object width="420" height="336"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k1oHuJbZdB6KEhO7SE&related=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k1oHuJbZdB6KEhO7SE&related=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="336" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7424o_the-heavyweight-champions-part-1_sport">The Heavyweight Champions Part 1</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/TheGreatA">TheGreatA</a></i></div>

<div><object width="420" height="336"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k7bsiiVlW1IX7UNpMY&related=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k7bsiiVlW1IX7UNpMY&related=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="336" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x70fco_henry-armstrong_sport">Henry Armstrong</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/TheGreatA">TheGreatA</a></i></div>

<div><object width="420" height="336"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k5B56Zdh0L40IBLZD6&related=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k5B56Zdh0L40IBLZD6&related=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="336" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6t5v8_jersey-joe-walcott_sport">Jersey Joe Walcott</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/TheGreatA">TheGreatA</a></i></div>



Do I believe these old time fighters could've beaten every boxer from the modern era? Not really, but I also do not think they were all skilless sluggers who never trained for a fight.

Again, it might be true in some cases (Galento) but some were true pioneers who deserve respect for what they did for boxing.

You aren't the only one I'm referring to. I'm often told that 'old fighters' are overrated (not only boxers from the early 1900's but the 1990's as well) which might be true in some cases but not always.

For example many Floyd Mayweather fans don't believe that Whitaker was better or even at the same level as Floyd.

I don't have a problem with anyone picking Hopkins over Hagler since both are great and I have trouble deciding who would win a fight between them myself.

<div><object width="420" height="336"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k1oHuJbZdB6KEhO7SE&related=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k1oHuJbZdB6KEhO7SE&related=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="336" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7424o_the-heavyweight-champions-part-1_sport">The Heavyweight Champions Part 1</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/TheGreatA">TheGreatA</a></i></div>

<div><object width="420" height="336"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k7bsiiVlW1IX7UNpMY&related=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k7bsiiVlW1IX7UNpMY&related=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="336" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x70fco_henry-armstrong_sport">Henry Armstrong</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/TheGreatA">TheGreatA</a></i></div>

<div><object width="420" height="336"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k5B56Zdh0L40IBLZD6&related=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k5B56Zdh0L40IBLZD6&related=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="336" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6t5v8_jersey-joe-walcott_sport">Jersey Joe Walcott</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/TheGreatA">TheGreatA</a></i></div>



Do I believe these old time fighters could've beaten every boxer from the modern era? Not really, but I also do not think they were all skilless sluggers who never trained for a fight.

Again, it might be true in some cases (Galento) but some were true pioneers who deserve respect for what they did for boxing.

Fair enough, just don't go around thinking I think all old fighters are bums who have no chance. I said Cotto would have a "chance" against Whitaker (or was it Duran?) (when everyone was saying he'd get knocked out in 3 rounds) and you got all pissed at me and saved that quote and post it whenever you can.

Fair enough, just don't go around thinking I think all old fighters are bums who have no chance. I said Cotto would have a "chance" against Whitaker (or was it Duran?) (when everyone was saying he'd get knocked out in 3 rounds) and you got all pissed at me and saved that quote and post it whenever you can.

I posted it once when you said this:

i'm one of those young people that has a rabbid dislike for boxing historians.

Why? Because they are on cloud 9 half of the time. they will rank someone like Jack Johnson over Lennox Lewis. That is just UTTER stupidity. Boxing wasn't even a developed sport back then yet they rank those fighters so high because their grand-pa used to tell them stories about them.

I watch old footage, It's fun to watch the rivalries back in the day, but no fool is going to tell me some slow moving, one punch donkey is going to KO a newer ATG who has mastered the art of boxing, has blinding handspeed and power.

George Foreman vs Joe Louis, another complete mismatch..however chances are all boxing historians will pick Louis.

a boxing historian is just that, someone who has watched a lot of fights - It doesn't mean they know who would win in a matchup.

I don't even completely disagree with it but it's not only boxing historians who have made a couple of ridiculous statements.

I posted it once when you said this:



I don't even completely disagree with it but it's not only boxing historians who have made a couple of ridiculous statements.

Only a couple LOL? :D

Poet

I don't think people quite understand what kind of a monster Hagler was in his prime.

lol exactly what i was thinking

LOL @ anything involving Hagler being easy

:rofl: :rofl:

Nah, but it would be a close fight.

Do you guys think the ring generalship of Hopkins could get him past the hard punching Hagler in a 12 rounder?

yes...Hopkins is the bigger man.

yes...Hopkins is the bigger man.

