View Full Version : Hagler Vs. Hopkins: who wins? explain.


portuge puncher
06-04-2009, 01:57 PM
who wins this dream match,
dont simply say who, but explain,
how do you think they'd win,
what do they have that will make the fight
tip in there favor?

TEDetc
06-04-2009, 02:05 PM
In a 15 round fight with the oldschool gloves, I think Hagler wins by late stoppage....I can see Hopkins getting a good points lead but Hagler will slowly but surely pressure Hopkins and break him down. Hagler wins TKO 12-15 imo. If we're talking the new rules 12 rounds with the big gloves I think Hopkins would scrape a UD 116-112 with some close last rounds as Hagler realises he has to knock Hopkins out.

portuge puncher
06-04-2009, 02:21 PM
In a 15 round fight with the oldschool gloves, I think Hagler wins by late stoppage....I can see Hopkins getting a good points lead but Hagler will slowly but surely pressure Hopkins and break him down. Hagler wins TKO 12-15 imo. If we're talking the new rules 12 rounds with the big gloves I think Hopkins would scrape a UD 116-112 with some close last rounds as Hagler realises he has to knock Hopkins out.

good breakdown.

my oppion is that niether fighter will get knocked out.
i actually think hopkins would win a UD, he's got the hieght, and great counter-punching.
hopkins does well with guys with big workrates, i think he counters hagler, getting an early lead, with the later rounds being close, but the early lead i think would lead to a hopkins UD, with the begining being fought at hopkins pace.

this fight would be between the early 80's hagler,
and the late 90's early 00's hopkins.

TEDetc
06-04-2009, 02:57 PM
good breakdown.

my oppion is that niether fighter will get knocked out.
i actually think hopkins would win a UD, he's got the hieght, and great counter-punching.
hopkins does well with guys with big workrates, i think he counters hagler, getting an early lead, with the later rounds being close, but the early lead i think would lead to a hopkins UD, with the begining being fought at hopkins pace.

this fight would be between the early 80's hagler,
and the late 90's early 00's hopkins.

Yeah I think Hopkins would get atleast the first 4-5 rounds comfortably with Hagler turning on the pressure late on in the fight. 12 rounds Hopkins takes it with some exciting final rounds but in a 15 round fight I'm not sure I think Hagler could get the decision or stop Hopkins in a 15 rounder. Although, I've never seen Hopkins in a 15 rounder so we don't know how he'd react in that situation so I'm basing my opinion on that on Haglers strength in 15 rounders only. It'd be a great fight man Hopkins has the skills, speed and intelligence to get the UD but Hagler has the pressure, workrate and power to hurt and trouble Hopkins. Hopkins does tend to eat up high work rate fighters but none of them have been Hagler calibre.

So yeah 12 rounds against each others prime Hopkins 116-112 with exciting last rounds. 15 rounds against each others prime I'd go for Hagler via late TKO or controversial SD although that's me being abit bias for Hagler there.

portuge puncher
06-04-2009, 03:02 PM
yea, the scoring in this fight for 15 rounds would be hard.

first 4-5 rounds probbably B-hop
rounds 6-10 probbably REALLY close
rounds 11-15 robbably for hagler.

i think both fighters would have a good chance, probbably ending in a SD

Kinetic Linking
06-04-2009, 03:12 PM
The EXECUTIONERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Hopkins is a better fighter.

Abstraction
06-04-2009, 05:40 PM
imo Hopkins.

Funny thing is, i feel Hearns would be more trouble for Hopkins than Hagler would imo. Since Hagler would be too slow for Hopkins' Defence imo.

Only thing that may have caused Hopkins' problems is Work-Rate, which meant his opponent may have stolen the round for pitty-pattying a bit

The_Visitation
06-04-2009, 06:26 PM
Hagler. I think his power and will would defeat B-Hop's ringcraft. Very close one, though, between two of the best ever MWs.

billionaire
06-04-2009, 07:28 PM
hagler got outboxed by small old leonard and small old duran, what makes you think hopkins couldnt do it?

D-MiZe
06-04-2009, 08:11 PM
Hagler on UD or late TKO.

Kid McCoy
06-04-2009, 08:17 PM
One's a legend, the other just thinks he's a legend. I'm going for the legend.

portuge puncher
06-04-2009, 08:19 PM
hagler got outboxed by small old leonard and small old duran, what makes you think hopkins couldnt do it?

you should watch Duran - hagler,

duran only won like 3 or 4 out of the 15 rounds,

but the judges made it close

portuge puncher
06-04-2009, 08:21 PM
One's a legend, the other just thinks he's a legend. I'm going for the legend.

bernard is a legend.

his resume is loaded, in his prime around 1997-2002,

he was a beast.

Kid McCoy
06-04-2009, 08:30 PM
bernard is a legend.

his resume is loaded, in his prime around 1997-2002,

he was a beast.

Sorry, I know I'm in the minority on this one but I don't rate Hopkins as highly as some of his admirers do, especially those he seem to think he beats Hagler easily. He's a fine fighter, but for me not in the class of Hagler, Tiger, Greb, Monzon etc. I don't see what in his career puts him much higher than Calzaghe in the all-time stakes.

portuge puncher
06-04-2009, 09:00 PM
Sorry, I know I'm in the minority on this one but I don't rate Hopkins as highly as some of his admirers do, especially those he seem to think he beats Hagler easily. He's a fine fighter, but for me not in the class of Hagler, Tiger, Greb, Monzon etc. I don't see what in his career puts him much higher than Calzaghe in the all-time stakes.

because of his style for one,
his level of compition is another,
great chin, supperoir boxing ability,
he's the best MW in the last 20 years.

in his prime he'd KO calslappy

GJC
06-04-2009, 09:06 PM
There seems to be a view that Hagler will lose all the early rounds, I assume that is based on him virtually chucking the early rounds against Leonard? Hagler was by no means peak in that fight and seemed IMO to base his whole strategy that SRL would slow down and he would catch KO him in the later rounds. I think he fought a bad fight but still remain to be convinced that Leonard deserved the judges nod, thats an argument for another thread though.
I don't think Hagler was a slow starter in the vein of Frazier.
Hearns came racing out of the traps and had early success but was put away early. Hamsho, Scypion and Minter were also put away in the first 4 rounds so I don't think it is as cut and dried as people believe that Hagler will be 4 or 5 rounds behind by the middle of the fight.
It would be a good match but I can't see beyond Hagler.

Kid McCoy
06-04-2009, 09:07 PM
because of his style for one,
his level of compition is another,
great chin, supperoir boxing ability,
he's the best MW in the last 20 years.

in his prime he'd KO calslappy

His style was dull as dishwater, his level of competition was mainly average, he has a good chin and fine boxing skills, wouldn't say superior, and yeah he probably is the best middle of the last 20 or so years. I'm not saying he's a bad fighter, just not among the elite middles for me.

KO Calzaghe? I doubt it. Hopkins' performance against Calzaghe put me off him a lot. The old-timers he gets compared to like Moore and Walcott would have been ashamed at such antics.

Obama
06-04-2009, 09:31 PM
Hagler's record against B rated Philadelphia fighters cannot be over looked. Hopkins is debatably the greatest Philadelphia fighter of all time. Hagler is losing a decision. No doubt about it.

Kid McCoy
06-04-2009, 09:39 PM
Hagler's record against B rated Philadelphia fighters cannot be over looked. Hopkins is debatably the greatest Philadelphia fighter of all time. Hagler is losing a decision. No doubt about it.

Yet presumably Hopkins' patchy record early in his career can be?

Obama
06-04-2009, 09:47 PM
Yet presumably Hopkins' patchy record early in his career can be?

What patchy record? He definitely gets a pass on his first fight. He also gets a pass for losing to RJJ (who was nearly at his best). I mean RJJ was better than everyone Hagler beat combined at that point... Other than that, he didn't lose till he was past his prime. Hagler on the other hand once past his prime lost a fight he was supposed to win. The equivalent of Hopkins losing to De La Hoya should it have gone down that way.

ANYWAYS, it's not just about who lost to who. It's about the TYPE of fighter Hagler lost to. Philadelphia fighters have many things in common. And Hopkins was quite a few steps ahead of the guys Hagler faced.

I'm not even saying Hopkins > Hagler. I'm just saying he beats him h2h.

portuge puncher
06-04-2009, 10:00 PM
His style was dull as dishwater, his level of competition was mainly average, he has a good chin and fine boxing skills, wouldn't say superior, and yeah he probably is the best middle of the last 20 or so years. I'm not saying he's a bad fighter, just not among the elite middles for me.

KO Calzaghe? I doubt it. Hopkins' performance against Calzaghe put me off him a lot. The old-timers he gets compared to like Moore and Walcott would have been ashamed at such antics.

you say the calzaghe fight threw you off,
you wanna know why, hopkins was 43 ****in years old!!!

and his resume is maybe a little less then hagler's, but not by much.

hagler's greatest two fights were welter's,
but they were still great

hopkins fought tito and oscar, so its kind of the same ****.

hopkins also at 40 went up two divisions to be the lightheavywieght champ.

you say he was boreing, he's only boreing now because he fights safty first, but if you were in your 40's, wouldent you. he could be entertaing, watch this.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/maPgSnXhF6k&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/maPgSnXhF6k&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Obama
06-04-2009, 10:06 PM
Hopkins most entertaining fight is the first Echols fight. It's a parallel to Hagler vs Mugabi.

