View Full Version : How is Marvin Hagler not the best MW of all time?


STILL_DETOX
03-08-2010, 09:13 PM
somebody explain this one to me

The_Demon
03-08-2010, 09:14 PM
he is isnt he?

STILL_DETOX
03-08-2010, 09:14 PM
i shall add a poll

CarlosG815
03-08-2010, 09:18 PM
Because SRR is.

Royalty
03-08-2010, 09:20 PM
Not the best. I'd rank either Greb or Robinson as the best. But he's a top 5.

CarlosG815
03-08-2010, 09:22 PM
MW has had too many great champions. He was a great, but the way SRR dominated it he is the greatest MW of all time.

I don't think that Marvin Hagler is a better MW than Carlos Monzon, Jake Lamotta, Mickey Walker, or Bernard Hopkins.

Don't forget Harry Greb's accomplishments. I don't talk too much about him tho as I've only seen short sparring videos.

Joey Giardello
03-08-2010, 09:22 PM
It's Carlos Monzon. Due to the fact Hagler lost his title to a former Welterweight, who had, had one fight in the last 6 years, and was suffering from eyesight problems.

Monzon was Middleweight Champ for 7 years and made 14 defences of his title and reitired champion, something which Hagler didn't do.

Thats why...............

CarlosG815
03-08-2010, 09:26 PM
I agree Monzon was a better MW than Hagler, by your logic that would make Hopkins the greatest with 20 defenses.

Joey Giardello
03-08-2010, 09:33 PM
I agree Monzon was a better MW than Hagler, by your logic that would make Hopkins the greatest with 20 defenses.

Most of them defences were of the IBF title do, virtually all of Monzon's were of the undisputed.

And unlike Monzon, Hopkins lost his title to Jermain Taylor. Who in reality lived of them Hopkins wins, and never achieved much since.

Monzon would of never lost his title, to someone of Taylor's caliber.

Thats why Monzon>Hopkins at 160lb.

Royalty
03-08-2010, 09:37 PM
Most of them defences were of the IBF title do, virtually all of Monzon's were of the undisputed.

And unlike Monzon, Hopkins lost his title to Jermain Taylor. Who in reality lived of them Hopkins wins, and never achieved much since.

Monzon would of never lost his title, to someone of Taylor's caliber.

Thats why Monzon>Hopkins at 160lb.

Hopkins beat more world champions than Monzon did and reigned as champion for a longer period of time.

Joey Giardello
03-08-2010, 09:38 PM
Hopkins beat more world champions than Monzon did and reigned for a longer period of time.

Monzon beat more Hall Of Famers than Hopkins, and retired champ, something which Hopkins didn't do. He lost his title to a average fighter!

CarlosG815
03-08-2010, 09:41 PM
Most of them defences were of the IBF title do, virtually all of Monzon's were of the undisputed.

And unlike Monzon, Hopkins lost his title to Jermain Taylor. Who in reality lived of them Hopkins wins, and never achieved much since.

Monzon would of never lost his title, to someone of Taylor's caliber.

Thats why Monzon>Hopkins at 160lb.

I agree. I do feel that the fight with Taylor could have gone to Hopkins depending on who was judging the fight that night.

CarlosG815
03-08-2010, 09:44 PM
Monzon beat more Hall Of Famers than Hopkins, and retired champ, something which Hopkins didn't do. He lost his title to a average fighter!

Glen Johnson
Felix Trinidad
Oscar De La Hoya
William Joppy
Antonio Tarver
Winky Wright
Prime Kelly Pavlik

He also fought Joe Calzaghe in a fight that could have gone either way depending on who was judging.

Royalty
03-08-2010, 09:47 PM
Monzon beat more Hall Of Famers than Hopkins, and retired champ, something which Hopkins didn't do. He lost his title to a average fighter!
Two of the three HOF's that Monzon beat (Benvenuti and Griffith) had a career at middleweight. Napoles only fought there once and that was against Monzon. The fight was also pretty even, up until Napoles retired in his corner.

Both Hopkins vs Taylor fights are debatable. Some people even think Hopkins won both fights. And I don't see how Taylor was an "average" fighter. Disregarding his wins over Hopkins, he beat 5 other world champions.

