Fantasy Match-up: '86 Hagler vs '00 Hopkins

He has a great chance to beat a prime hagler too. Hagler goes straight. Bernard knows how to fight straight ahead fighters like trinidad and pavlik. Except Hagler is a beast, and even if he hits arms, im sure that would hurt like a bitch.Hagler would keep coming and coming and he packs a bigger punch the anybody that Hopkins fought. So i could see this going either way. uhm... simply not the case

1986 Hagler loses to 2000 Hopkins. Say 1981 Hagler beats any version of Hopkins

i'd favor an '08 hopkins over a '00 hopkins hopes this answers any questions or concerns you might have. Are you kidding me? Have you seen 2000 Hopkins?

Personally i see Hopkins winning. Imo, Hopkins would beat both Hagler and Hearns. Although Hagler beat Hearns, i reckon Hearns would do better against Hopkins than Hagler would. Either way, I feel a Prime Hopkins would them look awkward, especially Hagler

2000 B-Hop would beat Hagler, if it was Hagler against B-Hop in his much younger days, when B-Hop tried to take fighters out, I'd favor Hagler ...........Me too.

eh, Hamsho is a little bit of a stretch, but its kind of necessary. trying to find a Hopkins opponent that resembled Hagler would be even harder. was the Hamsho you saw the one that Hagler beat in 3 rounds? because the earlier version of Hamsho that he fought looked much better to me. I have not seen the 1st fight. Ive seen the second fight. I did not see any resemblance between them. I cant imagine Hopkins post Mercado fighting the way Hamsho did against Hagler in the 2nd fight. I have no problem with people who think Hagler would win, he was a formidable fighter, but my own personal opinion is Hop would neutralize all that and frustrate him.

I dont know anything about Hamsho besides his fight with Hagler, but from what i saw of him, he fought nothing like Hopkins, he squared himself up and did not use much head movement, and generally just tried to pressure his man. I have only seen Hamsho once though. I might be completely wrong. You will have to get back to me on that one, because it is a bit unfair of me to judge him on just that fight alone. Based on what i saw maybe you could stretch it, and say he fought like the old Hopkins who was wreckless aggressive, but like i said i dont know, because ive only seen him once. eh, Hamsho is a little bit of a stretch, but its kind of necessary. trying to find a Hopkins opponent that resembled Hagler would be even harder. was the Hamsho you saw the one that Hagler beat in 3 rounds? because the earlier version of Hamsho that he fought looked much better to me.

He was much too tentative against Duran but still managed to win clearly, against another ATG. In a rematch he'd have won much more easily, IMO. And every fighter can have the occasional bad night, not many manage to win on their bad nights against that level of competition. I don't think one should judge too much from that performance. He only lost to Leonard by the narrowest of margins, and many thought he won; and Leonard gave a fabulous performance that night considering his age. I doubt a prime Hopkins would have beaten a prime Leonard either. Both small fighters with skills. Hopkins is bigger and would have more success, because of his size,strength and extra speed.

he was an ATG. Hagler's Boxing skills are overrated imo, because of the opponents he faced that were tailor made for his style. He looked spectacular against certain opponents, but look how he looked against Duran/Leonard. Leonard was old too BTW. He was much too tentative against Duran but still managed to win clearly, against another ATG. In a rematch he'd have won much more easily, IMO. And every fighter can have the occasional bad night, not many manage to win on their bad nights against that level of competition. I don't think one should judge too much from that performance. He only lost to Leonard by the narrowest of margins, and many thought he won; and Leonard gave a fabulous performance that night considering his age. I doubt a prime Hopkins would have beaten a prime Leonard either.

Hagler was an ATG boxer. His boxing ability is hugely under-estimated by many. Hagler was one of the most well-rounded fighters I've ever seen. 100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

Hagler was an ATG boxer. His boxing ability is hugely under-estimated by many. Three great posts about Hagler by donray, starting here. Peak Hagler wins by close UD. he was an ATG. Hagler's Boxing skills are overrated imo, because of the opponents he faced that were tailor made for his style. He looked spectacular against certain opponents, but look how he looked against Duran/Leonard. Leonard was old too BTW.

