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

[andrewcuff]

That was a robbery

Robbery is a bit dramatic.

Hagler fought the wrong fight for the first 4 or so rounds. As soon as he stopped trying to dance around SRL, he started putting rounds in the back. Unfortunately it was too late by then.

Also, he was so excited about finally getting SRL into the ring he gave in to a lot of demands such as ring size, gloves etc which did not help.

[Dambala]

Hagler was the better MW, and a better fighter.

[tibbar]

subjectively, im going with hagler, i like offense styled fighter, i also like defensive boxer but he should have at the least 40% offense. theres a time when i was watching bhops clinchings during fights i became disillusioned. clinching is not defense per se for me. its a demonstration of weakness. clinching is what i dislike about MMAs grappling and grabbing. when a boxers clinches excessively theres no fighting in it neither you can call it boxing, its either ones resting due to lack of stamina or to support himself due to weakened knees. if ones weakened one should surrender or the team throw in the towel. not clinch and wait for the final bell.

[New Life 79]

I think a prime Hopkins would beat Hagler, as crazy as it sounds for some here for sure. Simply because Haglers style would suit Hopkins pretty well. Hagler on the move, forcing the fight, hopkins using his great foot work and trying to counter Haglers shots.

In his prime Hopkins fought much different then he does today, something some people here doenst seem to understand. He Had a very high workrate, just look how he simply steamrolled a undefeated Glenn Johnson 1997. And was much more aggressive, faster and punched harder to.

Hopkins today is still a great fighter, but not as good as he just to be.

Of course a fight with Hagler would be not easy, but very very hard. But still, the only fighters that has caused trouble for Hopkins is fighter with great hand speed. And that doesnt Hagler have, good hand speed but not great.

In his prime Hagler was more of a boxer, using great footwork and work behind his jab. Not the ****er he became the last couple of years.

Forget a knockout, Hopkins is to smart to step into the ring with a gameplan based on trying to knock Hagler out. But rather try to move and counter, and use his speed. And his speed is/was very underrated. Of course Hopkins would have to sometimes hold his ground and chance punches with Hagler, no fighter can hold Hagler of all the time. Like Hopkins did in the Trinidad fight.

Hopkins today wins his fight more based on his ring smarts, experince and of course skills. In his prime he won more based on high work rate, speed, power etc.

[-EX-]

Hagler beat the better opponents...I think a prime for prime matchup woulda been close...

I think Bernard's style could give Hagler trouble...

[bojangles1987]

Hagler spent 11 years knocking out everyone he could, except one fight against Roberto Duran. He was better than Hopkins, although I must admit I'm a Hagler nuthugger.

[gambleer]

I think Hagler would never drew against a guy like Mercado, who would take a lot of beatings after his fights against Hopkins.
But Mercado was a bit lucky to get a draw, IMO.

[RightCross94]

Hagler beat the better opponents...I think a prime for prime matchup woulda been close...

I think Bernard's style could give Hagler trouble...

That sound about right