Hopkins vs Echols is definitely the better fight tho, and Echols quite frankly would beat Mugabi.

Kid McCoy
06-04-2009, 10:15 PM
What patchy record? He definitely gets a pass on his first fight. He also gets a pass for losing to RJJ (who was never much greater later on in his career than he was at that point). I mean RJJ was better than everyone Hagler beat combined at that point... Other than that, he didn't lose till he was past his prime. Hagler on the other hand once past his prime lost a fight he was supposed to win. The equivalent of Hopkins losing to De La Hoya should it have gone down that way.

ANYWAYS, it's not just about who lost to who. It's about the TYPE of fighter Hagler lost to. Philadelphia fighters have many things in common. And Hopkins was quite a few steps ahead of the guys Hagler faced.

I'm not even saying Hopkins > Hagler. I'm just saying he beats him h2h.

So Hopkins gets a pass for losing his first pro fight but Hagler doesn't for losing a decision he appeared to have won against Bobby Watts? Does Hopkins get a pass for needing two cracks at Mercado too?

Well it's all about opinions, and this is where we differ. I thought Hagler beat Leonard at the time and still do now. Close, but I thought he nicked it. Several of the other blemishes on Hagler's record were unjust too imo, including the Antuofermo and Watts fights and the bizarre scoring of the Duran fight.

That leaves one other loss, to Willie the Worm Monroe, a fight no one has seen bar those who were there night, so who knows whether the result was deserved? I don't see how that shows a susceptibility to Philly fighters, especially since Hagler KO'd Monroe twice in rematches. Personally, I think Hopkins would be susceptible to someone with Hagler's workrate.

portuge puncher
06-04-2009, 10:20 PM
So Hopkins gets a pass for losing his first pro fight but Hagler doesn't for losing a decision he appeared to have won against Bobby Watts? Does Hopkins get a pass for needing two cracks at Mercado too?

Well it's all about opinions, and this is where we differ. I thought Hagler beat Leonard at the time and still do now. Close, but I thought he nicked it. Several of the other blemishes on Hagler's record were unjust too imo, including the Antuofermo and Watts fights and the bizarre scoring of the Duran fight.

That leaves one other loss, to Willie the Worm Monroe, a fight no one has seen bar those who were there night, so who knows whether the result was deserved? I don't see how that shows a susceptibility to Philly fighters, especially since Hagler KO'd Monroe twice in rematches. Personally, I think Hopkins would be susceptible to someone with Hagler's workrate.

hopkins is great at fighting guys with high workrates in his prime.

Obama
06-04-2009, 10:23 PM
So Hopkins gets a pass for losing his first pro fight but Hagler doesn't for losing a decision he appeared to have won against Bobby Watts? Does Hopkins get a pass for needing two cracks at Mercado too?

Well it's all about opinions, and this is where we differ. I thought Hagler beat Leonard at the time and still do now. Close, but I thought he nicked it. Several of the other blemishes on Hagler's record were unjust too imo, including the Antuofermo and Watts fights and the bizarre scoring of the Duran fight.

That leaves one other loss, to Willie the Worm Monroe, a fight no one has seen bar those who were there night, so who knows whether the result was deserved? I don't see how that shows a susceptibility to Philly fighters, especially since Hagler KO'd Monroe twice in rematches. Personally, I think Hopkins would be susceptible to someone with Hagler's workrate.

All accounts of the first Willie the Worm Monroe fight were that Hagler CLEARLY lost it. That's not even debatable.

And yes he gets a pass at needing two cracks at Mercado. Foreign country, civil war, not properly acclimated to the environment. It's a no brainer.

Whether you think Hagler really won or lost those fights isn't everything. They're questionable decisions either way it swings. Hopkins didn't have any questionable wins in his prime. Didn't really have a questionable win period until Winky Wright.

Saying he's susceptible to Hagler's workrate makes me think you haven't watched a prime Hopkins fight. He was not beat by work rate back then. His own work rate was quite high.

portuge puncher
06-04-2009, 10:29 PM
Hopkins most entertaining fight is the first Echols fight. It's a parallel to Hagler vs Mugabi.

Hopkins vs Echols is definitely the better fight tho, and Echols quite frankly would beat Mugabi.

hey bro, ive never seen B-hop vs echols, could post it plz

Kid McCoy
06-04-2009, 10:30 PM
you say the calzaghe fight threw you off,
you wanna know why, hopkins was 43 ****in years old!!!

and his resume is maybe a little less then hagler's, but not by much.

hagler's greatest two fights were welter's,
but they were still great

hopkins fought tito and oscar, so its kind of the same ****.

hopkins also at 40 went up two divisions to be the lightheavywieght champ.

you say he was boreing, he's only boreing now because he fights safty first, but if you were in your 40's, wouldent you. he could be entertaing, watch this.


The Calzaghe fight didn't throw me off, it put me off. Old age is no excuse for Hopkins' antics in that night, crawling around on the canvas like a club fighter after imaginary low blows. Moore, Foreman, Holmes etc never did likewise when they were in their 40s.

Hopkins didn't suddenly start being boring in his 40s. He's been that way throughout his career. You fight whichever way suits you best, and that's the way which suits Hopkins.

Btw, he did not win the light-heavyweight title. He won a version of it and subsequently lost it to Calzaghe. Dick Tiger is still the only fighter to have accomplished that feat with undisputed titles.

portuge puncher
06-04-2009, 10:35 PM
The Calzaghe fight didn't throw me off, it put me off. Old age is no excuse for Hopkins' antics in that night, crawling around on the canvas like a club fighter after imaginary low blows. Moore, Foreman, Holmes etc never did likewise when they were in their 40s.

Hopkins didn't suddenly start being boring in his 40s. He's been that way throughout his career. You fight whichever way suits you best, and that's the way which suits Hopkins.

Btw, he did not win the light-heavyweight title. He won a version of it and subsequently lost it to Calzaghe. Dick Tiger is still the only fighter to have accomplished that feat with undisputed titles.

he had a bad night in that fight, kinda like hagler vs leonard.

then Bhop at 43 dominated an undefeated knockout artist kelly pavlik.

Kid McCoy
06-04-2009, 10:51 PM
All accounts of the first Willie the Worm Monroe fight were that Hagler CLEARLY lost it. That's not even debatable.

Yes I know the reports state he lost to Monroe legitimately. But I've also had enough experience of journalists to not want to rely on them any more than I have to, and seeing the footage is the only way to be sure. Still, that leaves one fight out of 67 that he lost "clearly". Is that really proof of his vulnerability to Philly fighters?


And yes he gets a pass at needing two cracks at Mercado. Foreign country, civil war, not properly acclimated to the environment. It's a no brainer.

Whether you think Hagler really won or lost those fights isn't everything. They're questionable decisions either way it swings. Hopkins didn't have any questionable wins in his prime. Didn't really have a questionable win period until Winky Wright.

Of course it is. I'm not going to dismiss Hagler for losing a fight I thought he won. If Hopkins gets a pass for needing two attempts to beat Segundo Mercado, then Hagler gets a pass from me from for the aforementioned 'blemishes' on his record. Which Hagler wins did you feel were questionable?


Saying he's susceptible to Hagler's workrate makes me think you haven't watched a prime Hopkins fight. He was not beat by work rate back then. His own work rate was quite high.

Yes, I've seen most of Hopkins' fights, and a lot of them were snoozefests. Yes, he had a higher workrate in his prime than now, but I still see a peak Hagler as too busy for him.

Obama
06-04-2009, 10:54 PM
hey bro, ive never seen B-hop vs echols, could post it plz

Credit to original uploader:

http://www.mega****.com/?d=OK7DZHUM

portuge puncher
06-04-2009, 10:58 PM
Credit to original uploader:

http://www.mega****.com/?d=OK7DZHUM

thanx a ton man, i appreciate it

Obama
06-04-2009, 11:07 PM
Which Hagler wins did you feel were questionable?

You misunderstood me. I'm saying should he have had better luck and beat Leonard and Boogaloo, people would have still questioned those wins.

That aside, pretty sure his fights fight Sugar Ray Seales are debatable. Him not being a Philly fighter however, I didn't bring him up. Hopkins stuggled with him because of his movement. Hopkins would be giving him a lot of the same. Hagler was never really in seek and destroy mode unless the other guy was out to get him, or if he was avenging a previous performance. If the other guy wasn't doing much, neither would Hagler. He did NOT look good in the first Antuofermo fight for this very reason. If you didn't hurt Hagler, he didn't think he was losing. So essentially I believe Hopkins would beat Hagler by putting him to "sleep" for 12 rounds. Hagler just wasn't all that bright when it came to fighting technical boxers.

Thread Stealer
06-05-2009, 12:15 AM
I don't feel like typing out an analysis again, so here's what I said about this awhile ago.

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.


http://boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217488&page=2

TheGreatA
06-05-2009, 01:10 AM
To be honest even in his prime Hopkins could be brutal to watch in some of his fights. The Holmes and Vanderpool fights were awful unless I'm confusing them with some other fights of his.

I wouldn't call Hagler's Philadelphia record "spotty". He was brought there to lose against the undefeated Olympian Sugar Ray Seales but Hagler beat him and drew in the rematch while just 19 years of age.

He was quite honestly robbed against Watts but supposedly lost fairly to Monroe. Hagler was still only 21 I believe.

