Ranking Hopkins Over Hagler, Can It Be Justified?

[Toney616]

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

Thanks for this. I havent seen all of those fights so I couldnt comment on how good a lot of those guys were

[r.burgundy]

He lost that fight

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

Journeyman

Hopkins lost both of those fights

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

B class fighter, Hopkins should of dqed, disgusting fight

Journeyman

B class, contender nothing special

True. And Hearns was a better fighter than Tito

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

Why?

Neither do I
The rest were decent fighters

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

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

all the fights i listed werent about wins and loses.its to show that hopkins has been in with better comp than hagler.and jones no matter how green was head and shoulders above anybody hagler fought.

hearns was better but tito had a better chin and hopkins was actually an underdog.and they were both welters.
he was a better mw cause he actually campaigned there.but by record oscar is 1-1 at mw lol.but either way,outside or barkley,sturm is better than anybody duran beat at mw
you can call echols b class but he has hung with a-class comp in karmazin and mundine.please show me 1 hagler foe besides the little guys who have done this
holmes was a good fighter and he was part of the mw tourney king had to fight tito.
i think gman detonates hagler also
point is their comp was decent not great for both guys

[r.burgundy]

Thanks for this. I havent seen all of those fights so I couldnt comment on how good a lot of those guys were

they werent very good at all

[Toney616]

all the fights i listed werent about wins and loses.its to show that hopkins has been in with better comp than hagler.

But how do you reach that conclusion? Guys like Echols, Johnson etc were no better than Antufermo and Minter. It would also help if Hopkins actually beat the best mw's he faced i.e Jones and Taylor*2

and jones no matter how green was head and shoulders above anybody hagler fought.

True. But Hopkins never beat him

hearns was better but tito had a better chin and hopkins was actually an underdog.and they were both welters.

Hearns proved that he could hang with the big guys by fighting all the way up to cw. Tito beat Joppy who was basically a contender. We also have the whole hand wrap incident.

The reason Hopkins was a underdog was because:
1: No one like him or cared for the way he fought
2: People got carried away with Titos win over Joppy

he was a better mw cause he actually campaigned there.but by record oscar is 1-1 at mw lol.but either way,outside or barkley,sturm is better than anybody duran beat at mw

It would of been nice, if Oscar actually beat Sturm as well, lol
Duran showed he had something left in the tank by beating Barkley. Oscar moved back down to jmw and got koed by a sfw

you can call echols b class but he has hung with a-class comp in karmazin and mundine.please show me 1 hagler foe besides the little guys

Roldan hanged with Nunn
Hamsho beat Cryz

Not familiar with Karmazin or Mundine. But I do know that Mundine isnt A class. What has he done to be considered elite?

holmes was a good fighter and he was part of the mw tourney king had to fight tito.

What are his best wins? Hopkins should of got dqed as well for his continuous low blows

i think gman detonates hagler also

Hagler has never been dropped, koed or really badly hurt. so this opinion doesn't make much sense.
Jones's chin was never really tested seeing as how he never faced any big punchers. He was dropped by lou de valle and would later get koed by one punch from Tarver, who isnt a big puncher

point is their comp was decent not great for both guys

True. Neither of them faced and beat another great mw

[Toney616]

they werent very good at all

lol at burgundy

[StarshipTrooper]

lol at burgundy

You got to remember something about rburgundy: If a fighter fought the majority of his career prior to the year 2000 then by his definition they "aren't very good" :rolleyes9:

Poet

[McGrain]

If you're stressing head to head, I think it's OK. ATG style, no.

[BennyST]

you can call echols b class but he has hung with a-class comp in karmazin and mundine.please show me 1 hagler foe besides the little guys who have done this

Are you serious? So, did you read my post about Hamsho? Apart from Hagler, he was unbeaten in a decade with wins over Benitez, undefeated Bobby Czyz, champion Minter, Bobby Watts, undefeated Wilford Scypion etc etc.

He didn't hang with them. He beat them all.

I love how you call Mundine world class A competition. If he was a win on someones resume you didn't like (ie Hagler's), you would be slagging him off from here to eternity about what an overhyped, bum, hack piece of trash he is. But hey, because Echols is on Hopkins resume and you need to make Echols look better than the ****e he was, suddenly Mundine suits your purpose of being an A class elite fighter of the highest calibre.

Come on man. Hopkins is great and overall, it's certainly arguable that he is better. What is not arguable is that Hopkins 160 resume is better though because it's just not. All his best wins, bar two in Johnson (even if greener than Hopkins was against Jones) and Tito, were out of MW.

[BennyST]

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

I didn't say you did. His best wins are his greatest wins, therefore they are his great wins. Perspective.

Simon Brown is a great win for Hopkins? No. He was ten years removed from his peak years at 147. He was heading toward forty years old. He hadn't won a single significant fight in over four years since losing to Terry Norris, then being knocked out by Pettway. Since that loss, he lost about every second fight he had and lost every fight he had from Hopkins onward before retiring a few fights later. Amazing fighter.....many, many years before. ****e when he fought BHop. He was less than a journeyman sadly.

Carl Daniels....Are you saying Daniels is one of Hopkins' best wins? Carl ****ing Daniels?!?! Man, leaving him out because you say he's one of Hopkins best wins validates everything we've been saying here. Carl Daniels beat one champion in his entire career. That being Julio Green for a vacant title, which he subsequently lost in his next fight. Apart from that one vacant title, he lost every title fight he had by KO and never beat a good fighter apart from Green....Him being the guy that got knocked out by everyone good he faced; Kessler in one round, Joppy in seven, Mitchell in four.

The big difference with not listing someone like Brown is that he was shot to ****. A dead man walking. He was a name that couldn't fight better than a 3-50 club fighter so he becomes irrelevant. It's like listing Joppy's win over Duran as a great win. It's just not. Though obviously the name value is a bit different there.

Equal to or better than Eastman and Echols? How about I list four that you left off? Bobby Watts, Willie Monroe, Eugene Hart and Sugar Ray Seales. All better than Echols and Eastman. All lost their biggest fights, but at least those guys actually have a couple of good or even great wins.

Joppy? I already explained that Hamsho has bigger and better wins than Joppy just without the meaningless title.

Do you mean Simon Brown is a win that is nothing to write home about at the time Hopkins fought him or in general? I agree that at the time, he was like beating a club fighter but Simon Brown is a probable HOFer one day and was an absolute monster of a fighter. A bit like a WW Mike McCallum. Not sure what you mean by that comment, though he was shocking by Hopkins fight.

[sonnyboyx2]

they werent very good at all

They was all very good..