Hopkins spent practically his entire career at Middleweight as did Hagler. How does this translate into Hopkins being the "bigger" man?

Poet

This subject always comes up, and I'm too lazy to right out a new analysis, so I'll copy what I've been saying.

As I've always said, this is a very close fight between two great, versatile fighters.

Both guys are complete fighters. Hagler was a terrific boxer-puncher with a great jab, good combos, heavy hands, good set of legs, terrific chin, nice parrying skills and head movement, and he could slug it out as well and fight on the inside.

Hopkins is a master of controlling the pace and picking his spots. He knows the angles and knows where to position himself to land good shots and avoid the incoming. Like Hagler, he is versatile. He can box from the outside using the ring, or maul guys up close and "stink it out". He has a big of dirty tricks to frustrate opponents. As proven throughout his career, he is very effective against lefties.

Hagler had the heavier hands, superior jab, and was more proven in the slugging/pressure department. Hopkins was a little quicker and slicker, and just has a brilliant fighting brain in there.

No matter how the fight takes place, I see it being very close. I doubt either guy gets stopped. Hopkins is slick and has a sound chin. Hagler's chin was great, and he didn't exactly have a soft body either.

Over the years, Hagler was developed a reputation as a face-first brawler from people who don't watch enough of his fights, but he usually boxed behind his jab and broke guys down over the course of the fight. It'll probably be a pretty tactical fight, and I see Hopkins winning a close decision, with his straight right hand being the key.

As for their all-time rankings. Hagler with the slight edge at middleweight. He beat better opposition, fighting lots of good middleweights on the road to the title. I also thought he definitely won the first Watts fight and scored the Leonard bout even.

I can see Hopkins being ranked a little higher overall though. Not only was Hopkins a long-time middleweight champ, but also dominated the Ring champ at 175 in Antonio Tarver. At age 43, he fought very close with Joe Calzaghe and dominated the undefeated Kelly Pavlik.

good post.

personally i think hagler would win, hopkins a top 5 middleweight, he has som great skills, a good defense, decent chin, knows how to pick his punches and is very crafty and ring savvy.

however i think you're missing one important thing. Hopkins loves to think things through by slowing the fight down when he wants to, thats why against fighters like calzaghe and taylor he didn't do too well. they forced him to think on his feet and kept up the pressure.

thats something that marvin did and did very well. i dont see marvin being confused or befuddled my hopkins. yes hopkins does often do that to other southpaws but marvin isn't just another southpaw. he would make the fight on the inside and imo hopkins plans for fighting southpaws centres around his footwork and clever movement. on the inside and aginst a good inside fighter like hagler i dont see Hopkins winning the fight.

in terms of overall greatness - got to be hagler he fought at a time when they where better middleweights around and he has the better names on his resume. if Hopkins had been robbed against SRL we would really never hear the end of it.

like i said though, good post.
________
Trichomes (http://trichomes.org)

Vote in the new them_apples poll!

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218039

It's hard to believe Poet is in his 40's

I don't have enough haters to make that list anything special, i'll probably get about 5-6 votes tops. The only people that hate me are the Joe Louis fans when I say George foreman would bust him up in 3.

If I was immature enough to make a Poet Hate poll, the list would be crammed.

Hopkins spent practically his entire career at Middleweight as did Hagler. How does this translate into Hopkins being the "bigger" man?

Poet

Same day vs day before weigh in. Big difference. Hagler would have made 154 easy these days.

Same day vs day before weigh in. Big difference. Hagler would have made 154 easy these days.

BUT! If Hopkins had to weigh in the same day..... I think you know what I'm driving at. If fought in Hagler's day Hopkins would have to make weight the same day as the fight; while if fought in Hopkins time Hagler would have the same opportunity to add weight after the day before weigh in as Hopkins would. These matchups presuppose the fighters will be opperating under the same rules.

Poet

Hagler beats Bernard IMO. BHop is still very near the top of the pile in terms of all time MWs though IMO. Aside from Hagler and Monzon I can't think of too many others I would place above him.

Hagler would win this one. It wouldn't be easy or pretty but he would out work and out muscle Hopkins to a UD by 3-5points! IMO

Hagler beats Bernard IMO. BHop is still very near the top of the pile in terms of all time MWs though IMO. Aside from Hagler and Monzon I can't think of too many others I would place above him.

Robinsons, Fitzsimmons, Burley, possibly Ketchal.

