Could Bernard Hopkins beat Marvin Hagler?

[Kid McCoy]

as usual fighters of the past get overrated, and i don't blame any of you I've done the same, buts that's just my opinion.marvin was a one handed puncher, a right handed fighter turned southpaw; hop would have neutralized that,
on top of being only 5-9. believe me, I'm no hop fan, but i have respect for his ability.
he even gave, quite possibly the most gifted boxer to ever lace a pair of gloves up in his prime in jones, a tough fight.as a nobody.that's just M.O.

Present day fighters get overrated just as easily, if not more so. Believe it or not, there are people out there who believe Floyd Mayweather is the greatest boxer of all time.

As for this fight, there's no way Hopkins has it easy. Fights involving him are usually ugly, but I don't see Marv getting ****** into his fight the way Pavlik did. Calzaghe and Taylor didn't, and they both won. I'd pick Hagler to take it on punch output and aggression.

[riera]

Present day fighters get overrated just as easily, if not more so. Believe it or not, there are people out there who believe Floyd Mayweather is the greatest boxer of all time.

As for this fight, there's no way Hopkins has it easy. Fights involving him are usually ugly, but I don't see Marv getting ****** into his fight the way Pavlik did. Calzaghe and Taylor didn't, and they both won. I'd pick Hagler to take it on punch output and aggression.

it is true present day fighters get overrated as well. But the kinda people who think PBF is all time number one are the same idiots who think bruno would beat Ali coz he was more ripped! They think Klit too is an 'advanced' modern day athelte.

calzaghe lost, and so did Taylor second time round. even if you don't think they did then you would definitely agree that it was not a prime Hopkins they foight. people seem to forget B-Hop existed before beating the overrated Tito. A prime Executioner would give a prime Marvellous a run for his money.

[wmute]

it is true present day fighters get overrated as well. But the kinda people who think PBF is all time number one are the same idiots who think bruno would beat Ali coz he was more ripped! They think Klit too is an 'advanced' modern day athelte.

calzaghe lost, and so did Taylor second time round. even if you don't think they did then you would definitely agree that it was not a prime Hopkins they foight. people seem to forget B-Hop existed before beating the overrated Tito. A prime Executioner would give a prime Marvellous a run for his money.

I had Hopkins winning Taylor 1, and losing Taylor 2 and Calzaghe

[StarshipTrooper]

Considering I believe both to be top-5 ATG Middleweights I think both are capable of beating the other. I rate Hagler a bit higher but not so much to make it an easy fight or an assured win by any means.

How is Hagler a one-handed fighter? Didn't he routinely switch back and forth from lefty to righty during his fights? How do you do that one handed? Doesn't your lead AND your power change sides when you do that? Have we really reached the point where we've forgotten how dominant Hagler was in his prime? This isn't to detract from Hopkins. I rate him higher on the Middleweight ATG list than practically anyone I know.

Poet

[AntonTheMeh]

How does Hagler get overrated? You are simply underrating him by saying it would be 'easy' for Hopkins.

Hopkins would have a lot more than Hagler's right hand to worry about. Hagler is no Kelly Pavlik, that I can tell you. He was an all-around great boxer with no real weaknesses.

Don't forget that Hagler had abnormally long arms while Hopkins' reach is relatively short.

I wouldn't describe the Jones-Hopkins fight as tough, just unspectacular. Neither fighter was at their best.

I know people are now finally giving Hopkins the respect deserves after beating a rather one-dimensional (but highly rated) puncher but he has had his struggles and is not invincible by any means. His MW resume looks weak next to Hagler's or Monzon's.

maybe i crossed the line a bit with the easy.i should have said "comfortably".
and its true that legends get overrated in hypothetical match ups.

[riera]

I had Hopkins winning Taylor 1, and losing Taylor 2 and Calzaghe

Nice one! very funny indeed. They do say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit though.

[wmute]

Nice one! very funny indeed. They do say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit though.

I thought frenchies were supposed to not see sarcasm when present, not the other way round.

[Brockton Lip]

and its true that legends get overrated in hypothetical match ups.

Possibly, or possibly not. Hopkins is said to be a legend, even before beating Pavlik, but how many people picked him at 43 to practically shut out Pavlik and dominate him from start to finish? He even had more of a punch output. Those who said that would happen, if anyone, were believed to be overrating Hopkins. In hindsight they were the only ones rating him correctly.

[Thread Stealer]

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.

[TheGreatA]

maybe i crossed the line a bit with the easy.i should have said "comfortably".
and its true that legends get overrated in hypothetical match ups.

I guess that's why everyone thinks Rocky Marciano would beat Lennox Lewis.

Isn't Hopkins a legend himself?







Hagler could do it all.