Hagler Vs. Hopkins: who wins? explain.

[them_apples]

For some reason Hagler seems underappreciated in these parts. Few people point out the man had good boxing skills himself and wasn't just a brawler. Marvin went to war when he needed to but that was only one of several tools in his arsenal.

Poet

I recognize Haglers skills, I've always said he had underrated defense. But would you pick him over a prime Hopkins in this matchup? I'm just basing it on styles. Hagler hated how Leonard kept moving, he also had trouble with tougher fighters like Mugabi. Hopkins has both of those + a solid defense to go with it.

I'm sure there are many fighters on Hopkins resume that Hagler would have made short work with, but on a styles vs styles matchup it seems like Hopkins' ball game. I could be wrong though.

[Thread Stealer]

what the hell are you talking about? that was THE LINEAL LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE! That IS the Title.

Erdei is linear. Protected as hell, but lineal champ. Hill to DM to Gonzalez to Erdei.

Jones was the best 175 lb fighter at the time, but he wasn't lineal. The Ring gave him their belt in 2002 for winning the "big 3" (IBF/WBA/WBC), but even Nigel Collins said that if the policy were around in the mid 90s, then DM most likely would've been their champ.

Just one of numerous cases where the lineal champ is not the best fighter in the division.

[StarshipTrooper]

I recognize Haglers skills, I've always said he had underrated defense. But would you pick him over a prime Hopkins in this matchup? I'm just basing it on styles. Hagler hated how Leonard kept moving, he also had trouble with tougher fighters like Mugabi. Hopkins has both of those + a solid defense to go with it.

I'm sure there are many fighters on Hopkins resume that Hagler would have made short work with, but on a styles vs styles matchup it seems like Hopkins' ball game. I could be wrong though.

Absolutely I would. It's not ALL about styles: That stuff announcers parrot on TV is an over-simplification. Overwelming style mismatches such as Foreman Vs. Name Your Pressure Fighter or Ken Norton Vs. a slick boxer are fairly rare. Certain styles give other styles "trouble" but ultimately the better fighter STILL usually wins. He may not win as easily as he might against the same caliber of opponent who fights another style but he still wins. In the case of this matchup I rate Hagler 3rd ATG and Hopkins 5: In other words I see Hagler as being a bit better fighter than Hopkins. At the same time I don't see any overwelming stylistic mismatch that would act as an "equalizer".

Poet

[Kid McCoy]

what the hell are you talking about? that was THE LINEAL LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE! That IS the Title.

Lineal? The "linearity" came from Roy Jones, whose own claim to that title was spurious given that Michalczewski had already beaten "lineal" champ Virgil Hill to unify three belts.

That's a just a bugbear of mine. When Hopkins moved up to challenge Tarver there were lots of mentions of Ray Robinson, who as middleweight champ failed to win the light-heavy title, but none whatsoever of **** Tiger, who actually succeeded.

Calzaghe was in the prime of his career at 36, Hopkins wasn't. No way in hell has Calzaghe ever looked better. Just like JMM Calzaghe was a fresh mid 30's fighter. Hopkins prime lasted till he was probably 39 years of age, then he started trying to conserve his energy and his amazing workrate dropped to all time lows.

Pretty easy to see Hopkins came out on top of nearly every exchange and delt more damage than Calzaghe, only he hardly thew anything.

Calzaghe was most certainly not in his prime at 36. For his part, I thought he fought a pretty poor fight. In fact it was a pretty poor fight full stop. But Calzaghe forced the action throughout, threw more, landed more, and he didn't blot his copybook with the kind of tactics Hopkins resorted to. After four rounds Hopkins seemed to give up trying to win and went into survival mode. Sure Hopkins made him look bad, but you need more than that to win a fight, and the bolded part is basically why I thought he lost.

[them_apples]

Lineal? The "linearity" came from Roy Jones, whose own claim to that title was spurious given that Michalczewski had already beaten "lineal" champ Virgil Hill to unify three belts.

That's a just a bugbear of mine. When Hopkins moved up to challenge Tarver there were lots of mentions of Ray Robinson, who as middleweight champ failed to win the light-heavy title, but none whatsoever of **** Tiger, who actually succeeded.