Poet

Same day vs day before weigh in. Big difference. Hagler would have made 154 easy these days.

** Poppy has shown up a few lbs below 160 as well, indicating he, like Marv, in a pinch could make 154 limits.

Poppy is taller, but he does not have a bigger frame than Marv. The gist of this thread born out of the masterclass Poppy pulled on an obvious off night Pavlik. May be up there with what ol Arch used to make routine back in his day, but also Poppy needed his best ever performance to beat Kelly

This begs the question, what the hay has Poppy been smokin' the rest of his career? The only other performance against a top, in shape fighter coming close is Tito who was obviously a smaller fighter moving up.

Not a Poppy fan, too whiny and dirty tricks for me, but I'm willing to give him his due as tough, savvy, talented, disciplined class of the middles of his era. Hagler fought in a tougher era and had the more storied career, yet Poppy did something Marv never did which is hang around long enough to reinvent himself.

Marv shouldn't be downgraded for not doing that, but it is a feather in Poppy career, which to this point had been less than Marv regardless of modern day statistical anomolies of more alphabet title fights.

Who was it laughing about any fight involving Marv being an easy fight? That's it, but I guess in a hypothetical matchup, we'd have to say the same about Poppy.

One factor that works for Marv is he has the better chin. I've seen Poppy hurt and down, though he recovers well. Marv also has more power against a more numerous cast of better competition than Poppy has shown.

It's be a great fight, part technical, part brawling, a whole lotta adjusting tactics to see who breaks who down. I favor Marv. His only real weakness was an insecurity over his boxing prowess where he tended to give away rounds trying to prove he could beat a top boxer by boxing. Seeing that Poppy ain't a pure boxer type, that wouldn't be a factor in this fight.

Hagler wins. Much more dangerous, durable, and consistent fighter.

To London and Poet, I don't belive Hopkins and Hagler would have competed in the same class under the same rules. We will have to disagree on that one.

To London and Poet, I don't belive Hopkins and Hagler would have competed in the same class under the same rules. We will have to disagree on that one.

Hagler was short but he was stocky, he never came in looking like he could lose a few pounds, he was always ripped and muscular..I really can't see him dropping 154..

I think Hopkins was around 156 lbs for the DLH and Trinidad fights. He could've made 154 in my opinion.

To London and Poet, I don't belive Hopkins and Hagler would have competed in the same class under the same rules. We will have to disagree on that one.

Really? I'd love to hear your reasons why. It's possible I may be missing something here but I was never under the impression that Hopkins weight fluctuated that dramatically from weigh-in to fight time when he was in his prime (unlike the usual suspects eg. Arturo Gatti).

Poet

My thoughts when I compare fighters from before-after is that only a few ones would be at their current weight class. Example I doubt Mayweather would have made 130 for long if at all, Hopkins would not have made 160 forever. Most of these fighters would have been 1 weight class away from the ones they fought at, so I believe Hagler would have been at 154 pounds.

Gatti, Corrales, Cotto would have been 2 weight classes away.

Look at the average height of fighters from a given weight class. It is different from the 70s to the 90s.

Finally to Manchine. Hopkins might have been able to make 154 until a shorthile ago, I wonder if there would be any price to pay in terms of stamina. And by the same token, Hagler who made 157 on fight night all into the 80s, might have been able to compete at 147 these days.

Hagler was short but he was stocky, he never came in looking like he could lose a few pounds, he was always ripped and muscular..I really can't see him dropping 154..

He was weighin at 157 on fight night, to be honest I can imagine him making 147 early in his career. But maybe you are right.

B-Hop can get that W, Hagler is not slick & will be lookin 4 a fight while B-Hop will make him fight his fight...B-Hop wins ud.

** Poppy has shown up a few lbs below 160 as well, indicating he, like Marv, in a pinch could make 154 limits.

Poppy is taller, but he does not have a bigger frame than Marv. The gist of this thread born out of the masterclass Poppy pulled on an obvious off night Pavlik. May be up there with what ol Arch used to make routine back in his day, but also Poppy needed his best ever performance to beat Kelly

This begs the question, what the hay has Poppy been smokin' the rest of his career? The only other performance against a top, in shape fighter coming close is Tito who was obviously a smaller fighter moving up.

Not a Poppy fan, too whiny and dirty tricks for me, but I'm willing to give him his due as tough, savvy, talented, disciplined class of the middles of his era. Hagler fought in a tougher era and had the more storied career, yet Poppy did something Marv never did which is hang around long enough to reinvent himself.