Joey Giardello
03-08-2010, 09:48 PM
Glen Johnson
Felix Trinidad
Oscar De La Hoya
William Joppy
Antonio Tarver
Winky Wright
Prime Kelly Pavlik

He also fought Joe Calzaghe in a fight that could have gone either way depending on who was judging.

We're talking about Middleweight legacy. So take off Tarver, Winky, Pavlik off, as them fights weren't at Middleweight.

CarlosG815
03-08-2010, 09:52 PM
We're talking about Middleweight legacy. So take off Tarver, Winky, Pavlik off, as them fights weren't at Middleweight.

Hop, Winky and Pavlik are all MW's regardless of what they fought at in those fights.

crold1
03-08-2010, 09:53 PM
Hopkins beat more world champions than Monzon did and reigned as champion for a longer period of time.

Part of Hopkins beating more world champs at Middleweight was because he only had one of three (or four depending on opinions of WBO regard during his time) belts. Guys like Joppy and Holmes would never have been little c 'champs' wihtout more kindergarten soccer trophies to go around. Contrast that with Monzon whose sole 'titlist' win, Valdez, went on to be the champ briefly after Monzon retired.

Joey Giardello
03-08-2010, 09:54 PM
Two of the three HOF's that Monzon beat (Benvenuti and Griffith) had a career at middleweight. Napoles only fought there once and that was against Monzon. The fight was also pretty even, up until Napoles retired in his corner.

Both Hopkins vs Taylor fights are debatable. Some people even think Hopkins won both fights. And I don't see how Taylor was an "average" fighter. Disregarding his wins over Hopkins, he beat 5 other world champions.

At the time of the stoppage, Napoles was starting to get a beaten and his face was a mess, Dundee even said that's why he pulled him out, due to the beating Monzon was giving him and he feared for Napoles's health.

At the end of the day Hopkins, still lost his title to Taylor, who would go on to be knocked out by Pavlik, Abraham, and Froch, and mainly lived of them Hopkins's wins. Pretty bad losses for Hopkins.

And Hopkins's was struggling with a out of shape De La Hoya, before going down to bizzare body shot. Napoles>>>>>>>>>>>>De La Hoya.

And Monzon beat better fighters than Hopkins at 160lb.

And these world champions, are belt holders, due to there being so many sancationng bodies. So please stop bringing them up and calling them world champions.

And Hopkins even says he wasn't as great as Monzon and wound't have beat him.

/End Of Argument. When Hopkins even admits it himself!

Joey Giardello
03-08-2010, 09:56 PM
Hop, Winky and Pavlik are all MW's regardless of what they fought at in those fights.

The fights were fought at LHW, thus being LHW fights!

FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CarlosG815
03-08-2010, 10:04 PM
And Hopkins even says he wasn't as great as Monzon and wound't have beat him.

/End Of Argument. When Hopkins even admits it himself!

I agree Monzon is better than Hopkins. It just seemed like you were totally discrediting Hopkins and his accomplishments.

Like I said earlier Monzon is one of the top 3 MW's of all time.

Joey Giardello
03-08-2010, 10:06 PM
I agree Monzon is better than Hopkins. It just seemed like you were totally discrediting Hopkins and his accomplishments.

Like I said earlier Monzon is one of the top 3 MW's of all time.

No. Hopkins is a ATG, and I rate him very highly. But he just wasn't a greater Middle than Monzon.

STILL_DETOX
03-08-2010, 10:12 PM
I agree Monzon was a better MW than Hagler, by your logic that would make Hopkins the greatest with 20 defenses.

thats wat i was thinking:wank:

Royalty
03-08-2010, 10:18 PM
Part of Hopkins beating more world champs at Middleweight was because he only had one of three (or four depending on opinions of WBO regard during his time) belts. Guys like Joppy and Holmes would never have been little c 'champs' wihtout more kindergarten soccer trophies to go around. Contrast that with Monzon whose sole 'titlist' win, Valdez, went on to be the champ briefly after Monzon retired.

