Better middleweight - Hagler or Hopkins?

[Obama]

I'm not sure about that. Sims wasn't that bad, not much worse than Felix Sturm atleast to whom everyone thought De La Hoya lost to.

Duran looked great against Davey Moore and fought an intelligent fight against Hagler. Barkley was a great win at that point and Juan Ferreyra was a contender at super middleweight for years.

Duran absolutely ancient at 47 years of age was good enough to go 1-1 with Jorge Castro, a then recent MW title holder.

Not everyone thinks DLH lost that fight. That only became a popular phrase after people needed straws to grasp at in order to discredit Hopkins career. Anyways it was a close fight, and Sturm won by no more than 2 points. He should have dominated DLH considering how fat the golden boy was. This was far from the case.

Now back to resumes. Obviously Duran did more things at MW than DLH simply because he was an active fighter and kept fighting. DLH only had 2 MW fights. BUT, DLH was definitely more natural for the weight. His height and reach compared to Duran tells the tale. AND, DLH was still prime at the time. Duran was past it. That's why Hopkins win over DLH is more impressive than Hagler's over Duran imo.

[TheGreatA]

Not everyone thinks DLH lost that fight. That only became a popular phrase after people needed straws to grasp at in order to discredit Hopkins career. Anyways it was a close fight, and Sturm won by no more than 2 points. He should have dominated DLH considering how fat the golden boy was. This was far from the case.

Now back to resumes. Obviously Duran did more things at MW than DLH simply because he was an active fighter and kept fighting. DLH only had 2 MW fights. BUT, DLH was definitely more natural for the weight. His height and reach compared to Duran tells the tale. AND, DLH was still prime at the time. Duran was past it. That's why Hopkins win over DLH is more impressive than Hagler's over Duran imo.

Duran was also a slob against Sims.

I think De La Hoya's true prime was about over after Trinidad beat him in a controversial decision. He just never got 100% focused on his boxing career again.

Duran was 32, De La Hoya was 31. Not a big difference in age and their careers were pretty much at the same stages except Duran obviously went onto fight until his 50's.

To me, Duran was the greater of the two, the more proven at 160 and fought a better fight against Hagler than De La Hoya did against Hopkins.

[Sergio Martinez]

Not everyone thinks DLH lost that fight. That only became a popular phrase after people needed straws to grasp at in order to discredit Hopkins career. Anyways it was a close fight, and Sturm won by no more than 2 points. He should have dominated DLH considering how fat the golden boy was. This was far from the case.

Now back to resumes. Obviously Duran did more things at MW than DLH simply because he was an active fighter and kept fighting. DLH only had 2 MW fights. BUT, DLH was definitely more natural for the weight. His height and reach compared to Duran tells the tale. AND, DLH was still prime at the time. Duran was past it. That's why Hopkins win over DLH is more impressive than Hagler's over Duran imo.

How do, after Hagler beat Duran. Duran went on to defeat the number #1 Middleweight in Iran Barkley.

De La Hoya had two fights at Middleweight, a gift over Sturm and a KO loss to Hopkins.

So how the **** is De La Hoya a better win for Hopkins than Duran is for Hagler? Due to being taller and having a longer reach?

That don't make no sense what so ever.

Duran was a better and more accomplished Middleweight fighter than De La Hoya. FACT!

[Sergio Martinez]

Duran was also a slob against Sims.

I think De La Hoya's true prime was about over after Trinidad beat him in a controversial decision. He just never got 100% focused on his boxing career again.

Duran was 32, De La Hoya was 31. Not a big difference in age and their careers were pretty much at the same stages except Duran obviously went onto fight until his 50's.

To me, Duran was the greater of the two, the more proven at 160 and fought a better fight against Hagler than De La Hoya did against Hopkins.

Agreed. How can any one argue with this is beyond me!

[Obama]

Duran was also a slob against Sims.

I think De La Hoya's true prime was about over after Trinidad beat him in a controversial decision. He just never got 100% focused on his boxing career again.

Duran was 32, De La Hoya was 31. Not a big difference in age and their careers were pretty much at the same stages except Duran obviously went onto fight until his 50's.

To me, Duran was the greater of the two, the more proven at 160 and fought a better fight against Hagler than De La Hoya did against Hopkins.

This whole more proven thing doesn't mean much to me. Common sense is all that's needed. DLH was the best JMW in the world. When was this the case with Duran? The JMW division was elite in DLH's day. The MW division was not. It's safe to say he would have been a top Middleweight had he actively pursued a career there.

Completely disagree that DLH was never the same after the Trinidad fight. Never even heard that said before.