Marv shouldn't be downgraded for not doing that, but it is a feather in Poppy career, which to this point had been less than Marv regardless of modern day statistical anomolies of more alphabet title fights.

Who was it laughing about any fight involving Marv being an easy fight? That's it, but I guess in a hypothetical matchup, we'd have to say the same about Poppy.

One factor that works for Marv is he has the better chin. I've seen Poppy hurt and down, though he recovers well. Marv also has more power against a more numerous cast of better competition than Poppy has shown.

It's be a great fight, part technical, part brawling, a whole lotta adjusting tactics to see who breaks who down. I favor Marv. His only real weakness was an insecurity over his boxing prowess where he tended to give away rounds trying to prove he could beat a top boxer by boxing. Seeing that Poppy ain't a pure boxer type, that wouldn't be a factor in this fight.

Hagler wins. Much more dangerous, durable, and consistent fighter.

Nice post!!:beerchug:

Hagler was a tomato can champion. Once he foguht someone good that could handle middlewieght(even then the guy wasn't his won size!) he lost and was a bitter sore loser ever since. b-Hop would have beat his ass down in the 90's if Marvellous didn't retire so soon. I think RJJ and Toney would have too. hagler was flat footed. They would stick and move just like Sugar ray and school him.

B-Hop can get that W, Hagler is not slick & will be lookin 4 a fight while B-Hop will make him fight his fight...B-Hop wins ud.

Spot on son. :friday:

Hagler was a tomato can champion. Once he foguht someone good that could handle middlewieght(even then the guy wasn't his won size!) he lost and was a bitter sore loser ever since. b-Hop would have beat his ass down in the 90's if Marvellous didn't retire so soon. I think RJJ and Toney would have too. hagler was flat footed. They would stick and move just like Sugar ray and school him.

Only 7 posts and your credibility is already shot. Damn shame.

Only 7 posts and your credibility is already shot. Damn shame.

Doesn't take long for some of them. Actually I think that's an alt (as I usually do when I see only a handful of posts and the person's being an obnoxious troll). This dude ressurected the noisome Marciano-Is-A-Bum thread so conclusions are pretty easy to draw.

Poet

Hagler was a tomato can champion. Once he foguht someone good that could handle middlewieght(even then the guy wasn't his won size!) he lost and was a bitter sore loser ever since. b-Hop would have beat his ass down in the 90's if Marvellous didn't retire so soon. I think RJJ and Toney would have too. hagler was flat footed. They would stick and move just like Sugar ray and school him.

I agree Hagler was flat-footed as seen in this fight (especially at 6:40 when he plants his feet and swings wildly with no technique):

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wOsDWf_KQl0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wOsDWf_KQl0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Doesn't take long for some of them. Actually I think that's an alt (as I usually do when I see only a handful of posts and the person's being an obnoxious troll). This dude ressurected the noisome Marciano-Is-A-Bum thread so conclusions are pretty easy to draw.

Poet

Yeah, I saw that too, my man. You're probably right.

I agree Hagler was flat-footed as seen in this fight (especially at 6:40 when he plants his feet and swings wildly with no technique):

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wOsDWf_KQl0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wOsDWf_KQl0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Heh, heh, heh!!! :owned:

B-Hop can get that W, Hagler is not slick & will be lookin 4 a fight while B-Hop will make him fight his fight...B-Hop wins ud.

Hagler was a tomato can champion. Once he foguht someone good that could handle middlewieght(even then the guy wasn't his won size!) he lost and was a bitter sore loser ever since. b-Hop would have beat his ass down in the 90's if Marvellous didn't retire so soon. I think RJJ and Toney would have too. hagler was flat footed. They would stick and move just like Sugar ray and school him.

Alts or just people who don't watch boxing except legendary nights?

As great as Marvin is it's a bad matchup for him against Hopkins. Hopkins has too many tricks in his bag to deal with a fighter who's shorter and a slower than him.

UD 12 for Hopkins or a SD 12 for Hopkins.

Shouldn't them_apples be checking his poll numbers? :chairshot

Poet

As great as Marvin is it's a bad matchup for him against Hopkins. Hopkins has too many tricks in his bag to deal with a fighter who's shorter and a slower than him.

UD 12 for Hopkins or a SD 12 for Hopkins.