If we're gonna go by "the man" theory as champions, then here's who Hopkins beat:

Oscar De La Hoya (@ 147, beat the #1 Whitaker when he was #2 in the division)
[B]Felix Trinidad (@ 147, beat De La Hoya)
Glen Johnson (@ 175, beat Tarver (who beat Jones))

The difference is: Hopkins beat "the men" at the better point in their careers than Monzon did with his.

Monzon's victories over Valdez and Benvenuti are legit. Valdez ended up becoming the lineal champion and Benvenuti was the lineal champion when Monzon beat him. But Griffith was considered past his prime whose his best years were behind him. Napoles had only one fight at middleweight. Keep in mind that the fight was even up until he retired in his corner.

Monzon's win over Moyer is debatable. If you consider that a legit win, fine.

Royalty
03-08-2010, 10:22 PM
At the time of the stoppage, Napoles was starting to get a beaten and his face was a mess, Dundee even said that's why he pulled him out, due to the beating Monzon was giving him and he feared for Napoles's health.

At the end of the day Hopkins, still lost his title to Taylor, who would go on to be knocked out by Pavlik, Abraham, and Froch, and mainly lived of them Hopkins's wins. Pretty bad losses for Hopkins.

And Hopkins's was struggling with a out of shape De La Hoya, before going down to bizzare body shot. Napoles>>>>>>>>>>>>De La Hoya.

And Monzon beat better fighters than Hopkins at 160lb.

And these world champions, are belt holders, due to there being so many sancationng bodies. So please stop bringing them up and calling them world champions.

And Hopkins even says he wasn't as great as Monzon and wound't have beat him.

/End Of Argument. When Hopkins even admits it himself!

Monzon beat a total of 5 lineal champions. Only 2-3 of them are considered legit middleweight wins, seeing as the others were past their prime or weren't middleweights. Trinidad and De La Hoya at least had some fight(s) at middleweight against titlists, before facing Hopkins.

And just because Hopkins says he was better, doesn't mean it's a fact. It's his opinion. Just like it's my opinion that he's better.

None of our opinions are facts. They're just.. opinions.

crold1
03-08-2010, 10:24 PM
If we're gonna go by "the man" theory as champions, then here's who Hopkins beat:

Oscar De La Hoya (@ 147, beat the #1 Whitaker when he was #2 in the division)
[B]Felix Trinidad (@ 147, beat De La Hoya)
Glen Johnson (@ 175, beat Tarver (who beat Jones))

The difference is: Hopkins beat "the men" at the better point in their careers than Monzon did with his.

Monzon's victories over Valdez and Benvenuti are legit. Valdez ended up becoming the lineal champion and Benvenuti was the lineal champion when Monzon beat him. But Griffith was considered past his prime whose his best years were behind him. Napoles had only one fight at middleweight. Keep in mind that the fight was even up until he retired in his corner.

Monzon's win over Moyer is debatable. If you consider that a legit win, fine.

I don't think Hopkins's win over Johnson is any better than the Griffith wins. Johnson was younger but he was far inferior to the fighter he'd become and hadn't really fought anyone of note yet. He still had a healthy development passage that included losses as head scrtaching as Harmon and egregiously wrong (to Glen) as Gonzalez. I also factor that Johnson, even at his best, was just a good fighter. Griffith is a genuine ATG that still had some in the tank. Oscar also wasn't really at a good point; he was coming off an ass whooping. He certainly doesn't compare to Nino. Tito couldn't have been any better than he was at that point and I'll take him as a better win than Napoles.

bklynboy
03-08-2010, 10:35 PM
somebody explain this one to me

I love Hagler. I was a big fan of his. He is certainly a TOP 5, mayber even a TOP 3.

SRR and Carlos Monzon were great, so too were Harry Greb and Mickey Walker. Even if Hagler is "only" a TOP 5 that's still f**king great.

crold1
03-08-2010, 10:39 PM
I love Hagler. I was a big fan of his. He is certainly a TOP 5, mayber even a TOP 3.

SRR and Carlos Monzon were great, so too were Harry Greb and Mickey Walker. Even if Hagler is "only" a TOP 5 that's still f**king great.

I think a genuine case for number one can be applied to Greb, Rob, Monzon, or Hagler. Everyone else competes for five or less IMO.