As for Duran's fight with Hagler, it's not a matter of Duran fighting a great fight, it's a matter of Hagler giving him too much respect. In the case of DLH vs Hopkins, it was the case that Hopkins fought a great fight, not to mention DLH was doing better in the fight than Trinidad did as far as winning rounds goes.

How do, after Hagler beat Duran. Duran went on to defeat the number #1 Middleweight in Iran Barkley.

De La Hoya had two fights at Middleweight, a gift over Sturm and a KO loss to Hopkins.

So how the **** is De La Hoya a better win for Hopkins than Duran is for Hagler? Due to being taller and having a longer reach?

That don't make no sense what so ever.

Duran was a better and more accomplished Middleweight fighter than De La Hoya. FACT!

Read above, i don't debate he was a more accomplished Middleweight. This just doesn't make him a better one. Daniel Santos is a more accomplished JMW than Floyd Mayweather, but if the two both fought the 10 best JMWs in the world, who would come out with more wins?

Duran physically had no business at MW ever. Even in old age. DLH however right now, mid 30s, would fit a MW frame fine.

[Sergio Martinez]

This whole more proven thing doesn't mean much to me. Common sense is all that's needed. DLH was the best JMW in the world. When was this the case with Duran? The JMW division was elite in DLH's day. The MW division was not. It's safe to say he would have been a top Middleweight had he actively pursued a career there.

Completely disagree that DLH was never the same after the Trinidad fight. Never even heard that said before.

As for Duran's fight with Hagler, it's not a matter of Duran fighting a great fight, it's a matter of Hagler giving him too much respect. In the case of DLH vs Hopkins, it was the case that Hopkins fought a great fight, not to mention DLH was doing better in the fight than Trinidad did as far as winning rounds goes.



Read above, i don't debate he was a more accomplished Middleweight. This just doesn't make him a better one. Daniel Santos is a more accomplished JMW than Floyd Mayweather, but if the two both fought the 10 best JMWs in the world, who would come out with more wins?

Duran physically had no business at MW ever. Even in old age. DLH however right now, mid 30s, would fit a MW frame fine.

If Duran had no bussines being there and he was so undersized, how come he pushed Hagler to a close fight and beat the number 1 in the division after Hagler?

Were the more bigger De La Hoya, got 1 win as a middleweight which was a utter gift and got knocked out with a body shot.

If Duran and De La Hoya both fought the top 10 Middleweights of all time, Duran would have more success against them than De La Hoya, and he proves this in his performances as a Middleweight, unlike De La Hoya did.

[Blue Heffner]

Hagler, fighters back then fought anybody that was put in front of them.

[Princemanspopa]

When you gonna learn my sarcasm?

There was no obvious hint of sarcasm in your post,dunce.You made a ****** post and got called out for it,accept it.

I'm not sure about that. Sims wasn't that bad, not much worse than Felix Sturm atleast to whom everyone thought De La Hoya lost to.

You're simply trolling now.Comparing Sims to Sturm is ridiculous and you know very well that it is.

DLH was the best JMW in the world.

No he wasn't,regardless of his controversial loss to Shane Mosley,he still wasn't greater than Winky Wright at 154.

[TheGreatA]

There was no obvious hint of sarcasm in your post,dunce.You made a ****** post and got called out for it,accept it

You're simply trolling now.Comparing Sims to Sturm is ridiculous and you know very well that it is.


No he wasn't,regardless of his controversial loss to Shane Mosley,he still wasn't greater than Winky Wright at 154.

You do know that Sims was once ranked the number 1 contender at 160 and that he had wins over DeWitt, Barkley, John Collins, Tony Chiaverini, Hard Rock Green as well as Roberto Duran.

Sturm has beaten Sebastian Sylvester, Randy Griffin and a controversial decision over Khoren Gevor. An ancient Javier Castillejo managed to knock him out.

I don't see the huge difference in class.

[Princemanspopa]

Why,because Ring Magazine rated him so highly? Perhaps you should go look back on how highly rated Thomas Damgaard was by Ring Magazine also.

Iran Barkley had what,seven fights at the time he fought Robbie Sims? Sounds like a top win looking back on it,but it didn't mean **** at the time.You are clearly trolling - James Green,Tony Chiaverini - this is impressive?

Sebastian Sylvester is a greater win than any win that Sims has.Khoren Gevor wasn't robbed as you seem to suggest,he outworked Sturm early on and Sturm was able to recover later on to seal the win,the result is controversial to those who don't particularly like Sturm,I saw reviews of that fight that suggested that Gevor had won by nine to ten rounds which is ridiculous.


Just out of interest,is Caveman lee comparable to Felix Sturm also?