In rematches he proved to be much superior, destroying both Monroe and Watts in two, stopping Cyclone Hart in 8, KO'ing a prime Roy Jones in three rounds (:lol1:), showing his punching power in the later stages of a fight by stopping the number 1 ranked middleweight contender Mike Colbert in 12, twice TKO'ing the durable Kevin Finnegan, decisioning Bennie Briscoe and dominating Seales in a one-round blowout.

Southpaw16BF
06-05-2009, 01:21 AM
As I've said before no boxing is virtually boring to me, I study it. Of course I enjoy exciting fights, but I have never found Bernard Hopkins boring or no other world class fighters for that matter that is not known for a exciting style.

As I'am studying what they are doing in the prize ring, I never just watch for excitment. I watch to learn and study every move.

TheGreatA
06-05-2009, 01:23 AM
As I've said before no boxing is virtually boring to me, I study it. Of course I enjoy exciting fights, but I have never found Bernard Hopkins boring or no other world class fighters for that matter that is not known for a exciting style.

As I'am studying what they are doing in the prize ring, I never just watch for excitment. I watch to learn and study every move.

Say that after 12 rounds of Hopkins vs Eastman.

Southpaw16BF
06-05-2009, 01:29 AM
Say that after 12 rounds of Hopkins vs Eastman.

Well to be honest I have watched this fight a fair few times, and do Hopkins may be using a caution first style due to there being so much on the line, but Hopkins uses brillant footwork and times and places his shots well for a UD victory over the underrated Eastman.

Going into that fight Eastmen hadn't been beat in 4 years, and had some pretty decent wins over Scott Dann, Hacine Cherifi, Sergey Tatevosyan, and Jerry Elliott.

And out of 41 fights had only 1 defaet against World Champion William Joppy in a fight many thought he got, but he was just out of his league with world class Hopkins, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

Thread Stealer
06-05-2009, 02:00 AM
The first few rounds of Hopkins-Eastman were terrible, but I did enjoy some of the moves Hopkins did later on though. Positioning, slipping, countering, avoiding the follow-up shot.

As I've said before no boxing is virtually boring to me, I study it. Of course I enjoy exciting fights, but I have never found Bernard Hopkins boring or no other world class fighters for that matter that is not known for a exciting style.

As I'am studying what they are doing in the prize ring, I never just watch for excitment. I watch to learn and study every move.

I sort of agree. While I do find many fights boring, there's little things I usually enjoy when it's a terrific fighter in there doing.

For instance, the first 12 rounds of Duran-Lampkin were dreadful. It was ugly as sin with all that holding. Still, there's things in there that I did enjoy in between all the stink (and before the highlight reel KO). Duran's upper body movement when slipping shots was always something to behold. Ali and Hopkins are also similar in the sense that in their boring fights, I still enjoy the brilliant things they did on occasion. You just have to sit through the dull parts to get to it. Mayweather has had some stinkers (Vargas, Castillo 2, Baldomir), but even in his more dull fights, I enjoy watching the way he avoids punches and counters effectively.

them_apples
06-05-2009, 06:40 AM
Hopkins run and duck style would win him the UD over Hagler. I see him leaning on Hagler in the clinches, hitting and holding, then running and potshotting. Hard to bet against Hopkins unless his opponent has a large speed advantage and is able to disrupt his timing.

On the other hand Haglers incredible strength could pose a threat, but Hopkins on a good day takes the UD. Either one winning isn't out of the question, a KO is though.

I've gone back and forth on this fight/matchup.

jvsnypes
06-05-2009, 07:31 AM
I respect everyones opinion, but did you guys see Hagler in his prime?The Hagler that fought Leonard,Hearns, and Mugabi was dangerous but not at his best. At that point he was past his prime.I have his career dvd set. I was amazed at how fluid he was when he was younger. He was on his toes boxing using his jab a whole lot, spinning off the ropes, and throwing combinations.Put Hopkins in the ring with a young Hagler and he loses by UD or even KO.Do you realize that Hagler has never been knocked out? Oh, excuse me, he's never been off his feet from a punch.He could knock you out with either hand and he was known for cutting opponents with his punches.The stye Hopkins use now works against slower methodical fighters.Hagler was definitely not that.And to be honest, Hagler would have knocked out Trinidad,Jones,Calzaghe,and Pavlik.With the exception of Roy, Hagler fought guys much better than them on the regular.He fought real legit middleweights all the time. Don't believe me, go get his career set.This fight would almost be equilavent to Hopkins' two fights against Jermaine Taylor.Taylor, who is a natural middleweight looked stronger at times than Hopkins.He threw the sharper punches and simply could not be outsmarted or outboxed by Hopkins.Well, a prime Hagler was stronger, smarter, better conditioned, and just as fast as Taylor. If you compare their careers, really there is no comparison.Hagler fought and beat the better and more dangerous fighters. I think its easy to beat guys that the media considers great fighters(Hopkins) compared to beating lesser named opponents who were beasts, and going to war with other legends.(Hagler)

Ziggy Stardust
06-05-2009, 12:23 PM
For some reason Hagler seems underappreciated in these parts. Few people point out the man had good boxing skills himself and wasn't just a brawler. Marvin went to war when he needed to but that was only one of several tools in his arsenal.

Poet

Abstraction
06-05-2009, 02:58 PM
His style was dull as dishwater, his level of competition was mainly average, he has a good chin and fine boxing skills, wouldn't say superior, and yeah he probably is the best middle of the last 20 or so years. I'm not saying he's a bad fighter, just not among the elite middles for me.

KO Calzaghe? I doubt it. Hopkins' performance against Calzaghe put me off him a lot. The old-timers he gets compared to like Moore and Walcott would have been ashamed at such antics.

You don't know what you are talking about mate.

The bout against Joe was at LH. He was at the age of 43, yet all Joe could do was eek out a dodgy SD.

Abstraction
06-05-2009, 03:01 PM
Hopkins run and duck style would win him the UD over Hagler. I see him leaning on Hagler in the clinches, hitting and holding, then running and potshotting. Hard to bet against Hopkins unless his opponent has a large speed advantage and is able to disrupt his timing.

On the other hand Haglers incredible strength could pose a threat, but Hopkins on a good day takes the UD. Either one winning isn't out of the question, a KO is though.

I've gone back and forth on this fight/matchup.

Agree.

Hagler does not have the speed to cause Hopkins problems. Which is why i said Hearns would ironically be more of a problem for Hopkins than Hagler.

I doubt either would be even close to being KO'd, with their chins. But i just don't feel Hopkins would allow Hagler to overwhelm him, hence an easy UD win for Hopkins imo

TommyBraid
06-05-2009, 03:03 PM
Hagler for me.

nachorjj
06-05-2009, 03:05 PM
In a 15 round fight with the oldschool gloves, I think Hagler wins by late stoppage....I can see Hopkins getting a good points lead but Hagler will slowly but surely pressure Hopkins and break him down. Hagler wins TKO 12-15 imo. If we're talking the new rules 12 rounds with the big gloves I think Hopkins would scrape a UD 116-112 with some close last rounds as Hagler realises he has to knock Hopkins out.

I agee. good point

Kid McCoy
06-05-2009, 03:41 PM
You don't know what you are talking about mate.

The bout against Joe was at LH. He was at the age of 43, yet all Joe could do was eek out a dodgy SD.

Hopkins was 43 and one fight later put in what was probably his best ever performance. Calzaghe was 36, hardly a spring chicken himself. I didn't think it was that close either. Hopkins won the first 3 rounds and I gave Calzaghe all the rest. The old-timers Hopkins gets compared to would be embarrassed by his whining, spoiling tactics that night.

portuge puncher
06-05-2009, 04:30 PM
Hopkins was 43 and one fight later put in what was probably his best ever performance. Calzaghe was 36, hardly a spring chicken himself. I didn't think it was that close either. Hopkins won the first 3 rounds and I gave Calzaghe all the rest. The old-timers Hopkins gets compared to would be embarrassed by his whining, spoiling tactics that night.

he knocked joe down in the FIRST round!!!

if it was a prime hopkins, joe wouldent make it past the fifth

vandiar
06-05-2009, 05:18 PM
The Calzaghe fight didn't throw me off, it put me off. Old age is no excuse for Hopkins' antics in that night, crawling around on the canvas like a club fighter after imaginary low blows. Moore, Foreman, Holmes etc never did likewise when they were in their 40s.

Hopkins didn't suddenly start being boring in his 40s. He's been that way throughout his career. You fight whichever way suits you best, and that's the way which suits Hopkins.

Btw, he did not win the light-heavyweight title. He won a version of it and subsequently lost it to Calzaghe. Dick Tiger is still the only fighter to have accomplished that feat with undisputed titles.
what the hell are you talking about? that was THE LINEAL LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE! That IS the Title.

D-MiZe
06-05-2009, 05:21 PM
For some reason Hagler seems underappreciated in these parts. Few people point out the man had good boxing skills himself and wasn't just a brawler. Marvin went to war when he needed to but that was only one of several tools in his arsenal.

Poet

Yep.

I've always said that Hagler is so underrated.

them_apples
06-05-2009, 07:03 PM
Hopkins was 43 and one fight later put in what was probably his best ever performance. Calzaghe was 36, hardly a spring chicken himself. I didn't think it was that close either. Hopkins won the first 3 rounds and I gave Calzaghe all the rest. The old-timers Hopkins gets compared to would be embarrassed by his whining, spoiling tactics that night.