Royalty
03-08-2010, 10:42 PM
I don't think Hopkins's win over Johnson is any better than the Griffith wins. Johnson was younger but he was far inferior to the fighter he'd become and hadn't really fought anyone of note yet. He still had a healthy development passage that included losses as head scrtaching as Harmon and egregiously wrong (to Glen) as Gonzalez. Oscar also wasn't really at a good point; he was coming off an ass whooping. He certainly doesn't compare to Nino. Tito couldn't have been any better than he was at that point and I'll take him as a better win than Napoles.

Fair enough about Johnson. I give Hopkins good credit, though, seeing as Johnson was coming in undefeated. But if you don't want to, that's fine.

I had De La Hoya losing to Sturm but he still managed to keep it competitive. He was also out of shape, due to not taking the fight as seriously as he should've.

Plus, you also have to take into the account that there was no lineal championship, during most of Hopkins' reign. The lineal championship that most people were going by were The Ring magazine's title and they stopped doing it during his reign. I think that's a primary reason why more of the titlists that Hopkins beat didn't challenge the number one in their divisions to become "the man". There was no extra reward, since they already held a title.

All theories aside, though, it doesn't work like that and I guess we'll just have to take it as it is.

Tsukiyomi
03-08-2010, 11:37 PM
If we're gonna go by "the man" theory as champions, then here's who Hopkins beat:

Oscar De La Hoya (@ 147, beat the #1 Whitaker when he was #2 in the division)
[B]Felix Trinidad (@ 147, beat De La Hoya)
Glen Johnson (@ 175, beat Tarver (who beat Jones))

The difference is: Hopkins beat "the men" at the better point in their careers than Monzon did with his.

Monzon's victories over Valdez and Benvenuti are legit. Valdez ended up becoming the lineal champion and Benvenuti was the lineal champion when Monzon beat him. But Griffith was considered past his prime whose his best years were behind him. Napoles had only one fight at middleweight. Keep in mind that the fight was even up until he retired in his corner.

Monzon's win over Moyer is debatable. If you consider that a legit win, fine.

Other points aside, that is really some deceptive wording. If Napoles was even on points at that moment, he was getting beaten so viciously the last round or two that he would have ended up in a coma. So to point out the points and that he retired in his corner really is the ultimate in saving face for Napoles, he was getting massacred when his corner pulled the plug.

Jim Jeffries
03-09-2010, 12:10 AM
Glenn Johnson would go on to become a pretty decent boxer.

Yes, he was undefeated when Hopkins beat him.

But can anyone tell me who Glenn had fought before Hopkins that had any resemblance to some sort of contender?

It might as well have been Johnson's pro debut the sort of riff raff he'd been facing.

Hopkins had one great win at MW to me, that was Trinidad. Above MW, the Tarver win was very good and the Pavlik win was impressive. Though the Wright and Pavlik wins are somewhat diminished by dragging those guys so far up in weight.

The fact that Hopkins was a 6 to 1 underdog against Tito, who was relatively new to MW, tells you something about Bernard's run at MW up to that point.

CarlosG815
03-09-2010, 12:14 AM
Other points aside, that is really some deceptive wording. If Napoles was even on points at that moment, he was getting beaten so viciously the last round or two that he would have ended up in a coma. So to point out the points and that he retired in his corner really is the ultimate in saving face for Napoles, he was getting massacred when his corner pulled the plug.

Agreed. However, I don't see how anybody could have that fight scored evenly.

them_apples
03-09-2010, 12:22 AM
Most of them defences were of the IBF title do, virtually all of Monzon's were of the undisputed.

And unlike Monzon, Hopkins lost his title to Jermain Taylor. Who in reality lived of them Hopkins wins, and never achieved much since.

Monzon would of never lost his title, to someone of Taylor's caliber.

Thats why Monzon>Hopkins at 160lb.

Taylor at that time was a good fighter. Taylor to this day is good, but his stamina and heart is lacking. Hopkins was in his 40's when he lost it, by narrow SD's.

Had Monzon been 41 years old he most certainly could have lost it to someone of Taylor caliber.