Hamsho actually had a fairly similiar style to Hopkins, although he was a southpaw. and Hagler ate him up. I think Hopkins would beat 86 version of Hagler in a rough fight as the rounds went on, but Hagler ends up walking away with it in his prime some years earlier. His jab and counter left would be too much for Hopkins, and he was very dangerous on the inside too. I dont know anything about Hamsho besides his fight with Hagler, but from what i saw of him, he fought nothing like Hopkins, he squared himself up and did not use much head movement, and generally just tried to pressure his man. I have only seen Hamsho once though. I might be completely wrong. You will have to get back to me on that one, because it is a bit unfair of me to judge him on just that fight alone. Based on what i saw maybe you could stretch it, and say he fought like the old Hopkins who was wreckless aggressive, but like i said i dont know, because ive only seen him once.

Hagler was also a good boxer, but not a great boxer. Hagler was an ATG boxer. His boxing ability is hugely under-estimated by many. Three great posts about Hagler by donray, starting here. Peak Hagler wins by close UD.

Hagler's opponents were tailor made for him though. Minter,Sibbo,Vito,Obell dont even come close to the skill level Hopkins has. Im not saying you are saying they do, but i think Hagler looked better than, he was during his MW reign because of his opposition. Hamsho actually had a fairly similiar style to Hopkins, although he was a southpaw. and Hagler ate him up. I think Hopkins would beat 86 version of Hagler in a rough fight as the rounds went on, but Hagler ends up walking away with it in his prime some years earlier. His jab and counter left would be too much for Hopkins, and he was very dangerous on the inside too.

That's fair, but I think the same is true for Hopkins. Some of the smaller guys he fought had a high degree of skill, but they weren't nearly of the same class of a prime Hagler. Hopkins would frustrate the hell out of Hagler and win a UD. Agree oldgringo:boxing: King Burner II you are correct. Hokins is a rhythm breaker. Thats what he does, he breaks up your rhythm. Whether its pretty or not, he is very effective at it.

Hagler UD. FFS. 100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

Hagler's opponents were tailor made for him though. Minter,Sibbo,Vito,Obell dont even come close to the skill level Hopkins has. Im not saying you are saying they do, but i think Hagler looked better than, he was during his MW reign because of his opposition. That's fair, but I think the same is true for Hopkins. Some of the smaller guys he fought had a high degree of skill, but they weren't nearly of the same class of a prime Hagler.

Hagler had slowened down by 1986.

Hagler has never fought a fighter as intelligent,big,strong and defensively skilled as Hopkins. Leonard is smaller than Hopkins as is Duran and both those guys had their success's against Hagler. I cant think of any of Hagler's opponents that Hopkins would of struggled with. Leonard maybe, but i dont see Hopkins dispatching the likes of Sibson,Minter,Hamsho just as easy as Hagler did. Yes, definitaly, Hagler has never faught fighter like Hopkins, just as Hopkins has never faught a fighter like Hagler. That's what makes this dream fight so intrigueing. I also don't see Hagler struggling much with any of the fighters Hopkins has faced. I mean, you may be also underminding that Hagler is also a very intelligent fighter, maybe not on Hopkins level, but Hagler knows your next move which also would helped his counter punching. Haglers like an immovable object, your not going to hurt him, he's very smart also, he's smart-aggrassive (He knows when to be and when not to be), he's stronger, he can switch from southy to ortho impressively, his counter punching is very good, he can penetrate defenses very well, all this comes into play against Hopkins. This arguement can go on and on bro, lol. Both are great fighters, both have very good attributes that credit their name, etc. At least your bringing a credible response to the table man, unlike many others on this board, big ups to that.

Hopkins around '00 - '01 defeats a '86 - '87 Hagler by close decision. Hagler wasn't in his prime then, Bernard was during this specified time period. His (Hops) punch output was higher, his stamina was excellent, his body was in peak physical form and he was just as smart then as he is now. Hagler back in the early 80's is a different story. He wasn't forced to win fights by outlasting his opponents in exchanges. He didn't need to put excessive pressure on his opponents and he was a much sharper boxer then. Hagler was a fine, two handed boxer who could counter or lead at his best. I'd like a prime Hagler to outduel a prime Hopkins in a close one. Hagler's opponents were tailor made for him though. Minter,Sibbo,Vito,Obell dont even come close to the skill level Hopkins has. Im not saying you are saying they do, but i think Hagler looked better than, he was during his MW reign because of his opposition.