Calzaghe was most certainly not in his prime at 36. For his part, I thought he fought a pretty poor fight. In fact it was a pretty poor fight full stop. But Calzaghe forced the action throughout, threw more, landed more, and he didn't blot his copybook with the kind of tactics Hopkins resorted to. After four rounds Hopkins seemed to give up trying to win and went into survival mode. Sure Hopkins made him look bad, but you need more than that to win a fight, and the bolded part is basically why I thought he lost.

JMM is in his prime at 35, Hopkins was prime at 36, Calzaghe WAS in his prime at 36. Against Hopkins he looked bad because it was Hopkins, against a shot Jones he looked great. He was definitely in his prime. I can't really see how he landed more either, I'm not debating weither he won and all, since Hopkins didn't do enough either - but Calzaghe really didn't land anything.

[Pac-Attack]

Hagler over Hopkins

who wins this dream match,
dont simply say who, but explain,
how do you think they'd win,
what do they have that will make the fight
tip in there favor?

In my opinion Hagler would be victorious. If it was a twelve rounder, he would beat the executioner by UD, but if it was 15 rounds it would be by way of knockout. I do agree that B-Hop, due to his height and reach advantages, would win the first few rounds. He will show his craftiness by outboxing hagler. However by round 5, Hagler will begin to turn it around. He is far physically superior to hopkins and will impose his will. He will go hard to the body early and often. Hagler was able to take the best of the Hitman's bombs, and go on to win the fight. Since hopkins isn't nearly as powerful as Hearns, Hagler will be confident knowing that he can't be hurt, and will fight furiously. In the end, Marvelous Marvin will put too much pressure and will pick Bernard apart. Another important key is hagler's volume punching that will destroy his opponent.

[them_apples]

Absolutely I would. It's not ALL about styles: That stuff announcers parrot on TV is an over-simplification. Overwelming style mismatches such as Foreman Vs. Name Your Pressure Fighter or Ken Norton Vs. a slick boxer are fairly rare. Certain styles give other styles "trouble" but ultimately the better fighter STILL usually wins. He may not win as easily as he might against the same caliber of opponent who fights another style but he still wins. In the case of this matchup I rate Hagler 3rd ATG and Hopkins 5: In other words I see Hagler as being a bit better fighter than Hopkins. At the same time I don't see any overwelming stylistic mismatch that would act as an "equalizer".

Poet

yea point taken, not an overwhelming stylistic match up - just things such as Hopkins movement, and the frustration he could endow on a shorter fighter. Those were the things I figured would act as an equalizer as you put it. Leonard gave him fits by running and he was the smaller fighter, Hopkins would most likely run, only he's a bigger dude than Leonard and has more pop at MW.

Hagler wasn't in his prime when he fought SRL, so I guess that needs to be taken into consideration as well, I just find it very hard to see Hopkins losing to a slightly slower fighter.

I should point out although Hopkins likes to think he does well against southpaws, guys like Winky gave him trouble ( he was past prime as well in this case). Winky however is a left hand dominant southpaw, as opposed to Haglers basis on his right hook. I wonder how that plays out.

[GJC]

That's a just a bugbear of mine. When Hopkins moved up to challenge Tarver there were lots of mentions of Ray Robinson, who as middleweight champ failed to win the light-heavy title, but none whatsoever of **** Tiger, who actually succeeded.

Must say that Tiger seems to be a bit of a forgotten man around here, I thought he was a very very good fighter but he rarely gets mentioned.
He had an awful lot of losses on his record but would I believe give most MW's and LHW's a hell of a fight.

[GJC]

Leonard gave him fits by running and he was the smaller fighter, Hopkins would most likely run, only he's a bigger dude than Leonard and has more pop at MW.

Hagler wasn't in his prime when he fought SRL, so I guess that needs to be taken into consideration as well

Yes I think people are saying prime Hagler but then lending too much weight to the Leonard fight when he wasn't prime and fought a terrible fight tatically.

[STILL_DETOX]

depends on how hopkins deals with the pressure