I rank Hagler above Monzon and I'd pick Hagler by Ud over Monzon. Possiblity of late KO.

them_apples
03-09-2010, 12:28 AM
Glenn Johnson would go on to become a pretty decent boxer.

Yes, he was undefeated when Hopkins beat him.

But can anyone tell me who Glenn had fought before Hopkins that had any resemblance to some sort of contender?

It might as well have been Johnson's pro debut the sort of riff raff he'd been facing.

Hopkins had one great win at MW to me, that was Trinidad. Above MW, the Tarver win was very good and the Pavlik win was impressive. Though the Wright and Pavlik wins are somewhat diminished by dragging those guys so far up in weight.

The fact that Hopkins was a 6 to 1 underdog against Tito, who was relatively new to MW, tells you something about Bernard's run at MW up to that point.

Yea it does, most of his ATG status is from the 20 defenses and such a long reign. Keep in mind, you can pick anyones resume apart. Haglers best wins were over WW's as well.

Thread Stealer
03-09-2010, 12:29 AM
Because MW is a division rich with history and has had many great fighters, making the title of best/greatest MW ever a debate.

sonnyboyx2
03-09-2010, 02:44 AM
somebody explain this one to me

he barely makes the top 10

Royalty
03-09-2010, 04:15 PM
he barely makes the top 10

I hope you're joking.

C.Y.
03-09-2010, 04:30 PM
Most of them defences were of the IBF title do, virtually all of Monzon's were of the undisputed.

And unlike Monzon, Hopkins lost his title to Jermain Taylor. Who in reality lived of them Hopkins wins, and never achieved much since.

Monzon would of never lost his title, to someone of Taylor's caliber.

Thats why Monzon>Hopkins at 160lb.

most people believe hopkins won the first fight against taylor, and had it a draw in the second fight..

also i dont recall monzon fighting well into his 40's

bhop>>>monzon

Toney616
03-09-2010, 04:37 PM
most people believe hopkins won the first fight against taylor, and had it a draw in the second fight..

also i dont recall monzon fighting well into his 40's

bhop>>>monzon
A lot of people like myself had Taylor winning both fights by clear Ud, Hopkins simoply wasnt active enough for the first 8 rounds of either fight.

What Hopkins does at lhw doesnt add to his mw resume

Hopkins is still fighting because he is cherrypicking his opponents like a shot Roy

them_apples
03-09-2010, 05:19 PM
most people believe hopkins won the first fight against taylor, and had it a draw in the second fight..

also i dont recall monzon fighting well into his 40's

bhop>>>monzon

I'd definetly pick B-Hop over Monzon, I'd pick Hagler over both however.

TheGreatA
03-09-2010, 05:23 PM
Hopkins himself thinks he would have lost to Monzon though.

BillyBoxing
03-09-2010, 05:24 PM
somebody explain this one to me

Well,his great fights are against two welterweights and one lightweight.

He had a tough night with Duran,a lightweight,and I thought he lost to Leonard,a welterweight coming after a lay off.

He never has beaten a great middleweight,I mean,Robinson's legacy and Grebb's are better by miles.

Hagler is in the Hopkins league,and I think Hopkins is better than Hagler.

Hagler has a ****in charisma,he was a great fighter,but not greatest MW,maybe even not top 5.

BillyBoxing
03-09-2010, 05:34 PM
If we're gonna go by "the man" theory as champions, then here's who Hopkins beat:

Oscar De La Hoya (@ 147, beat the #1 Whitaker when he was #2 in the division)
[B]Felix Trinidad (@ 147, beat De La Hoya)
Glen Johnson (@ 175, beat Tarver (who beat Jones))

The difference is: Hopkins beat "the men" at the better point in their careers than Monzon did with his.

Monzon's victories over Valdez and Benvenuti are legit. Valdez ended up becoming the lineal champion and Benvenuti was the lineal champion when Monzon beat him. But Griffith was considered past his prime whose his best years were behind him. Napoles had only one fight at middleweight. Keep in mind that the fight was even up until he retired in his corner.

Monzon's win over Moyer is debatable. If you consider that a legit win, fine.

One sided opinion!!

Napoles had only one fight at middleweight.
So had Tito and Oscar at 160,and Oscar lost this only MW fight.

