Marvin Hagler vs Bernard Hopkins: Who was the better middleweight?

[fightingfigs]

V.S.




Who was the better MW and how would a head to head, prime vs prime fight look??

Hagler hands down

[fightingfigs]

Hagler and it aint even close.

You see Hopkins winning an out and and out slugfest with Hearns. I don't think so.

hell no BHop wouldve stayed steer clear from a slugfest with Hearns

[heat27]

Marvin Hagler

[Adamantium]

Hagler s rated higher, but Hopkins would probbaly beat him. Hopkins is considerably taller, and bigger than Hagler, and Haglers come forward style would not do him any favors. Hagler has been outboxed.

Hopkins has also been out-boxed by Jones, Taylorx2 and I had him losing the first Mercado fight.

[donkim]

Hopkins never got beat by a washed up,inactive welterweight the way Hagler got beat.The Ray Leonard of 1987 would never have beaten Hopkins.


Most people picking Hagler have only ever seen his fight with Thomas Hearns and that's it.Don't take them too seriously.

[Adamantium]

Hopkins never got beat by a washed up,inactive welterweight the way Hagler got beat.The Ray Leonard of 1987 would never have beaten Hopkins.


Most people picking Hagler have only ever seen his fight with Thomas Hearns and that's it.Don't take them too seriously.

Welcome back Prinzmanpoppa. I remember reading your seriously biased post about Hearns and Hagler fight in the boxing history section. It was so one sided it was amazing.

[djtmal]

Hopkins never got beat by a washed up,inactive welterweight the way Hagler got beat.The Ray Leonard of 1987 would never have beaten Hopkins.


Most people picking Hagler have only ever seen his fight with Thomas Hearns and that's it.Don't take them too seriously.

ray leonard was inactive, but washed up?...Lmmfao....he watched hagler decline...

...i strongly doubt hagler loses to jones and taylor the way hopkins did...

[Rabbit ♠]

Hopkins never got beat by a washed up,inactive welterweight the way Hagler got beat.The Ray Leonard of 1987 would never have beaten Hopkins.


Most people picking Hagler have only ever seen his fight with Thomas Hearns and that's it.Don't take them too seriously.

That was a robbery

[Thread Stealer]

Hagler ranks higher all-time due to his superior resume, much of Hopkins's opposition at 160 was ****, but I actually think H2H Hopkins probalby takes a close decision. Both Hopkins and Hagler were both skilled, versatile fighters. Hagler was more powerful, and had the superior jab. The Hearns fight is one of the greatest examples of a fighter switching from his usual-style to a different one. and example of his versatility. Him being able to fight both orthodox and southpaw shows his versatlity also.

Hopkins was a bigger guy than Hagler. Taller, slight reach advantage, and fought in a different era with different rules. Most of Hagler's career was fought during the era of same-day weigh-ins, and often made 160 with room to spare. Hopkins had 30 hours to rehydrate and would have extra weight on Hagler, and in addition Hopkins was very strong anyway. This would help Hopkins in the clinches, should Hagler attack Hopkins in the way he attacked Hearns. Hopkins has said he thinks him and Hagler would be a violent war that could ruin each fighter, but that also could just be respect for Hagler or just an answer that sounds better than "a tacticial fight". But if Hagler does go with a balls-to-the-wall attack like against Tommy, I think Hopkins would have the right tactics to counter it. Hearns slugged it out, in his words, to "get some respect". Hopkins would clinch Hagler, and fight it out in the clinch.

It would be more tactical, with Hagler doing what he usually did. Box behind his great jab, move laterally, looking to open up with combinations. Hagler had nice parrying and blocking skills but I think Hopkins was still the better defensive fighter. He also had that great ability to get in the straight right hands against lefties. Great at controlling the tempo of the fight, and when he was younger (late 90s, early 00s), much more active with his hands. I think he had the quicker hands than Hagler, and the right footwork and angles, going in and out with quick short combos.

Leonard was the most skilled, Hagler was the toughest and most determined, Duran was raw power and good skill, Hearns was pure athleticism.

It's tough for me to say who truly was the best.

Hearns was the hardest hitter of the 4. Steward really helped him turn into a power punch as a pro.

Hagler was very well-rounded and had an iron chin. He didn't have the speed & athleticism of Leonard or freakish gifts like Hearns, but was a versatile fighter. Duran was never the puncher of Hearns, but was also very versatile, fast, and slipped shots well.

Actually, I think very highly of all of them in terms of versatilty, except for Hearns, and even he wasn't one-dimensional. He could press the fight and stalk opponents, and was also terrific at boxing at range (a big reason why Hagler had to fight in the manner he did that night).

[Thread Stealer]

Most people picking Hagler have only ever seen his fight with Thomas Hearns and that's it.Don't take them too seriously.

You know people only watched the Hearns fight when they say stuff like "Hagler was stop him easily, he such a ferocious animal who always came forward and overpowered guys".

I don't have a problem with anyone picking Hagler, I think it's close to a pick-em, but at least watch more of his fights to see what type of fighter he really was.