Calzaghe was in the prime of his career at 36, Hopkins wasn't. No way in hell has Calzaghe ever looked better. Just like JMM Calzaghe was a fresh mid 30's fighter. Hopkins prime lasted till he was probably 39 years of age, then he started trying to conserve his energy and his amazing workrate dropped to all time lows.

Pretty easy to see Hopkins came out on top of nearly every exchange and delt more damage than Calzaghe, only he hardly thew anything.

them_apples
06-05-2009, 07:09 PM
For some reason Hagler seems underappreciated in these parts. Few people point out the man had good boxing skills himself and wasn't just a brawler. Marvin went to war when he needed to but that was only one of several tools in his arsenal.

Poet

I recognize Haglers skills, I've always said he had underrated defense. But would you pick him over a prime Hopkins in this matchup? I'm just basing it on styles. Hagler hated how Leonard kept moving, he also had trouble with tougher fighters like Mugabi. Hopkins has both of those + a solid defense to go with it.

I'm sure there are many fighters on Hopkins resume that Hagler would have made short work with, but on a styles vs styles matchup it seems like Hopkins' ball game. I could be wrong though.

Thread Stealer
06-05-2009, 07:14 PM
what the hell are you talking about? that was THE LINEAL LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE! That IS the Title.

Erdei is linear. Protected as hell, but lineal champ. Hill to DM to Gonzalez to Erdei.

Jones was the best 175 lb fighter at the time, but he wasn't lineal. The Ring gave him their belt in 2002 for winning the "big 3" (IBF/WBA/WBC), but even Nigel Collins said that if the policy were around in the mid 90s, then DM most likely would've been their champ.

Just one of numerous cases where the lineal champ is not the best fighter in the division.

Ziggy Stardust
06-05-2009, 07:54 PM
I recognize Haglers skills, I've always said he had underrated defense. But would you pick him over a prime Hopkins in this matchup? I'm just basing it on styles. Hagler hated how Leonard kept moving, he also had trouble with tougher fighters like Mugabi. Hopkins has both of those + a solid defense to go with it.

I'm sure there are many fighters on Hopkins resume that Hagler would have made short work with, but on a styles vs styles matchup it seems like Hopkins' ball game. I could be wrong though.

Absolutely I would. It's not ALL about styles: That stuff announcers parrot on TV is an over-simplification. Overwelming style mismatches such as Foreman Vs. Name Your Pressure Fighter or Ken Norton Vs. a slick boxer are fairly rare. Certain styles give other styles "trouble" but ultimately the better fighter STILL usually wins. He may not win as easily as he might against the same caliber of opponent who fights another style but he still wins. In the case of this matchup I rate Hagler 3rd ATG and Hopkins 5: In other words I see Hagler as being a bit better fighter than Hopkins. At the same time I don't see any overwelming stylistic mismatch that would act as an "equalizer".

Poet

Kid McCoy
06-05-2009, 10:35 PM
what the hell are you talking about? that was THE LINEAL LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE! That IS the Title.

Lineal? The "linearity" came from Roy Jones, whose own claim to that title was spurious given that Michalczewski had already beaten "lineal" champ Virgil Hill to unify three belts.

That's a just a bugbear of mine. When Hopkins moved up to challenge Tarver there were lots of mentions of Ray Robinson, who as middleweight champ failed to win the light-heavy title, but none whatsoever of Dick Tiger, who actually succeeded.

Calzaghe was in the prime of his career at 36, Hopkins wasn't. No way in hell has Calzaghe ever looked better. Just like JMM Calzaghe was a fresh mid 30's fighter. Hopkins prime lasted till he was probably 39 years of age, then he started trying to conserve his energy and his amazing workrate dropped to all time lows.

Pretty easy to see Hopkins came out on top of nearly every exchange and delt more damage than Calzaghe, only he hardly thew anything.

Calzaghe was most certainly not in his prime at 36. For his part, I thought he fought a pretty poor fight. In fact it was a pretty poor fight full stop. But Calzaghe forced the action throughout, threw more, landed more, and he didn't blot his copybook with the kind of tactics Hopkins resorted to. After four rounds Hopkins seemed to give up trying to win and went into survival mode. Sure Hopkins made him look bad, but you need more than that to win a fight, and the bolded part is basically why I thought he lost.

them_apples
06-05-2009, 10:57 PM
Lineal? The "linearity" came from Roy Jones, whose own claim to that title was spurious given that Michalczewski had already beaten "lineal" champ Virgil Hill to unify three belts.

That's a just a bugbear of mine. When Hopkins moved up to challenge Tarver there were lots of mentions of Ray Robinson, who as middleweight champ failed to win the light-heavy title, but none whatsoever of Dick Tiger, who actually succeeded.



Calzaghe was most certainly not in his prime at 36. For his part, I thought he fought a pretty poor fight. In fact it was a pretty poor fight full stop. But Calzaghe forced the action throughout, threw more, landed more, and he didn't blot his copybook with the kind of tactics Hopkins resorted to. After four rounds Hopkins seemed to give up trying to win and went into survival mode. Sure Hopkins made him look bad, but you need more than that to win a fight, and the bolded part is basically why I thought he lost.

JMM is in his prime at 35, Hopkins was prime at 36, Calzaghe WAS in his prime at 36. Against Hopkins he looked bad because it was Hopkins, against a shot Jones he looked great. He was definitely in his prime. I can't really see how he landed more either, I'm not debating weither he won and all, since Hopkins didn't do enough either - but Calzaghe really didn't land anything.

Pac-Attack
06-05-2009, 11:01 PM
who wins this dream match,
dont simply say who, but explain,
how do you think they'd win,
what do they have that will make the fight
tip in there favor?

In my opinion Hagler would be victorious. If it was a twelve rounder, he would beat the executioner by UD, but if it was 15 rounds it would be by way of knockout. I do agree that B-Hop, due to his height and reach advantages, would win the first few rounds. He will show his craftiness by outboxing hagler. However by round 5, Hagler will begin to turn it around. He is far physically superior to hopkins and will impose his will. He will go hard to the body early and often. Hagler was able to take the best of the Hitman's bombs, and go on to win the fight. Since hopkins isn't nearly as powerful as Hearns, Hagler will be confident knowing that he can't be hurt, and will fight furiously. In the end, Marvelous Marvin will put too much pressure and will pick Bernard apart. Another important key is hagler's volume punching that will destroy his opponent.

them_apples
06-05-2009, 11:05 PM
Absolutely I would. It's not ALL about styles: That stuff announcers parrot on TV is an over-simplification. Overwelming style mismatches such as Foreman Vs. Name Your Pressure Fighter or Ken Norton Vs. a slick boxer are fairly rare. Certain styles give other styles "trouble" but ultimately the better fighter STILL usually wins. He may not win as easily as he might against the same caliber of opponent who fights another style but he still wins. In the case of this matchup I rate Hagler 3rd ATG and Hopkins 5: In other words I see Hagler as being a bit better fighter than Hopkins. At the same time I don't see any overwelming stylistic mismatch that would act as an "equalizer".

Poet

yea point taken, not an overwhelming stylistic match up - just things such as Hopkins movement, and the frustration he could endow on a shorter fighter. Those were the things I figured would act as an equalizer as you put it. Leonard gave him fits by running and he was the smaller fighter, Hopkins would most likely run, only he's a bigger dude than Leonard and has more pop at MW.

Hagler wasn't in his prime when he fought SRL, so I guess that needs to be taken into consideration as well, I just find it very hard to see Hopkins losing to a slightly slower fighter.

I should point out although Hopkins likes to think he does well against southpaws, guys like Winky gave him trouble ( he was past prime as well in this case). Winky however is a left hand dominant southpaw, as opposed to Haglers basis on his right hook. I wonder how that plays out.

GJC
06-06-2009, 04:34 PM
That's a just a bugbear of mine. When Hopkins moved up to challenge Tarver there were lots of mentions of Ray Robinson, who as middleweight champ failed to win the light-heavy title, but none whatsoever of Dick Tiger, who actually succeeded.


Must say that Tiger seems to be a bit of a forgotten man around here, I thought he was a very very good fighter but he rarely gets mentioned.
He had an awful lot of losses on his record but would I believe give most MW's and LHW's a hell of a fight.

GJC
06-06-2009, 04:36 PM
Leonard gave him fits by running and he was the smaller fighter, Hopkins would most likely run, only he's a bigger dude than Leonard and has more pop at MW.

Hagler wasn't in his prime when he fought SRL, so I guess that needs to be taken into consideration as well

Yes I think people are saying prime Hagler but then lending too much weight to the Leonard fight when he wasn't prime and fought a terrible fight tatically.

STILL_DETOX
06-06-2009, 05:33 PM
depends on how hopkins deals with the pressure

Smokin'J
06-06-2009, 06:20 PM
SRL knew Hagler slipped thats why he fought him at that time.

Thread Stealer
06-06-2009, 09:13 PM
In my opinion Hagler would be victorious. If it was a twelve rounder, he would beat the executioner by UD, but if it was 15 rounds it would be by way of knockout. I do agree that B-Hop, due to his height and reach advantages, would win the first few rounds. He will show his craftiness by outboxing hagler. However by round 5, Hagler will begin to turn it around. He is far physically superior to hopkins and will impose his will. He will go hard to the body early and often. Hagler was able to take the best of the Hitman's bombs, and go on to win the fight. Since hopkins isn't nearly as powerful as Hearns, Hagler will be confident knowing that he can't be hurt, and will fight furiously. In the end, Marvelous Marvin will put too much pressure and will pick Bernard apart. Another important key is hagler's volume punching that will destroy his opponent.