Oscar at 160 was a joke.
Griffith wasn't shot at all.
Benvenuti and Napoles over Joppy and Johnson.

Monzon's middleweight reign bodies Hopkins rein.

them_apples
03-09-2010, 07:55 PM
Hopkins himself thinks he would have lost to Monzon though.

when has he ever said that? Either way, that means nothing. You should know that The great A.

Floyd Mayweather thinks he could beat Leonard, Duran and Hagler all in one night.

TheGreatA
03-09-2010, 08:05 PM
when has he ever said that? Either way, that means nothing. You should know that The great A.

Floyd Mayweather thinks he could beat Leonard, Duran and Hagler all in one night.

When it comes to being a student of the game I take Hopkins's word over Mayweather's though. As great a boxer as Mayweather is, I don't think he has spent too many hours watching tapes of the old time greats. Hopkins has. He knows how he matches up with them. For Mayweather it's just promotional talk.

***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

HaglerSteelChin
03-09-2010, 08:39 PM
Me and Marvin Hagler would have been a war. We’d both be in the hospital afterward with straws in our mouth. We’d destroy each other. I wouldn’t run from Marvin. My game-plan would be, rough him up, box, rough him up, box. You wouldn’t use judges for that fight. You’d go by the doctors’ reports. Whichever one of us is damaged less gets the win.

I take Bhop's comments with a grain of salt. I personally don't think he would try to outslug marvelous even if he is the bigger fighter. BHOP was even cautious with a fighter like DLH who started Super Featherweight and he is to give us Hagler vs Hearns part 2? Bhop in his earlier days would be more aggressive but eventually evolved to a cautious methodical fighter who capitalized on his opponents mistakes. His last KO was the DLH fight which was like 6 years ago. I personally thought he gave away the Calzaghe fight for not being more aggressive and got outworked. But he almost dropped Calzaghe a second time in the last seconds of one of the latter rounds; he had to believe that his blows were more effective and needed to take risks.

Thread Stealer
03-09-2010, 08:43 PM
Despite what Hopkins says, I would expect Hopkins-Hagler to be a pretty tactical fight.

If it's the older Hagler who's slower on his feet and easier to hit, then maybe we get a war. Even then, if Hagler's more aggressive and tries to fight more of a brawl and on the inside, then I think Hopkins would use some spoiling tactics, along with his dirty tricks in there. Holding and hitting, using his head, etc..

Royalty
03-09-2010, 09:16 PM
One sided opinion!!

Napoles had only one fight at middleweight.
So had Tito and Oscar at 160,and Oscar lost this only MW fight.

Oscar at 160 was a joke.
Griffith wasn't shot at all.
Benvenuti and Napoles over Joppy and Johnson.

Monzon's middleweight reign bodies Hopkins rein.

Trinidad won a world title by knocking out Joppy, before facing Hopkins. So it was at least proven that he could compete competitively with middleweights.

DLH managed to keep the Sturm fight competitive, even though most believe he lost the fight. Part of the reason for his lackluster performance was because of his poor conditioning. He didn't take the fight as seriously as he should've.

TheGreatA
03-09-2010, 09:44 PM
I think Hagler vs Hopkins would have been a rough, physical fight. Hopkins would do his usual spoiling and Hagler would respond. A prime Hopkins never truly had to run from anybody. Even against Trinidad, known to be a one-dimensional puncher, he elected to trade punches in the late rounds. He has only gotten as cautious because he's old.

It wouldn't have been an all-out war and a slugfest and I don't Hopkins means that it would have been. He says that he would have boxed and roughed him up in close, not that he would have stood right in front of Hagler.

I can't see it being like the Duran fight where Hagler fully expected Duran to come to him but Duran wouldn't and thus Hagler himself ended up being the unwilling aggressor. Against a 6'1 opponent I figure he'd be the aggressor from the beginning, if not as aggressive as he was against Hearns due to Hopkins's greater strength and infighting ability. Hagler would be looking to outwork Hopkins I think, putting pressure on him so that Hopkins wouldn't be able to control the fight. I imagine it would be tactical but also very rough and a tough fight for both men.