Better Resume Bernard Hopkins or Marvin Hagler?

MONEYMAYALLDAY:wave:

This is the correct answer. The Tarver and Pascal wins were big. Pavlik was pretty good too. Cardinal Buck, I would put Marvelous Marvin's Hagler's, three round destruction, of Thomas "Hit Man's Hearns, over Bernard Hopkins, points wins, over Antonio Tarver, and Kelly "The Ghost" Pavlik, and Jean Pascal, put together, my man, because Antonio Tarver, Jean Pascal, and Kelly Pavlik, put together would never rate as high on the all-time great list, as Thomas "Hit Man" Hearns....(word)

just stop dude, come on you're going crazy with these resume threads that are obvious something causing you to snap Larryx more whores, less weed

Hopkins sealed it once he moved up. This is the correct answer. The Tarver and Pascal wins were big. Pavlik was pretty good too.

Don't you think Hopkins would destroy Taylor in a rematch? Duran never won a tittle at 168 or 175 . boliodogs, thank you for correcting me, regarding roberto duran, winning titles @ 168, and 175...i could have sworn, that roberto duran, beat iran barkley, @ 168, i will see if i can check that... boliodogs, to answer your question, regarding whether i would think bernard hopkins, would beat jermaine taylor, in a rematch...the answer is no, because bernard hopkins, almost always loses, to equally sized, equally talented fighters, and also, bernard hopkins, passed up a tough fight, for less money, against the undisputed 154 lb. champ winky wright, to fight a much greener, jermaine taylor...i thought, he lost both fights, and would have always had problems with taylor...plus boliodogs, bernard hopkins, had two chances, to beat a green jermaine taylor, once....(word)

I have no problem with your choice of Hagler he was great but you do seem to be overly hard on Hopkins. I really don't get how he scaled down to middleweight. If Hopkins was not a natural middleweight he could not possibly have been so successful there for so many years. Obviously 175 was not his right weight and he realized that after his first fight so he never rematched Mitchell, a guy most fans never heard of. Do you really believe Hopkins would be unable to beat Mitchell in a rematch? Yes, Hearns was a better middleweight than Oscar but Duran was not a better middleweight than Trinidad. You make it sound like Hopkins defended his tittle against 20 mediocre fighters and that's not true. Hagler lost his tittle to Leonard at age 33 I think. Benard lost to Taylor at age 40 and that's the difference. I really think Benard beat Taylor and Hagler beat Leonard. Don't you think Hopkins would destroy Taylor in a rematch? Duran never won a tittle at 168 or 175 . boliodogs...strictly sticking to the title of the thread, without the back and forth rhetoric, of what fights could have gone either way, whether you feel hopkins really beat taylor, or if trinidad is better than duran (definitely not, imo), or, we can even throw in, whether sugar ray leonard, deserved to get a decision on marvin hagler, with the running, pit-pat style he used, boliodogs, even if i was to throw out the fact, that bernard hopkins lost his first fight, as a lightheavyweight, and sticking to the parameters of the thread, you must respect the fact, that comparing marvin hagler to bernard hopkins, head to head in terms of wins/losses (resume), that bernard hopkins, left far more fighters unavenged, than marvin hagler, who again, only left 1 loss, unavenged, and he did that boliodogs, fighting 67 total fights, and retiring @ approximately 32 or 34 years of age (marvin hagler's real age, has always been a subject of controversy, lol), to bernard hopkins, having to date, 62 total career fights, @ 41 years of age....

on the middlewight tip, marvelous marvin hagler, over bernard hopkins, all day, every day.... whether the hopkins fanboys like it or not, the fact is, that bernard hopkins, lost his first fight at lightheavy, and scaled down to middeweight, to beat up on the likes of part-time firefighters like bo james, and a weaker middleweight division overall, than marvelous marvin hagler's, whereas marvelous marvin hagler, avenged both of his early losses, to willie the worm monroe, and bobby boogaloo watts, and the draws, to vito antuofermo, and sugar ray seales...bernard hopkins, never avenged the loss to clinton mitchell, and, by the time bernard hopkins, avenged the early loss to roy jones, damn near 20 years later, both fighters were two divisions north, and roy jones, was a shell of his former self...bernard hopkins, also never avenged the two losses at middleweight, to jermain taylor... the hearns, srl, duran, vs. trinidad, & de la hoya comparison, is a joke as well, whereas, marvelous marvin hagler, beat 2 true atg fighters, in thomas hearns, and roberto duran, who both captured titles in the 168, and 175 lb. divisions, whereas, tito trinidad's and oscar de la hoya's careers, fizzled @ 160 lbs, and nobody, who is sane at least, would never mistake felix trinidad, and oscar de la hoya, for true atg fighters (word).... just as a side note, the only loss, on marvelous marvin hagler's record, that was not avenged, was to true atg, sugar ray leonard...I have no problem with your choice of Hagler he was great but you do seem to be overly hard on Hopkins. I really don't get how he scaled down to middleweight. If Hopkins was not a natural middleweight he could not possibly have been so successful there for so many years. Obviously 175 was not his right weight and he realized that after his first fight so he never rematched Mitchell, a guy most fans never heard of. Do you really believe Hopkins would be unable to beat Mitchell in a rematch? Yes, Hearns was a better middleweight than Oscar but Duran was not a better middleweight than Trinidad. You make it sound like Hopkins defended his tittle against 20 mediocre fighters and that's not true. Hagler lost his tittle to Leonard at age 33 I think. Benard lost to Taylor at age 40 and that's the difference. I really think Benard beat Taylor and Hagler beat Leonard. Don't you think Hopkins would destroy Taylor in a rematch? Duran never won a tittle at 168 or 175 .

