Could Bernard Hopkins beat Marvin Hagler?

[them_apples]

You aren't the only one I'm referring to. I'm often told that 'old fighters' are overrated (not only boxers from the early 1900's but the 1990's as well) which might be true in some cases but not always.

For example many Floyd Mayweather fans don't believe that Whitaker was better or even at the same level as Floyd.

I don't have a problem with anyone picking Hopkins over Hagler since both are great and I have trouble deciding who would win a fight between them myself.

The Heavyweight Champions Part 1
Uploaded by TheGreatA

Henry Armstrong
Uploaded by TheGreatA

Jersey Joe Walcott
Uploaded by TheGreatA

Do I believe these old time fighters could've beaten every boxer from the modern era? Not really, but I also do not think they were all skilless sluggers who never trained for a fight.

Again, it might be true in some cases (Galento) but some were true pioneers who deserve respect for what they did for boxing.

Fair enough, just don't go around thinking I think all old fighters are bums who have no chance. I said Cotto would have a "chance" against Whitaker (or was it Duran?) (when everyone was saying he'd get knocked out in 3 rounds) and you got all pissed at me and saved that quote and post it whenever you can.

[TheGreatA]

Fair enough, just don't go around thinking I think all old fighters are bums who have no chance. I said Cotto would have a "chance" against Whitaker (or was it Duran?) (when everyone was saying he'd get knocked out in 3 rounds) and you got all pissed at me and saved that quote and post it whenever you can.

I posted it once when you said this:

i'm one of those young people that has a rabbid dislike for boxing historians.

Why? Because they are on cloud 9 half of the time. they will rank someone like Jack Johnson over Lennox Lewis. That is just UTTER ******ity. Boxing wasn't even a developed sport back then yet they rank those fighters so high because their grand-pa used to tell them stories about them.

I watch old footage, It's fun to watch the rivalries back in the day, but no fool is going to tell me some slow moving, one punch donkey is going to KO a newer ATG who has mastered the art of boxing, has blinding handspeed and power.

George Foreman vs Joe Louis, another complete mismatch..however chances are all boxing historians will pick Louis.

a boxing historian is just that, someone who has watched a lot of fights - It doesn't mean they know who would win in a matchup.

I don't even completely disagree with it but it's not only boxing historians who have made a couple of ridiculous statements.

[StarshipTrooper]

I posted it once when you said this:



I don't even completely disagree with it but it's not only boxing historians who have made a couple of ridiculous statements.

Only a couple LOL?

Poet

[THE REED]

I don't think people quite understand what kind of a monster Hagler was in his prime.

lol exactly what i was thinking

[THE REED]

LOL @ anything involving Hagler being easy

[Reggie Miller]

Nah, but it would be a close fight.

[j.razor]

Do you guys think the ring generalship of Hopkins could get him past the hard punching Hagler in a 12 rounder?

yes...Hopkins is the bigger man.

[StarshipTrooper]

yes...Hopkins is the bigger man.

Hopkins spent practically his entire career at Middleweight as did Hagler. How does this translate into Hopkins being the "bigger" man?

Poet

[hookoutofhell]

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.

good post.

personally i think hagler would win, hopkins a top 5 middleweight, he has som great skills, a good defense, decent chin, knows how to pick his punches and is very crafty and ring savvy.

however i think you're missing one important thing. Hopkins loves to think things through by slowing the fight down when he wants to, thats why against fighters like calzaghe and taylor he didn't do too well. they forced him to think on his feet and kept up the pressure.

thats something that marvin did and did very well. i dont see marvin being confused or befuddled my hopkins. yes hopkins does often do that to other southpaws but marvin isn't just another southpaw. he would make the fight on the inside and imo hopkins plans for fighting southpaws centres around his footwork and clever movement. on the inside and aginst a good inside fighter like hagler i dont see Hopkins winning the fight.

in terms of overall greatness - got to be hagler he fought at a time when they where better middleweights around and he has the better names on his resume. if Hopkins had been robbed against SRL we would really never hear the end of it.

like i said though, good post.
________
Trichomes

[StarshipTrooper]

Vote in the new them_apples poll!

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218039