Ranking Hopkins Over Hagler, Can It Be Justified?

[ИATAS]

Nothing strange about what i said... "i said it is my opinion" and regardless of which weight or what age Hopkins was fighting Calzaghe, he had an excellent opportunity and blew it

of course it's your opinion, it's all opinions mostly. IMO I just don't see how that effects him because yes, his age and higher weight class were factors. As for "blowing" the calzaghe fight, I think it's clear hopkins was running out of steam in the later rounds and some of the antics were him getting a breather. To me that's a sign of age effecting his performance. Would a younger bhop ran out of steam? no way, hopkins was always known for his fantastic stamina. Post 40 though he sloowed down considerably with exception to the pavlik fight but pavlik doesn't move as much as calzaghe and was a much easier opponent based on styles.

[ИATAS]

Welcome to NSB Natas
Either way it would of been a good fight. Hopefully one of these days, they create a really cool computer simulation, so we can see these fights

hell yeah. Maybe in 10-20 years.

[StarshipTrooper]

hell yeah. Maybe in 10-20 years.

Dang Natas, you in Seattle? I'm in Tacoma now lol :hahahaha9:

Poet

[BennyST]

hopkins is better than hagler without pascal.p4p and in mw.both their biggest wins at m.w were against blown up welters,so tito and tommy cancel out.after leonard and oscar their records are pedestrian and pretty much even.i believe hopkins fought the better fighters overall a mw but not by much but hagler should definitely be ehind hopkins

The big difference being that Tito was not actually very good at MW and after Hopkins never really had another good win or did anything. Hearns on the other hand went on ti win the MW title, along with moving up and beating the prime, undefeated ATG LHW Virgil Hill.

Hearns win is way better than a Tito win at MW. Hearns was still great at MW, Tito wasn't. Duran was also a better win than Oscar as Duran was the current JMW titlist and went on to win a genuine MW title. Oscar never really won a MW title properly, with that farce against Sturm.

Hopkins' overall resume is probably better if he also beats Pascall but it is still up for debate, but Hagler's MW resume, imo, is a lot better than Hopkins'. Haglers is actually quite underrated to be honest and his wins against the top contenders were very good. I think his wins over Hamsho are especially underrated. The guy just came off wins over HOF Benitez, undefeated future great and three time champ in three different divisions Bobby Czyz (which was Czyz' only loss in a decade as pro and his only loss until eventually losing the LHW title five years after), as well as champ Alan Minter, Curtis Parker, an undefeated Wilford Scypion and Bobby Watts to get his placing, among other top wins. Not only that but he was all but undefeated himself with his only loss in his whole career coming in his very first pro fight. He also didn't lose again until the next Hagler fight. He was a very underrated fighter was Hamsho. Hamsho has a better resume than someone like Joppy!

Then you have other top guys at the time, like the former champs and top contenders. The difference being that Hagler held all the titles for so long and there were only the two major ones that no one else could actually get one whereas Hopkins' era had all five titles going.

Also, people forget about Hagler's early wins over fighters like Bennie Briscoe, Seales, Watts, Mike Colbert (undefeated top prospect and contender), Monroe, Hart etc. They were all top contenders and very good fighters. Many of these guys would have been alphabet titlists in this era and the others like Hamsho, Roldan, Mugabi (earlier than when he was champion I mean, which he won about three years after fighting Hagler), Obelmejias, Lee, Scypion etc etc etc.

He actually has a very good, top heavy resume at 160. It gets overlooked for some reason and if you try to make out Hopkins is underrated, then you certainly don't know enough about Hagler's because his is genuinely underrated.

Anyway, ranking Hopkins over Hagler P4P can be justified, but not at MW. No chance.