Hopkins sealed it once he moved up. turbotime, if you use that analogy, then bernard hopkins record, looks worse, imo, because bernard hopkins, in 62 total fights, didn't avenge his losses to clinton mitchell, jermaine taylor 2x, joe calzaghe, and chad dawson, whereas, the only unavenged loss on marvelous marvin hagler's record, in 67 total fights, is sugar ray leonard, my man

Both dominated at middleweight for about the same amount of time. One beat two of the greatest fighters ever while there and a few damn good fighters as well. Hagler wins.

on the middlewight tip, marvelous marvin hagler, over bernard hopkins, all day, every day.... whether the hopkins fanboys like it or not, the fact is, that bernard hopkins, lost his first fight at lightheavy, and scaled down to middeweight, to beat up on the likes of part-time firefighters like bo james, and a weaker middleweight division overall, than marvelous marvin hagler's, whereas marvelous marvin hagler, avenged both of his early losses, to willie the worm monroe, and bobby boogaloo watts, and the draws, to vito antuofermo, and sugar ray seales...bernard hopkins, never avenged the loss to clinton mitchell, and, by the time bernard hopkins, avenged the early loss to roy jones, damn near 20 years later, both fighters were two divisions north, and roy jones, was a shell of his former self...bernard hopkins, also never avenged the two losses at middleweight, to jermain taylor... the hearns, srl, duran, vs. trinidad, & de la hoya comparison, is a joke as well, whereas, marvelous marvin hagler, beat 2 true atg fighters, in thomas hearns, and roberto duran, who both captured titles in the 168, and 175 lb. divisions, whereas, tito trinidad's and oscar de la hoya's careers, fizzled @ 160 lbs, and nobody, who is sane at least, would never mistake felix trinidad, and oscar de la hoya, for true atg fighters (word).... just as a side note, the only loss, on marvelous marvin hagler's record, that was not avenged, was to true atg, sugar ray leonard...

It's very close to me. Hagler was a great champion and he defended the tittle at least two or three times a year. There was no top middleweight in his time as champion that he did not fight and beat that I know of. Hopkins has the middleweight record of 20 successful tittle defenses. Maybe Hagler fought a tougher group of middleweights overall. Both of them fought lighter men that were moving up a couple of times. So what, as long as they were worthy challengers, and they were. I give Hopkins a very small edge for these reasons. He was middleweight champion longer, with more defenses. He had an even longer time on top than Hagler and he was successful at 175. If they fought in their primes I think it's an even fight. Two of the best middleweights of all time in my opinion.

Hopkins resume is clearly better and its pretty obvious. This doesn't mean Bernard beats Hagler but Hopkins accomplished a lot more.

I'll probably be crucified on here for this because people think it makes you look like a hardcore boxing fan if you say a great fighter from a past era is better than a great from this era. But fact is that alot of people say hopkins best wins were against smaller guys guys moving, and if thats the case what does that make Hagler, i mean really he beat some very good middleweights but his legacy is based solely on fights with guys from lower divisions. Hearns: good win, ill give him that. Duran: won a clear but close decision against someone fighting 3 (4 if you include jmw) weight classes above his best. Leonard: Whether you think he won or lost, Hagler had a close fight with a welterweight that had 1 fight in 5 years. The rest are good wins but nothing special, his resume isnt all that. This dude nailed it like it was nothing bravo to you good sir

Hopkins on numbers, but if you factor in the pictures it's Hagler.

better resume hopkins

If you look at the overall body of work it's Hopkins.

Thats a tough one...on one hand Hagler beat greats like Tommy Hearns, Roberto Duran and fought tough fighters like John the beast Mugabi. But then on the other hand Bernard Hopkins defending the middleweight title 20 times, and dominated the division for a decade before losing. Then afterwards he went up to light heavyweight and dominated the light heavyweight champion. He has also won a number of marquee fights in his 40's, which isn't easy to do. Everyone is going to say Hagler because he is from the golden era of boxing and they will say he fought way tough competition, but I'm leaning towards Hopkins because his resume looks more impressive to me.

vote and discuss

I'll probably be crucified on here for this because people think it makes you look like a hardcore boxing fan if you say a great fighter from a past era is better than a great from this era. But fact is that alot of people say hopkins best wins were against smaller guys guys moving, and if thats the case what does that make Hagler, i mean really he beat some very good middleweights but his legacy is based solely on fights with guys from lower divisions. Hearns: good win, ill give him that. Duran: won a clear but close decision against someone fighting 3 (4 if you include jmw) weight classes above his best. Leonard: Whether you think he won or lost, Hagler had a close fight with a welterweight that had 1 fight in 5 years. The rest are good wins but nothing special, his resume isnt all that.