Could Bernard Hopkins beat Marvin Hagler?

[JAB5239]

Doesn't take long for some of them. Actually I think that's an alt (as I usually do when I see only a handful of posts and the person's being an obnoxious troll). This dude ressurected the noisome Marciano-Is-A-Bum thread so conclusions are pretty easy to draw.

Poet

Yeah, I saw that too, my man. You're probably right.

[JAB5239]

I agree Hagler was flat-footed as seen in this fight (especially at 6:40 when he plants his feet and swings wildly with no technique):

Heh, heh, heh!!!

[wmute]

B-Hop can get that W, Hagler is not slick & will be lookin 4 a fight while B-Hop will make him fight his fight...B-Hop wins ud.

Hagler was a tomato can champion. Once he foguht someone good that could handle middlewieght(even then the guy wasn't his won size!) he lost and was a bitter sore loser ever since. b-Hop would have beat his ass down in the 90's if Marvellous didn't retire so soon. I think RJJ and Toney would have too. hagler was flat footed. They would stick and move just like Sugar ray and school him.

Alts or just people who don't watch boxing except legendary nights?

[them_apples]

As great as Marvin is it's a bad matchup for him against Hopkins. Hopkins has too many tricks in his bag to deal with a fighter who's shorter and a slower than him.

UD 12 for Hopkins or a SD 12 for Hopkins.

[StarshipTrooper]

Shouldn't them_apples be checking his poll numbers?

Poet

[JAB5239]

As great as Marvin is it's a bad matchup for him against Hopkins. Hopkins has too many tricks in his bag to deal with a fighter who's shorter and a slower than him.

UD 12 for Hopkins or a SD 12 for Hopkins.

I don't think Marvin is slower than Hopkins, and Hagler made a career out of beating taller fighters. Truth is, neither guy has fought someone as good as the other. Hopkins does have a lot of tricks. But he's also never fought a guys as strong and relentless as Marvin. A boxer/puncher with a non stop motor and a granite chin. This is a tough fight to pick, and could go either way given different scenerio's. But based on workrate and middlweight competition, I have to side with Hagler. At his best, 1980-1985, Hagler was 15-0(13). A BEAST!!

[them_apples]

I don't think Marvin is slower than Hopkins, and Hagler made a career out of beating taller fighters. Truth is, neither guy has fought someone as good as the other. Hopkins does have a lot of tricks. But he's also never fought a guys as strong and relentless as Marvin. A boxer/puncher with a non stop motor and a granite chin. This is a tough fight to pick, and could go either way given different scenerio's. But based on workrate and middlweight competition, I have to side with Hagler. At his best, 1980-1985, Hagler was 15-0(13). A BEAST!!

I'm not saying the height will give Hagler problems, I'm saying Hopkins will know how to use his height against Hagler. (So in a way I guess I am) Hopkins has fought an opponent as good as Hagler, his name is Roy jones Jr, but he lost.

Hagler has a great workrate, great power, decent speed for his build..great boxing skills and a great chin. Hopkins has all that as well, less workrate however.

Hopkins is a very tricky boxer, I see him grabbing Haglers arms in the clinch, leaning on him, smothering Haglers combinations and sneaking his right hand in all night long. Let's not forget, Hagler has not fought anyone like Hopkins as well (which you said).

With Hopkins defense, I can't see him being hurt unless the opponent has a ton of speed, something Hagler lacks (not that he's slow or anything).

[JAB5239]

I'm not saying the height will give Hagler problems, I'm saying Hopkins will know how to use his height against Hagler. (So in a way I guess I am) Hopkins has fought an opponent as good as Hagler, his name is Roy jones Jr, but he lost.

Roy Jones, with 21 fights was not as good as the best Hagler.

Hagler has a great workrate, great power, decent speed for his build..great boxing skills and a great chin. Hopkins has all that as well, less workrate however.

Hagler woold also be applying that relentless pressure.

Hopkins is a very tricky boxer, I see him grabbing Haglers arms in the clinch, leaning on him, smothering Haglers combinations and sneaking his right hand in all night long. Let's not forget, Hagler has not fought anyone like Hopkins as well (which you said).

You may be right with this scenerio, its possible. But I still think Marvins experience of a better class of fighter (including two excellent fighters from Philly) will carry him to a victory.

With Hopkins defense, I can't see him being hurt unless the opponent has a ton of speed, something Hagler lacks (not that he's slow or anything).

Neither of us can say with any certainty who would win. But it would have been a great fight between two of the best all time.

[mcentepede]

Both are legends. But Hagler is above and beyond anybody in the middleweight division. Always in shape, always there to the end. Always dangerous to the end. Hagler could do it all, plus had the greatest chin pound-for-pound in history. Hopkins lost to the worst middleweight champ in history. Jermin Taylor, not once but twice. Hopkins beat Pavlik, but seriously folks, Pavlik himself admitted he needs to train more on lateraL MOVEMENTS and stuff. Hopkins also lost to roy Jones, if I am not mistaken. So Logically you guys make no sense to me.

[MikeBrew328]

I've always said that Hopkins is one of the smartest (if not THE smartest) fighter of all time. It takes brains to be able to hang with the guys Hopkins has fought in his 40's. It takes a lot of patience and discipline.

Hopkins at age 30-35 would Hagler by a close decision IMO. Hagler was a beast but not as intelligent as Hopkins. Look at how he got beat by Leonard. Turning conventional the first few rounds was not exactly the smartest thing to do. He also pretty much blew the first Antofurmo fight, he was leading in the first half then faded for whatever reason. And Antefermo was probably a natural 154. Hokins would win a close decision without a doubt IMHO.