How is Hagler far physically superior to Hopkins?

He hits harder, but not by some gigantic amount. He was heavy-handed, but not a freak-ish, Julian Jackson-esque puncher.

He's very physically strong, but so is Hopkins, who also fought under different weigh-in rules at 160 so you could argue that he's naturally bigger (his first bout was at LHW).

Speed? Hopkins has the quicker hands. Chin? Hagler has the edge, but Hopkins has a good one too.

Equinox
06-06-2009, 09:26 PM
hopkins would murder hagler, not even hating on hagler cause i like him.

them_apples
06-06-2009, 09:26 PM
How is Hagler far physically superior to Hopkins?

He hits harder, but not by some gigantic amount. He was heavy-handed, but not a freak-ish, Julian Jackson-esque puncher.

He's very physically strong, but so is Hopkins, who also fought under different weigh-in rules at 160 so you could argue that he's naturally bigger (his first bout was at LHW).

Speed? Hopkins has the quicker hands. Chin? Hagler has the edge, but Hopkins has a good one too.

wasn't Hagler fighter under the same weigh in options by then? no way the guy fought at around 158, looks to big for that.

Thread Stealer
06-06-2009, 09:53 PM
wasn't Hagler fighter under the same weigh in options by then? no way the guy fought at around 158, looks to big for that.

The aborted Spinks-Muhammad rematch in 1983 was kind of the breaking point I guess for the change. I'm not sure if all commissions and organizations were abiding by the new rules though. Most of Hagler's career was same-day weigh-in, if not all.

Whatever the case, I don't think any guy has a really enormous advantage in one area. They're both too well rounded.

TheGreatA
06-06-2009, 10:46 PM
wasn't Hagler fighter under the same weigh in options by then? no way the guy fought at around 158, looks to big for that.

Hagler may have looked big but he was quite short for a middleweight (5'9) and never weighed more than 160 lbs.

I thought Hearns looked much bigger than him when they fought each other despite Hearns being the one coming up in weight and Leonard looked about the same size. Even Duran was staring him eye to eye.

http://www.boxing-memorabilia.com/images/hagler5.jpeg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0810/boxing.upsets/images/sugar-ray-leonard-hagler.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v309/TheManchine/Avatarit/duranhagler.jpg

The big problem for Hagler in this match-up might actually be Hopkins' size although Hopkins wasn't known for putting on much weight after the weigh-ins during his middleweight run and Hagler did chop down men even taller than Hopkins.

ИATAS
06-07-2009, 12:41 AM
tough fight to call. I've gone back and forth on this. I know one thing, neither man is getting KO'd, just not possible.

Hopkins is one of the rare fighters today who would do even better with 15 round fights, so that wouldn't be a deciding factor in picking the winner. He was a machine, just like hagler, and he tended to get better as the fight went on (even against Jermaine Taylor when he was 39/40 years old he was close to finishing him off late in the first fight, if it were a 15 round fight no way taylor survives).

I think hopkins beats the hagler that lost to sugar ray without a doubt. Prime for prime it's tough to say, I can see it going a number of different ways in my head, it's a pick 'em fight really. Halger was damn near unstoppable in his prime, but he never faced a defensive wizard like hopkins who is so versatile.

Chunk..
06-07-2009, 07:35 AM
Hagler was the greatest 160 lb fighter ever. Withstood Hearn's murderous right cross and fought a close fight against Ray Leonard's supreme boxing ability.

Hagler was the most complete package we've ever seen in a fighter. Great righty or lefty, slugging or boxing. Great endurance and a tremendous chin. I'm a huge Ray Leonard fan, but you can give this to Marvin Hagler. No one ever clearly, cleanly, beat him. And he fought some real tough hombres. He'd have broken through B Hop's defense and would wear him down like he did everyone. Ray Leonard beat Hagler with a miracle rally in the last 2 rounds.

Roger Mellie
06-07-2009, 07:38 AM
Hagler UD,but not a wide one. Would have been an absolute ripper prime for prime.

GJC
06-07-2009, 10:12 AM
Even Duran was staring him eye to eye.


Actually if you look at when Duran Hagler touch gloves Duran looks taller if anything, even though Hagler is a couple of inches taller.
I'm always more swayed more by reach than height, and though Hopkins has quite a height advantage their reach is the same.

portuge puncher
06-13-2009, 03:04 PM
bump...............

▀ringer
06-13-2009, 09:40 PM
One's a legend, the other just thinks he's a legend. I'm going for the legend.

Okay, so you don't rate Bernard very highly.

Tel me why, exactly.

▀ringer
06-13-2009, 09:41 PM
Hagler was the greatest 160 lb fighter ever. Withstood Hearn's murderous right cross and fought a close fight against Ray Leonard's supreme boxing ability.

Hagler was the most complete package we've ever seen in a fighter. Great righty or lefty, slugging or boxing. Great endurance and a tremendous chin. I'm a huge Ray Leonard fan, but you can give this to Marvin Hagler. No one ever clearly, cleanly, beat him. And he fought some real tough hombres. He'd have broken through B Hop's defense and would wear him down like he did everyone. Ray Leonard beat Hagler with a miracle rally in the last 2 rounds.

1.) The same thing can be said about Hopkins. (With the exception of Jones.)

2.) I thought Ray Leonard clearly beat Hagler.

▀ringer
06-13-2009, 09:58 PM
Naturally, I'm going Hopkins on this one. And it's not fanboyism ; I'll tell you why.

Marvin Hagler always looked best against a stationary opponet. Whenever he was in against a guy who wasn't going to stand infront of him and let him mow them down at will, he didn't look nearly as impressive.

Past prime, retired, former Welterweight World Champion "Sugar" Ray Leonard proved this.

And I don't get all the "controversy" over that fight. I've seen it at least 2 dozen times, and everytime I saw Ray winning the fight.

Power wise, Hagler has a slight advantage. But make no mistake, he wasn't this mythic wreckingball puncher that over the years people have labelled him as thanks to his domination of Tommy Hearns.

Speed wise, Hopkins clearly had the faster hands. I'd even wager a bet right now that this prehistoric version of Hopkins still has the faster hands. Watch the Calzaghe and Pavlik fights closely and look how quickly Hopkins gets his shots off. That type of speed is crazy for a man who should've been retired 8-10 years ago.

Chin wise, Hagler has an edge. He's notorious for being able to take a good licking and keep on ticking. But make no mistake about it ; Hopkins has one hell of a beard on him as well. Probably not as strong as Marvin's, but it's stood up to some solid shots over the years from some strong opposition.

Skill wise, it's Hopkins all day IMO. He's slicker, faster, more elusive, smarter (Marvin wasn't exactly known for his ring smarts), fights from angles, knows how to take away his opponet's best assets (Trinidad's left hook, Pavlik's right hand), knows how to set the tempo, and not to mention he's bigger than Hagler.

Neither fighter has ever faced an opponet quite like the other. It would be an interesting fight, and 15 rounds would not effect Hopkins in the slightest.

I'm going with the bigger, faster, more defensively skilled Hopkins to win a close unanimous decision, or possibly a majority decision depending on how well Hagler could get his game going in the middle to late rounds.

billionaire
06-13-2009, 10:02 PM
agree with the above especially about haglers struggles against good boxers like leonard and duran......but you gotta be crazy to say his power is overrated, watch his early fights like against minter he blasted a hole in his face........he ko'd all his defenses except for leonard and duran.....

K-Nan
06-13-2009, 10:02 PM
Naturally, I'm going Hopkins on this one. And it's not fanboyism ; I'll tell you why.

Marvin Hagler always looked best against a stationary opponet. Whenever he was in against a guy who wasn't going to stand infront of him and let him mow them down at will, he didn't look nearly as impressive.

Past prime, retired, former Welterweight World Champion "Sugar" Ray Leonard proved this.

And I don't get all the "controversy" over that fight. I've seen it at least 2 dozen times, and everytime I saw Ray winning the fight.

Power wise, Hagler has a slight advantage. But make no mistake, he wasn't this mythic wreckingball puncher that over the years people have labelled him as thanks to his domination of Tommy Hearns.

Speed wise, Hopkins clearly had the faster hands. I'd even wager a bet right now that this prehistoric version of Hopkins still has the faster hands. Watch the Calzaghe and Pavlik fights closely and look how quickly Hopkins gets his shots off. That type of speed is crazy for a man who should've been retired 8-10 years ago.

Chin wise, Hagler has an edge. He's notorious for being able to take a good licking and keep on ticking. But make no mistake about it ; Hopkins has one hell of a beard on him as well. Probably not as strong as Marvin's, but it's stood up to some solid shots over the years from some strong opposition.

Skill wise, it's Hopkins all day IMO. He's slicker, faster, more elusive, smarter (Marvin wasn't exactly known for his ring smarts), fights from angles, knows how to take away his opponet's best assets (Trinidad's left hook, Pavlik's right hand), knows how to set the tempo, and not to mention he's bigger than Hagler.

Neither fighter has ever faced an opponet quite like the other. It would be an interesting fight, and 15 rounds would not effect Hopkins in the slightest.

I'm going with the bigger, faster, more defensively skilled Hopkins to win a close unanimous decision, or possibly a majority decision depending on how well Hagler could get his game going in the middle to late rounds.