[BennyST]

hagler faced better m.w opposition???thats not possible.
jones
glen johnson
mercado
taylor
jackson
holmes
eastman
echols

hearns is definitely haglers biggest win.im not saying best or toughest,but biggest name win.duran was a better mw cause he actually fougt there for a good run,oscar only had 2 fights there.1 really being as how hopkins was a catchweight.but i wasnt even counting duran as he was well past his best when he fought hagler.i was actually comparing leonard with oscar

as for hagler
hamsho
roldan
monroe
mugabi
minter
thats all i can squeeze out of haglers resume.and no i dont consider antufermo a quality fighter

hopkins biggest wins are better than hagler,clearly his mw wins are better as hagler lost,and had draws to limited comp,and clearly fought tougher fighters overall.and hops at the time was only the 2nd guy to see the final bell against jones

What the ****? You don't consider Antuofermo a quality fighter even though he was a champ but you list Mercado, Echols, Eastman, Holmes, Jackson etc as great wins for Hopkins?



Go figure that one folks.

You can only squeeze five fighters out of Hagler's resume? You list the **** of Hopkins best wins at MW, but miss out on guys who are easily equal and better than someone like Eastman, Echols, etc?

What did these guys do that was better? Johnson, Echols, Eastman etc were never actually middleweight titlists (or ever titlists for that matter apart from Johnson) and you were also listing Hopkins losses? What happened then to listing Leonard, Hearns, Duran, and Briscoe, Watts, Seales etc for Hagler?

A fighter like Eastman looks good on paper (especially at 40-1), but anyone who saw him or knows about his resume also knows it wasn't much.

[r.burgundy]

The big difference being that Tito was not actually very good at MW and after Hopkins never really had another good win or did anything. Hearns on the other hand went on ti win the MW title, along with moving up and beating the prime, undefeated ATG LHW Virgil Hill.

Hearns win is way better than a Tito win at MW. Hearns was still great at MW, Tito wasn't. Duran was also a better win than Oscar as Duran was the current JMW titlist and went on to win a genuine MW title. Oscar never really won a MW title properly, with that farce against Sturm.

Hopkins' overall resume is probably better if he also beats Pascall but it is still up for debate, but Hagler's MW resume, imo, is a lot better than Hopkins'. Haglers is actually quite underrated to be honest and his wins against the top contenders were very good. I think his wins over Hamsho are especially underrated. The guy just came off wins over HOF Benitez, undefeated future great and three time champ in three different divisions Bobby Czyz (which was Czyz' only loss in a decade as pro and his only loss until eventually losing the LHW title five years after), as well as champ Alan Minter, Curtis Parker, an undefeated Wilford Scypion and Bobby Watts to get his placing, among other top wins. Not only that but he was all but undefeated himself with his only loss in his whole career coming in his very first pro fight. He also didn't lose again until the next Hagler fight. He was a very underrated fighter was Hamsho. Hamsho has a better resume than someone like Joppy!

Then you have other top guys at the time, like the former champs and top contenders. The difference being that Hagler held all the titles for so long and there were only the two major ones that no one else could actually get one whereas Hopkins' era had all five titles going.

Also, people forget about Hagler's early wins over fighters like Bennie Briscoe, Seales, Watts, Mike Colbert (undefeated top prospect and contender), Monroe, Hart etc. They were all top contenders and very good fighters. Many of these guys would have been alphabet titlists in this era and the others like Hamsho, Roldan, Mugabi (earlier than when he was champion I mean, which he won about three years after fighting Hagler), Obelmejias, Lee, Scypion etc etc etc.

He actually has a very good, top heavy resume at 160. It gets overlooked for some reason and if you try to make out Hopkins is underrated, then you certainly don't know enough about Hagler's because his is genuinely underrated.

Anyway, ranking Hopkins over Hagler P4P can be justified, but not at MW. No chance.

hearns career at mw was better cause he fought there longer,but come on man,his title run lasted 1 fight.the belt he fought for was vacant.not like he earned it.even if tito stayed at mw,hops was the linear champ so no way for tito to get 1 of those belts.and i mean a major belt

same with oscar.he fought once at mw.felix sturm was a good fighter,oscar got a close decision.the sturm that fought oscar wouldve beaten duran.but again i was comparing oscar to leonard.even though duran was able to beat barkley,that just isnt a good win for hagler imo
i said hamsho was a very good win.his 2nd best win imo.

