Hagler and Hopkins Question

I think he would Hagler would set a pace Hopkins would not like Hagler remember the Hearns/Leonard Hagler was way past his best. Hagler 117-110 imo. So was the Hopkins who threw a punch every eon. The peak Hagler was probably the late 70s to the early 80s, particularly against Sibson in 1983. The fight could go either way, as both guys were extremely versatile. Hagler was a terrific boxer-puncher with one of the greatest right jabs of all-time. He had an effective parrying defense, a good set of legs, and a great ability to absorb shots. He threw his punches in combos well, had good power, and as could brawl too. Hopkins was a little quicker in my opinion, and a little slicker. He had some right hand power but wasn't as powerful as Hagler was. He was very crafty and could fight inside and rough guys up, or box from the outside. He has been extremely good against southpaws throughout his career. As for the "beating up smaller guys thing", well, Hagler had more quality wins against middleweight contenders/titlists throughout his career than Hopkins. Colbert, Briscoe, Hamsho, Antufermo, Minter, etc... As such, I rank Hagler higher all-time at middleweight for his opposition level at the weight. But both were/are great, versatile fighters.

i don't discredit hopkins.. i still don't think he's as great as hagler was though it hard to match up to hagler he had the better era. it was a lot great back then. have of these fighter are just good and these fighters today only have 2-3 fights a year back then they would 5-6 sometimes 7 fights a year

plus two of his losts came while he was in philly

I think he would Hagler would set a pace Hopkins would not like Hagler remember the Hearns/Leonard Hagler was way past his best. Hagler 117-110 imo. you got to remember hopkins know how to slow all that down hagler is like 5'9 and b-hop is 6'1. i think it would be close because it would be 13-15 rounds. you honestly think b-hop would not tie him up? i'm not sure who would win but it would be a good philly vs. boston thing and i'm from philly

i don't discredit hopkins.. i still don't think he's as great as hagler was though

May i add Hagler was prime from 79-84. That Hagler would UD Hopkins i think he would dominate, but those who say Hopkins would get stopped is crazy Hopkins has one of the best chins in the modern era. to say he would get dominate is crazy. other than sweet pea those two are my all-time favorites. i think it would be a close fight cause b-hop is always able to adjust, counterpunch, defend and use height advantage. b-hop has a style where he could fight in different eras

hagler wins over duran and hearns . real og Im a huge hagler fan my self and I dont know if you remember hagler took alot of heat from boxing citics over the fact that he wasnt a very good boxer so hagler had something to prove to them so when he fought duran he wanted to show the world that he could box and as we all saw that all most cost him the middleweight title againts the slick boxing duran duran even shut one of his eyes and if not for hagler really putting presure on duran in the last round he loses and as for hearns that was a different fight all together hearns came right at hagler and we all know that that was the wrong thing to do againts hagler even though that fight was one of the most brutal ever and against srl we him again try to out box leonard and I think he did lose to leonard I think if the fight would have taken place five years erlier like it should have hagler wins I just wished that hagler would have kept on fighting after that loss.

yeah, it's all bullshit! they are both great, great fighters, but people will always be hypocrites!