Umm.. Why would Marvin Hagler be in trouble with boxers when he himself is a boxer? He usually outboxed most of hiss opponents.

You think Hagler would be stalking Hopkins? Get real...

K-Nan
06-13-2009, 10:03 PM
agree with the above especially about haglers struggles against good boxers like leonard and duran......but you gotta be crazy to say his power is overrated, watch his early fights like against minter he blasted a hole in his face........he ko'd all his defenses except for leonard and duran.....

12 straight KO defenses.

He'd knock Bernard Hopkins out. And Hopkins is more of a come-forward fighter than Marvin Hagler, btw.

▀ringer
06-13-2009, 10:07 PM
Umm.. Why would Marvin Hagler be in trouble with boxers when he himself is a boxer? He usually outboxed most of hiss opponents.

You think Hagler would be stalking Hopkins? Get real...

Don't get it twisted. Marvin's a good boxer. But do you really think he's got the depth of skill to outbox Hopkins?

Hopkins would very rarely play lead, and when he did, it was pre-prime.

If we're talking prime for prime here, then we're talking the late 90's, early 00's version of Bernard.

And that version of Bernard would never allow himself to become the aggressor, aside from the occasional right hands down the pipe, especially against a dangerous opponet like Hagler.

▀ringer
06-13-2009, 10:12 PM
12 straight KO defenses.

He'd knock Bernard Hopkins out. And Hopkins is more of a come-forward fighter than Marvin Hagler, btw.

Hagler would knock Hopkins out?

You must've eaten those ****ing shrooms tonight, huh? ;)

Marcos Geraldo made it 10 rounds with prime Marvin.

If you think Hagler takes him, that's fine. It's entirely possible.

But neither Hagler nor Hopkins is getting knocked out in this one. Marvin is too damn bullheaded, and Hopkins is rarely ever caught flush, and when he has been ; his beard has passed with flying colors.

Thread Stealer
06-13-2009, 10:45 PM
I don't see either guy getting stopped. Or even close to it, really. Hagler had a great chin and a pretty effective parrying defense. Hopkins was even better defensively, and has a very sound chin too. Neither one of them have shown to be very vulnerable to the body, real stamina issues, nor are either of them freakish punchers either, although Hagler was heavy-handed and Hopkins was not exactly featherfisted.

Thread Stealer
06-13-2009, 10:47 PM
Hagler was the greatest 160 lb fighter ever. Withstood Hearn's murderous right cross and fought a close fight against Ray Leonard's supreme boxing ability.

Hagler was the most complete package we've ever seen in a fighter. Great righty or lefty, slugging or boxing. Great endurance and a tremendous chin. I'm a huge Ray Leonard fan, but you can give this to Marvin Hagler. No one ever clearly, cleanly, beat him. And he fought some real tough hombres. He'd have broken through B Hop's defense and would wear him down like he did everyone. Ray Leonard beat Hagler with a miracle rally in the last 2 rounds.

The loss to Monroe wasn't controversial like the Watts loss. I've never seen it as to the best of my knowledge, it wasn't even filmed, but it's always been described as a clear win for Monroe.

Silencers
06-14-2009, 07:49 AM
This probably would have ended in a pretty close decision and could have ended up being a pretty technical fight with only spots of exciting action.

BennyST
06-14-2009, 08:55 AM
Hagler's record against B rated Philadelphia fighters cannot be over looked. Hopkins is debatably the greatest Philadelphia fighter of all time. Hagler is losing a decision. No doubt about it.

All accounts of the first Willie the Worm Monroe fight were that Hagler CLEARLY lost it. That's not even debatable.


No offense mate, but this is just absurd. What makes you think Hopkins and Monroe even fight slightly alike? Frazier was also a Philly fighter, was he going to beat Hagler just because he was from Philly and did he fight like Hopkins?

This type of generalisation is completely ridiculous. Name another fighter from Philly that fights even a little bit like Hopkins that fought Hagler and gave him trouble? Just in case you forgot, those fights were early on and every fighter that he had trouble against or lost to, he beat or knocked out really easily in rematches.

BennyST
06-14-2009, 09:07 AM
Skill wise, it's Hopkins all day IMO. He's slicker, faster, more elusive, smarter (Marvin wasn't exactly known for his ring smarts), fights from angles, knows how to take away his opponet's best assets (Trinidad's left hook, Pavlik's right hand), knows how to set the tempo, and not to mention he's bigger than Hagler.

Whaaaaat? Hagler not ring smart? Based on what? One fight at the very end of his career? Maybe you never saw the early, proper version of Hagler, but you should know that he was anything but stupid in there. He was a great counter puncher, had nice lateral movement, knew when to move, knew when to fight, knew when to switch to righty to confuse....he was a really smart fighter.

This insane thing of him being a swarming, slugging, dumb ass tough guy is so weird. It's one of the great odd misconceptions in boxing.

Hagler, throughout his whole career, apart from a few later fights when he had slowed a lot was basically a pure boxer. Lots of movement, really great jab, counter punches etc.

Also, Hagler's hands were fast, but again, when you see him against Leonard, Hearns, Mugabi etc, he is really quite a lot slower than in previous years. Hopkins would be a little faster at most. Nothing even slightly overwhelming and I don't think speed would play much of a factor because it wasn't enough of a factor.

BennyST
06-14-2009, 09:09 AM
Hagler would knock Hopkins out?

You must've eaten those ****ing shrooms tonight, huh? ;)

Marcos Geraldo made it 10 rounds with prime Marvin.

If you think Hagler takes him, that's fine. It's entirely possible.

But neither Hagler nor Hopkins is getting knocked out in this one. Marvin is too damn bullheaded, and Hopkins is rarely ever caught flush, and when he has been ; his beard has passed with flying colors.

Except against Mercado. :D


:fing02:

mickey malone
06-14-2009, 09:17 AM
Both fighters have iron wills as well as chins.. This is a distance fight for sure.. I'd predict Hagler by SD in an extremely close encounter.. Hagler's switch hitting against Hopkins's counter punching would be a great clash of styles...

portuge puncher
06-14-2009, 07:52 PM
Whaaaaat? Hagler not ring smart? Based on what? One fight at the very end of his career? Maybe you never saw the early, proper version of Hagler, but you should know that he was anything but stupid in there. He was a great counter puncher, had nice lateral movement, knew when to move, knew when to fight, knew when to switch to righty to confuse....he was a really smart fighter.

This insane thing of him being a swarming, slugging, dumb ass tough guy is so weird. It's one of the great odd misconceptions in boxing.

Hagler, throughout his whole career, apart from a few later fights when he had slowed a lot was basically a pure boxer. Lots of movement, really great jab, counter punches etc.

Also, Hagler's hands were fast, but again, when you see him against Leonard, Hearns, Mugabi etc, he is really quite a lot slower than in previous years. Hopkins would be a little faster at most. Nothing even slightly overwhelming and I don't think speed would play much of a factor because it wasn't enough of a factor.

hagler wouldent be able to outbox hopkins,
hopkins is the better boxer out of the two,
not by much but its true.

Except against Mercado. :D


:fing02:

that was the only time in his whole carrer he was KD.

▀ringer
06-14-2009, 07:57 PM
Except against Mercado. :D


:fing02:

One fight.

Almost 15 years ago.

Against a version of Hopkins who's said he wasn't mentally there, at all. Due to circumstances in Ecuador at the time.

Aside from that he's never once been dropped, hurt, dazed, or rocked against much, much better punchers than Mercado. (Tarver, Trinidad, Pavlik, Eastman, Allen, and Echols.)

Whaaaaat? Hagler not ring smart? Based on what? One fight at the very end of his career? Maybe you never saw the early, proper version of Hagler, but you should know that he was anything but stupid in there. He was a great counter puncher, had nice lateral movement, knew when to move, knew when to fight, knew when to switch to righty to confuse....he was a really smart fighter.

This insane thing of him being a swarming, slugging, dumb ass tough guy is so weird. It's one of the great odd misconceptions in boxing.

Hagler, throughout his whole career, apart from a few later fights when he had slowed a lot was basically a pure boxer. Lots of movement, really great jab, counter punches etc.

Also, Hagler's hands were fast, but again, when you see him against Leonard, Hearns, Mugabi etc, he is really quite a lot slower than in previous years. Hopkins would be a little faster at most. Nothing even slightly overwhelming and I don't think speed would play much of a factor because it wasn't enough of a factor.

I never said Hagler wasn't a smart fighter.

I just don't think he's as smart as Hopkins in the ring.

As for handspeed, as I said ; Hopkins has the advantage against any version of Hagler.

Not that it would be a deciding factor in the fight.

But it would allow Hopkins to land that beautiful right hand of his consistently.

Abstraction
06-16-2009, 07:25 PM
Except against Mercado. :D


:fing02:
Dude, it was in Ecuador, where the bout took place at 10,000 feet in altitude if i am correct.

portuge puncher
06-19-2009, 04:41 PM
Bump..................

GJC
06-19-2009, 05:03 PM
Bump..................
Keep seeing that, Bump? Whats it mean please?

CRESCENDOPOWER
06-19-2009, 05:24 PM
Keep seeing that, Bump? Whats it mean please?

They are bumping the thread back to the top of the page. Itĺs all irrelevant though; this fight is way to close to call.

them_apples
06-19-2009, 09:16 PM
hagler wouldent be able to outbox hopkins,
hopkins is the better boxer out of the two,
not by much but its true.



that was the only time in his whole carrer he was KD.

