How is Marvin Hagler not the best MW of all time?

[BillyBoxing]

somebody explain this one to me

Well,his great fights are against two welterweights and one lightweight.

He had a tough night with Duran,a lightweight,and I thought he lost to Leonard,a welterweight coming after a lay off.

He never has beaten a great middleweight,I mean,Robinson's legacy and Grebb's are better by miles.

Hagler is in the Hopkins league,and I think Hopkins is better than Hagler.

Hagler has a ****in charisma,he was a great fighter,but not greatest MW,maybe even not top 5.

[BillyBoxing]

If we're gonna go by "the man" theory as champions, then here's who Hopkins beat:

Oscar De La Hoya (@ 147, beat the #1 Whitaker when he was #2 in [B]the division)
Felix Trinidad (@ 147, beat De La Hoya)
Glen Johnson (@ 175, beat Tarver (who beat Jones))

The difference is: Hopkins beat "the men" at the better point in their careers than Monzon did with his.

Monzon's victories over Valdez and Benvenuti are legit. Valdez ended up becoming the lineal champion and Benvenuti was the lineal champion when Monzon beat him. But Griffith was considered past his prime whose his best years were behind him. Napoles had only one fight at middleweight. Keep in mind that the fight was even up until he retired in his corner.

Monzon's win over Moyer is debatable. If you consider that a legit win, fine.

One sided opinion!!

Napoles had only one fight at middleweight.
So had Tito and Oscar at 160,and Oscar lost this only MW fight.

Oscar at 160 was a joke.
Griffith wasn't shot at all.
Benvenuti and Napoles over Joppy and Johnson.

Monzon's middleweight reign bodies Hopkins rein.

[them_apples]

Hopkins himself thinks he would have lost to Monzon though.

when has he ever said that? Either way, that means nothing. You should know that The great A.

Floyd Mayweather thinks he could beat Leonard, Duran and Hagler all in one night.

[TheGreatA]

when has he ever said that? Either way, that means nothing. You should know that The great A.

Floyd Mayweather thinks he could beat Leonard, Duran and Hagler all in one night.

When it comes to being a student of the game I take Hopkins's word over Mayweather's though. As great a boxer as Mayweather is, I don't think he has spent too many hours watching tapes of the old time greats. Hopkins has. He knows how he matches up with them. For Mayweather it's just promotional talk.

“Sugar Ray Robinson at 147 pounds was close to perfect,” Hopkins posits. “But at middleweight, he was beatable. I would have fought Ray Robinson in close and not given him room to do his thing. He’d make me pay a physical price. But at middleweight, I think I’d wear him down and win. Me and Marvin Hagler would have been a war. We’d both be in the hospital afterward with straws in our mouth. We’d destroy each other. I wouldn’t run from Marvin. My game-plan would be, rough him up, box, rough him up, box. You wouldn’t use judges for that fight. You’d go by the doctors’ reports. Whichever one of us is damaged less gets the win. Carlos Monzon? I could lose that fight. Monzon was tall, rangy, did everything right. I see myself losing that fight more than winning it. I ain’t saying I’m number one, but I’m one of the best middleweights of all time. My legacy is what it is. If you want to be great, then beat Bernard Hopkins.”

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/bernard-hopkins-history-in-the-making

[HaglerSteelChin]

Me and Marvin Hagler would have been a war. We’d both be in the hospital afterward with straws in our mouth. We’d destroy each other. I wouldn’t run from Marvin. My game-plan would be, rough him up, box, rough him up, box. You wouldn’t use judges for that fight. You’d go by the doctors’ reports. Whichever one of us is damaged less gets the win.

I take Bhop's comments with a grain of salt. I personally don't think he would try to outslug marvelous even if he is the bigger fighter. BHOP was even cautious with a fighter like DLH who started Super Featherweight and he is to give us Hagler vs Hearns part 2? Bhop in his earlier days would be more aggressive but eventually evolved to a cautious methodical fighter who capitalized on his opponents mistakes. His last KO was the DLH fight which was like 6 years ago. I personally thought he gave away the Calzaghe fight for not being more aggressive and got outworked. But he almost dropped Calzaghe a second time in the last seconds of one of the latter rounds; he had to believe that his blows were more effective and needed to take risks.

[Thread Stealer]

Despite what Hopkins says, I would expect Hopkins-Hagler to be a pretty tactical fight.

If it's the older Hagler who's slower on his feet and easier to hit, then maybe we get a war. Even then, if Hagler's more aggressive and tries to fight more of a brawl and on the inside, then I think Hopkins would use some spoiling tactics, along with his dirty tricks in there. Holding and hitting, using his head, etc..

[Royalty]

One sided opinion!!

Napoles had only one fight at middleweight.
So had Tito and Oscar at 160,and Oscar lost this only MW fight.

Oscar at 160 was a joke.
Griffith wasn't shot at all.
Benvenuti and Napoles over Joppy and Johnson.

Monzon's middleweight reign bodies Hopkins rein.

Trinidad won a world title by knocking out Joppy, before facing Hopkins. So it was at least proven that he could compete competitively with middleweights.

DLH managed to keep the Sturm fight competitive, even though most believe he lost the fight. Part of the reason for his lackluster performance was because of his poor conditioning. He didn't take the fight as seriously as he should've.

[TheGreatA]

I think Hagler vs Hopkins would have been a rough, physical fight. Hopkins would do his usual spoiling and Hagler would respond. A prime Hopkins never truly had to run from anybody. Even against Trinidad, known to be a one-dimensional puncher, he elected to trade punches in the late rounds. He has only gotten as cautious because he's old.

It wouldn't have been an all-out war and a slugfest and I don't Hopkins means that it would have been. He says that he would have boxed and roughed him up in close, not that he would have stood right in front of Hagler.

I can't see it being like the Duran fight where Hagler fully expected Duran to come to him but Duran wouldn't and thus Hagler himself ended up being the unwilling aggressor. Against a 6'1 opponent I figure he'd be the aggressor from the beginning, if not as aggressive as he was against Hearns due to Hopkins's greater strength and infighting ability. Hagler would be looking to outwork Hopkins I think, putting pressure on him so that Hopkins wouldn't be able to control the fight. I imagine it would be tactical but also very rough and a tough fight for both men.