I don't think Marvin is slower than Hopkins, and Hagler made a career out of beating taller fighters. Truth is, neither guy has fought someone as good as the other. Hopkins does have a lot of tricks. But he's also never fought a guys as strong and relentless as Marvin. A boxer/puncher with a non stop motor and a granite chin. This is a tough fight to pick, and could go either way given different scenerio's. But based on workrate and middlweight competition, I have to side with Hagler. At his best, 1980-1985, Hagler was 15-0(13). A BEAST!!

I don't think Marvin is slower than Hopkins, and Hagler made a career out of beating taller fighters. Truth is, neither guy has fought someone as good as the other. Hopkins does have a lot of tricks. But he's also never fought a guys as strong and relentless as Marvin. A boxer/puncher with a non stop motor and a granite chin. This is a tough fight to pick, and could go either way given different scenerio's. But based on workrate and middlweight competition, I have to side with Hagler. At his best, 1980-1985, Hagler was 15-0(13). A BEAST!!

I'm not saying the height will give Hagler problems, I'm saying Hopkins will know how to use his height against Hagler. (So in a way I guess I am) Hopkins has fought an opponent as good as Hagler, his name is Roy jones Jr, but he lost.

Hagler has a great workrate, great power, decent speed for his build..great boxing skills and a great chin. Hopkins has all that as well, less workrate however.

Hopkins is a very tricky boxer, I see him grabbing Haglers arms in the clinch, leaning on him, smothering Haglers combinations and sneaking his right hand in all night long. Let's not forget, Hagler has not fought anyone like Hopkins as well (which you said).

With Hopkins defense, I can't see him being hurt unless the opponent has a ton of speed, something Hagler lacks (not that he's slow or anything).

I'm not saying the height will give Hagler problems, I'm saying Hopkins will know how to use his height against Hagler. (So in a way I guess I am) Hopkins has fought an opponent as good as Hagler, his name is Roy jones Jr, but he lost.

Roy Jones, with 21 fights was not as good as the best Hagler.

Hagler has a great workrate, great power, decent speed for his build..great boxing skills and a great chin. Hopkins has all that as well, less workrate however.

Hagler woold also be applying that relentless pressure.

Hopkins is a very tricky boxer, I see him grabbing Haglers arms in the clinch, leaning on him, smothering Haglers combinations and sneaking his right hand in all night long. Let's not forget, Hagler has not fought anyone like Hopkins as well (which you said).

You may be right with this scenerio, its possible. But I still think Marvins experience of a better class of fighter (including two excellent fighters from Philly) will carry him to a victory.

With Hopkins defense, I can't see him being hurt unless the opponent has a ton of speed, something Hagler lacks (not that he's slow or anything).

Neither of us can say with any certainty who would win. But it would have been a great fight between two of the best all time.

Both are legends. But Hagler is above and beyond anybody in the middleweight division. Always in shape, always there to the end. Always dangerous to the end. Hagler could do it all, plus had the greatest chin pound-for-pound in history. Hopkins lost to the worst middleweight champ in history. Jermin Taylor, not once but twice. Hopkins beat Pavlik, but seriously folks, Pavlik himself admitted he needs to train more on lateraL MOVEMENTS and stuff. Hopkins also lost to roy Jones, if I am not mistaken. So Logically you guys make no sense to me.

I've always said that Hopkins is one of the smartest (if not THE smartest) fighter of all time. It takes brains to be able to hang with the guys Hopkins has fought in his 40's. It takes a lot of patience and discipline.

Hopkins at age 30-35 would Hagler by a close decision IMO. Hagler was a beast but not as intelligent as Hopkins. Look at how he got beat by Leonard. Turning conventional the first few rounds was not exactly the smartest thing to do. He also pretty much blew the first Antofurmo fight, he was leading in the first half then faded for whatever reason. And Antefermo was probably a natural 154. Hokins would win a close decision without a doubt IMHO.

Eh, its really hard to say. Old timers are always going to say Hagler, and a lot of people are quick to point out Hopkins losses over the last few years without considering how easily they coulda been wins.
Yeah, I think Prime Hopkins woulda had a good shot at winning that fight, but its hard to say.

Eh, its really hard to say. Old timers are always going to say Hagler, and a lot of people are quick to point out Hopkins losses over the last few years without considering how easily they coulda been wins.
Yeah, I think Prime Hopkins woulda had a good shot at winning that fight, but its hard to say.

I happen to be an old-timer who picks Hagler in a close one but believes since BOTH are top-five ATG Middleweights they are both fully capable of scoring wins over each other.

Poet