I wouldn't say so, a lot of people confuse him as an expert boxer, a fighter who is very fundamental. This isn't necessarily true. Hagler, aside from his stance switching during fights, was the more fundamental boxer.

Hopkins is more of a slickster with a very tight defense, he also moves a lot. Over all I'd call him a slickster though. Hopkins often drops his left to lure fighters to throw the right hand, which he usually rolls, counters, or slips and pulls some other move that only he knows how to do.

I really can't say who wins this, just I give Hopkins the edge because I have never seen him lose to a fighter that doesn't have a significant speed advantage or age advantage.

It is a very hard pick however, Hagler wouldn't be hitting arms all night, that's for sure.

BEEHOP
06-22-2009, 12:54 AM
This is a very tough match, I would imagine it would go to a decison and be very very close(SD/MD) with the loser complaining of a robbery.

TheGreatA
06-26-2009, 09:36 PM
I thought this was interesting:

July, 2007.

***8220;Sugar Ray Robinson at 147 pounds was close to perfect,***8221; Hopkins posits. ***8220;But at middleweight, he was beatable. I would have fought Ray Robinson in close and not given him room to do his thing. He***8217;d make me pay a physical price. But at middleweight, I think I***8217;d wear him down and win. Me and Marvin Hagler would have been a war. We***8217;d both be in the hospital afterward with straws in our mouth. We***8217;d destroy each other. I wouldn***8217;t run from Marvin. My game-plan would be, rough him up, box, rough him up, box. You wouldn***8217;t use judges for that fight. You***8217;d go by the doctors***8217; reports. Whichever one of us is damaged less gets the win. Carlos Monzon? I could lose that fight. Monzon was tall, rangy, did everything right. I see myself losing that fight more than winning it. I ain***8217;t saying I***8217;m number one, but I***8217;m one of the best middleweights of all time. My legacy is what it is. If you want to be great, then beat Bernard Hopkins.***8221;

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/bernard-hopkins-history-in-the-making

TredKiller
06-26-2009, 10:50 PM
I thought this was interesting:



http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/bernard-hopkins-history-in-the-making

i always figured he could beat marvin,
and i think monzon would pose real probblems,
he did everything great, except was a little slow.

▀ringer
06-26-2009, 11:12 PM
I thought this was interesting:



http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/bernard-hopkins-history-in-the-making

Very interesting, indeed.

It's interesting that he picks Monzon as the one who'd beat him more often than not.

I've always thought Monzon was a little too slow to deal with the slick counters of Bernard.

And I've always thought Robinson would cream him. But it's a thought to think of the way in which Hopkins says he would've fought him ; in close.

That'd be something to see.

Unfortunately, fantasy fights are such a **** tease. :(

TredKiller
06-26-2009, 11:29 PM
Very interesting, indeed.

It's interesting that he picks Monzon as the one who'd beat him more often than not.

I've always thought Monzon was a little too slow to deal with the slick counters of Bernard.

And I've always thought Robinson would cream him. But it's a thought to think of the way in which Hopkins says he would've fought him ; in close.

That'd be something to see.

Unfortunately, fantasy fights are such a **** tease. :(

LMFAO,
**** yea they are!

▀ringer
06-26-2009, 11:38 PM
LMFAO,
**** yea they are!

You get thinking about it.....Thinking about both guys' past performances, and their hallmark wins....then you visualize what it'd be like if they were staring off with each other in the ring....

Then you start thinking about their styles, and what each guy brings to the table in terms of offense, defense, and intangibles.....

Then you start thinking about how it would go down ; would would be the aggressor? Who would draw first blood? Who would be winning the rounds? Any possibility for a knockdown?

Then you realize it's all for naught, because you'll never see the two pricks square off anyway...... :(

Still, it's fun to talk about.

dde91
06-27-2009, 12:43 AM
No matter how you look at it, Hagler and Hopkins Careers are very similar.
Both of them had to fight there way to the top in the back streets of boxing for many years, waiting for their opportunities to shine in the limelight. For years they beat every boxer put infront of them in ease. They both had a couple loses in their early career. Then they got the recogniation when Super Stars from lower weight classes came up in weight, thinking they could beat them. (Duran and Hearns for Hagler, De La Hoya and Trinidad for Hopkins.) Those two wins are very similiar because De La Hoya is like Duran coming up from lightweight having boxing and punching skills, and Trinidad is like Hearns, being the KNOCKout Artists from welterweight and junior middleweight knocking out everybody in their paths.
Both finally saw defeat when they were past their primes, but the fights could have gone either way. (Leonard for Hagler, Taylor 1,2, and Calzaghe for Hopkins) Many feel that they won those fights. It's funny how their careers are so similar

BennyST
06-27-2009, 04:50 AM
Out of every great middleweight, I would choose Monzon to be the guy that could truly beat everyone else in the history of the division. He fought every type of fighter possible, all of the great, and beat them all.

He's the one guy I would truly pick over anyone else. I would actually pick him to beat Hagler and Hopkins. Hagler and Hopkins fighting each other is very hard to pick.

Great find mate.

BennyST
06-27-2009, 04:57 AM
i always figured he could beat marvin,
and i think monzon would pose real probblems,
he did everything great, except was a little slow.

This was always a littler bit of a myth with Monzon. Many people thought he was slow, but he was actually one of those guys who seem a lot slower than they actually are. He has very deceptive speed. I remember reading some article with Tony Mundine who said that the thing that most confused him Monzon was his speed.

Mundine was a very slick, very fast boxer with great skills. He thought he would be able to beat Monzon with his speed, but he found that it wasn't the case and Monzon had no trouble keeping up with him at all, and that most surprised Mundine who also thought he was slow. I think it's the way he moves that makes him appear to sort of lumber along, and it confuses the mind into thinking he is slow when he is, in fact, quite quick.

Incredible fighter.

TredKiller
07-04-2009, 02:27 PM
i think it would end in a No Decision.

they both got big, bald, hard heads, and they use em!! lol

i expect the biggest clash of heads in history. lol

BennyST
07-14-2009, 12:44 PM
I recognize Haglers skills, I've always said he had underrated defense. But would you pick him over a prime Hopkins in this matchup? I'm just basing it on styles. Hagler hated how Leonard kept moving, he also had trouble with tougher fighters like Mugabi. Hopkins has both of those + a solid defense to go with it.

I'm sure there are many fighters on Hopkins resume that Hagler would have made short work with, but on a styles vs styles matchup it seems like Hopkins' ball game. I could be wrong though.

What's interesting is that you are basing massive generalisations about Hagler's entire career on his very last two fights in which he was clearly past it and not fighting at even close to his peak. If you had seen more than just his fights against Hearns, Duran, Leonard and Mugabi (which I'm starting to realise many haven't sadly) then you would know he did not have trouble with either supposedly tough fighters or boxers.:nonono:

BennyST
07-14-2009, 12:59 PM
JMM is in his prime at 35, Hopkins was prime at 36, Calzaghe WAS in his prime at 36. Against Hopkins he looked bad because it was Hopkins, against a shot Jones he looked great. He was definitely in his prime. I can't really see how he landed more either, I'm not debating weither he won and all, since Hopkins didn't do enough either - but Calzaghe really didn't land anything.

Again, what's with these absurd generalisations man? Do you actually watch any fights of these fighters that you are talking about apart from their latest ones? Hopkins was one of those rather odd specimens that developed into his prime very late, but both of the other guys you are talking about absolutely had their best years well before what you are pretending they were. See, that really makes me wonder whether you have seen any thing beyond the usual Marquez/Pac/Diaz/Barrera fights and Calzaghe/Kessler/Lacy/Hopkins/Jones fights. If you had, you would know that years before they were fighting much better.

Marquez for one is looking much slower, easier to hit, less movement, less power etc etc. How do I know? Because I've seen all his fights from the earliest ones to the latest and he does not look anywhere as good now as he did in the past. He's still winning, but that doesn't mean he is in his prime still.

Calzaghe's prime ended before his fights with Hopkins and Jones. He looked terrible in comparison to his earlier self in both of those fights and I have no idea how you think he still looked as good as ever in either. Again, that just makes me realise that you have probably never seen a fight before his Lacy fight. People were already calling him over the hill then. By the Kessler fight he had slowed quite considerably and was punching more and more with just short, slapping arm punches as he couldn't wing the big shots anymore. Why not just go compare the Eubank fight to the Kessler and Hopkins/Jones etc fights, and you'll understand what a big difference there is. His real prime ended around 2005 or so.

Squabbles94806
07-14-2009, 02:02 PM
Damn, that's a good one. As much as i like BHOP...i'd have to give it to Hagler.

Hagler is more powerful and stronger than BHOP. However, Hopkins has more boxing skill than Hagler. Plus, he's a smart boxer. I forget, is Hagler the one who can box ambidextrously? Anyways...i think it'll go to a split decision, which maybe 1-2 knockdowns. As far as a Knockout? I don't see one in this fight.

Either way, i'd pay to watch that fight. BHOP isn't even in FNF 4, so you can't even make that happen. Lol.

Dynamite Kid
07-14-2009, 02:11 PM
Id pick Hopkins, not only is Hopkins a better boxer but he can also handle himself on the inside, he is as strong as Hagler if not stronger. Hopkins was really a 175 lbs boiling down to 160, he was freakishly big for a 160lbs, he also has a good chin and excellent stamina in his prime.

Hopkins also has a superb record against Southpaws, that said he never fought a Southpaw as good as Hagler but id still pick Hopkins.