[r.burgundy]

What the ****? You don't consider Antuofermo a quality fighter even though he was a champ but you list Mercado, Echols, Eastman, Holmes, Jackson etc as great wins for Hopkins?



Go figure that one folks.

You can only squeeze five fighters out of Hagler's resume? You list the **** of Hopkins best wins at MW, but miss out on guys who are easily equal and better than someone like Eastman, Echols, etc?

What did these guys do that was better? Johnson, Echols, Eastman etc were never actually middleweight titlists (or ever titlists for that matter apart from Johnson) and you were also listing Hopkins losses? What happened then to listing Leonard, Hearns, Duran, and Briscoe, Watts, Seales etc for Hagler?

A fighter like Eastman looks good on paper (especially at 40-1), but anyone who saw him or knows about his resume also knows it wasn't much.

i didnt use the word great to describe those guys lol.they were solid wins.i didnt even count guys like joppy or simon brown,or carl daniels.i took the best guys off his resume.not just a guy with a good record

which guys on haglers resume that i missed would be = to or better than eastman,echols etc?

i didnt list hearns and leonard for the same reason i didnt list tito and oscar.and before you say i listed them you might need to look twice.i only wanted to list legit mw's.nobody blown up.but if im gonna count guys like scypion,sibson,and obelmejias then i should count guys like brown,allen,hakkar,and vanderpool for hopkins.imo,all those guys cancel each other out.they were decent fighters,but nothing to write home about.imo browns win over norris is better than any win other than maybe hamsho over cyyz,by the guys i listed from hagler.and i didnt even count brown

even though hops lost,the jones jr he fought was head and shoulders better than anybody hagler fought,and that shouldnt be debatable.and the list was made to judge their competition at that weight.hagler has not been in the ring with 1 atg mw or even a top 40-50 type of guy.

eastman was a solid guy.he was a euro belt holder plenty times,i thought he was the 1st to beat duddy but he was absolutely robbed.he gave arthur abraham a good fight and beat evan ashira.even echols was in his fights with mundine and kazmarazin up until the end despite being well past it,which proves these guys are quality wins

[Toney616]

hagler faced better m.w opposition???thats not possible.
Jones

He lost that fight

glen johnson

Green contender, hadn't fought anyone relevant. Wouldnt really become a solid fighter until he hit lhw

mercado

Journeyman

taylor

Hopkins lost both of those fights

jackson

Washed up, coming off a loss to a fighter with a record of 9-6

holmes

B class fighter, Hopkins should of dqed, disgusting fight

eastman

Journeyman

echols

B class, contender nothing special

hearns is definitely haglers biggest win.im not saying best or toughest,but biggest name win.

True. And Hearns was a better fighter than Tito

duran was a better mw cause he actually fougt there for a good run,oscar only had 2 fights there.1 really being as how hopkins was a catchweight.but i wasnt even counting duran as he was well past his best when he fought hagler

History still shows that he was a better mw than Oscar, even if Duran was past his best.

.I was actually comparing leonard with oscar

Why?

as for hagler
hamsho
roldan
monroe
mugabi
minter
thats all i can squeeze out of haglers resume.and no i dont consider antufermo a quality fighter

Neither do I
The rest were decent fighters

hopkins biggest wins are better than hagler,clearly his mw wins are better as hagler lost,and had draws to limited comp,and clearly fought tougher fighters overall.

But he avenged those losses and he won the first Antufurmo fight
See also my breakdown of Hopkins opposition

and hops at the time was only the 2nd guy to see the final bell against Jones

But that doesn't mean much, seeing as how Jones hadn't really fought anyone worth mentioning up to that point.

For the record I think the G-man stops Jones at mw

[djtmal]

hopkins can't hold marvin's jockstrap

[sonnyboyx2]

Hagler's quality of opponents is superior to what Hopkins fought at middleweight:

Hagler

Duran
Sibson
Finnigan
Hearns
Roldan
Briscoe
Watts
Seales
Mugabi
Hart
Minter
Antuofermo
Hamsho

HOPKINS

Johnson
Trinidad
Delahoya
Joppy
Holmes
Brown
Jackson