Id say Hopkins is quicker to.

Gettin Jiggy
07-14-2009, 02:15 PM
very hard one to pick! maybe edging toward hagler! but i think monzon beats both of them!

Gettin Jiggy
07-14-2009, 02:17 PM
Id pick Hopkins, not only is Hopkins a better boxer but he can also handle himself on the side and he is as strong as Hagler if not stronger. Hopkins was really a 175 lbs boiling down to 160, he was freakishly big for a 160lbs, he also has a good chin and excellent stamina in his prime.

Hopkins also has a superb record against Southpaws, that said he never fought a Southpaw as good as Hagler but id still pick Hopkins.

Id say Hopkins is quicker to.

Nah i dont know about hopkins being a massive 160 fighter. he was said he could get lower than 160!

Dynamite Kid
07-14-2009, 02:22 PM
Nah i dont know about hopkins being a massive 160 fighter. he was said he could get lower than 160!

Hopkins is a massive 160 pounder you can see that with the naked eye.

Hagler fought a lot of bigger guys like Roldan,Obell,Sibson but none of those guys have the size and skill of Hopkins.

Ziggy Stardust
07-14-2009, 02:23 PM
Hopkins is considered overrated by many posters here. I remember when I caught heat for saying Bernard was a top-five all-time Middleweight.....then caught heat from the other side when I said I thought Hagler was better.

Poet

Gettin Jiggy
07-14-2009, 02:25 PM
Hopkins is a massive 160 pounder you can see that with the naked eye.

Hagler fought a lot of bigger guys like Roldan,Obell,Sibson but none of those guys have the size and skill of Hopkins.

but hopkins said in a interview he could get a little below 160. for me carlos monzon is a massive middlweight.

Dynamite Kid
07-14-2009, 02:27 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XvWYEnLvmQ4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XvWYEnLvmQ4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Dynamite Kid
07-14-2009, 02:28 PM
but hopkins said in a interview he could get a little below 160. for me carlos monzon is a massive middlweight.

He also said that he respects Calzaghe for making 168 all them years because he knows how hard it is because he had to get down from 175 for years.

Did you see the size disparity between Hopkins and Calzaghe when they fought ?

Gettin Jiggy
07-14-2009, 02:30 PM
He also said that he respects Calzaghe for making 168 all them years because he knows how hard it is because he had to get down from 175 for years.

Did you see the size disparity between Hopkins and Calzaghe when they fought ?

yeah. it werent that big! monzon was the much bigger middlweight!

Dynamite Kid
07-14-2009, 02:32 PM
yeah. it werent that big! monzon was the much bigger middlweight!

Click the the third image after you have looked at the size of Joe, Hopkins was a big Middleweight, he even started his career at 175 if i remember.

http://www.hbo.com/boxing/events/2008/0419_calzaghe_hopkins/news/weigh_in.html

Gettin Jiggy
07-14-2009, 02:36 PM
Click the the third image after you have looked at the size of Joe, Hopkins was a big Middleweight, he even started his career at 175 if i remember.

http://www.hbo.com/boxing/events/2008/0419_calzaghe_hopkins/news/weigh_in.html

look at how big monzon is do! scary!
http://www.dada.it/cgi-bin/sn_media/image/print.cgi?id=92793&view=halfcol?id=92793&view=halfcol?id=92793&view=halfcol?id=92793&view=halfcol

Dynamite Kid
07-14-2009, 02:37 PM
look at how big monzon is do! scary!
http://www.dada.it/cgi-bin/sn_media/image/print.cgi?id=92793&view=halfcol?id=92793&view=halfcol?id=92793&view=halfcol?id=92793&view=halfcol




With respect we are talking about Hagler vs Hopkins though.

Gettin Jiggy
07-14-2009, 02:39 PM
With respect we are talking about Hagler vs Hopkins though.

am just saying. you're making out like hopkins is the biggest 160 fighter who ever lived. so i thought id show you monzon!

Ziggy Stardust
07-14-2009, 02:40 PM
With respect we are talking about Hagler vs Hopkins though.

Personally I think BOTH would beat Monzon.

Poet

Dynamite Kid
07-14-2009, 02:44 PM
am just saying. you're making out like hopkins is the biggest 160 fighter who ever lived. so i thought id show you monzon!

Nah im making out he is a a big 160 pounder because he is, and im showing you why i think he is a big 160lbs, when you dont think he is.

Dynamite Kid
07-14-2009, 02:46 PM
Personally I think BOTH would beat Monzon.

Poet

Yeah ?

I dont know much about Monzon so i did not comment.

Ziggy Stardust
07-14-2009, 02:49 PM
Yeah ?

I dont know much about Monzon so i did not comment.

I've never really been high on Monzon's abilities. Quite frankly if you can find an ATG who looks MORE ordinary than Monzon I'd like to see it.

Poet

Gettin Jiggy
07-14-2009, 03:03 PM
Personally I think BOTH would beat Monzon.

Poet

always thought monzon beats both myself!

Gettin Jiggy
07-14-2009, 03:03 PM
Nah im making out he is a a big 160 pounder because he is, and im showing you why i think he is a big 160lbs, when you dont think he is.

just dont think he is huge for the weight!

TredKiller
07-14-2009, 03:05 PM
just dont think he is huge for the weight!

hagler was 5'9

hopkins was 6'1

monzon was 6'2

Southpaw16BF
07-14-2009, 03:07 PM
I've never really been high on Monzon's abilities. Quite frankly if you can find an ATG who looks MORE ordinary than Monzon I'd like to see it.

Poet

Have to disagree with you here. Monzon was methodical technically sound, and completey unflappable in the ring. He stood in there calmy and patiently and picked guys apart with sharp, straight blows and unerring accuracy. He would control the rythem and pace of a fight, aswell as using his exceptional counterpunching abilty.

He also had a mean streak a mile long and enjoyed giving a guy a good beating. Monzon may have been heavy footed and his hands weren't so fast either,. But he did so many things so well that he was damn near perfect, even if it didn't always look like it.

Southpaw16BF
07-14-2009, 03:11 PM
Yeah ?

I dont know much about Monzon so i did not comment.

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284013&highlight=carlos+monzon

Read On from the 6th post in this thread............
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270702&highlight=tommy+ryan

mickey malone
07-14-2009, 03:11 PM
I've never really been high on Monzon's abilities. Quite frankly if you can find an ATG who looks MORE ordinary than Monzon I'd like to see it.

Poet
Quite frankly, apart from his jab & generalmanship, you're right, but no one around at the time could hurt him.. He had a cast iron exterior.. A seriously hard individual, who was slightly unpolished in the skills department..

Dynamite Kid
07-14-2009, 03:22 PM
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284013&highlight=carlos+monzon

Read On from the 6th post in this thread............
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270702&highlight=tommy+ryan

That was a good read.:boxing:

Ima get me a career set Monzon i think.

GJC
07-14-2009, 03:38 PM
Have to disagree with you here. Monzon was methodical technically sound, and completey unflappable in the ring. He stood in there calmy and patiently and picked guys apart with sharp, straight blows and unerring accuracy. He would control the rythem and pace of a fight, aswell as using his exceptional counterpunching abilty.

He also had a mean streak a mile long and enjoyed giving a guy a good beating. Monzon may have been heavy footed and his hands weren't so fast either,. But he did so many things so well that he was damn near perfect, even if it didn't always look like it.
Have to agree with that, Monzon was a solid un flashy fighter who just systematically beat the life out of the other guy. I don't personally put him top of the tree in hthe MW's def top 6 though. Do think that he would give anyone in the top 6 a mother of a fight.

Bushidō
10-08-2009, 03:16 PM
Prime vs prime I would have to give the slight edge to Hagler. Hopkins is quite crafty but Hagler was one of the best at cutting off the ring. He would be able to score points by closing off the ring and getting to Hopkins unless Hopkins make it into a war. Overall I think Hagler middleweight resume was better than Hopkins. I see Hagler winning a close but clear decision over the living legend Hopkins

General Zod
01-29-2010, 10:53 AM
Hagler's record against B rated Philadelphia fighters cannot be over looked. Hopkins is debatably the greatest Philadelphia fighter of all time. Hagler is losing a decision. No doubt about it.
Just say no to triangle theory, lol

sonnyboyx2
01-29-2010, 01:22 PM
In a 15 round fight with the oldschool gloves, I think Hagler wins by late stoppage....I can see Hopkins getting a good points lead but Hagler will slowly but surely pressure Hopkins and break him down. Hagler wins TKO 12-15 imo. If we're talking the new rules 12 rounds with the big gloves I think Hopkins would scrape a UD 116-112 with some close last rounds as Hagler realises he has to knock Hopkins out.

i dont see a knock out in this match-up.. Hagler would be too busy for BHop and would throw more punches to edge out a 15UD..

them_apples
01-29-2010, 04:55 PM
I really don't know who wins this, prime for prime, I might edge it to Hagler. Honestly can't say though, there isn't any stylistic flaws in this match up. Hagler would throw more and was an accurate puncher, Hopkins is a tricky fighter that goes from fighting on the outside to fighting in very close at random times. I think Hopkins would attempt his philly brawl mode a few times but would end up backing off as Hagler would come out on top in those exchanges. It's the untraceable blows that Hopkins throws from the outside with accuracy that would trouble Hagler, and earn Hopkins bonus points.


I'm gonna say Hagler by sd though.