Better Resume Bernard Hopkins or Marvin Hagler?

[Larry the boss]

vote and discuss

[IIIX JACK XIII]

I'll probably be crucified on here for this because people think it makes you look like a hardcore boxing fan if you say a great fighter from a past era is better than a great from this era.
But fact is that alot of people say hopkins best wins were against smaller guys guys moving, and if thats the case what does that make Hagler, i mean really he beat some very good middleweights but his legacy is based solely on fights with guys from lower divisions.
Hearns: good win, ill give him that.
Duran: won a clear but close decision against someone fighting 3 (4 if you include jmw) weight classes above his best.
Leonard: Whether you think he won or lost, Hagler had a close fight with a welterweight that had 1 fight in 5 years.
The rest are good wins but nothing special, his resume isnt all that.

[Barry Halls]

vote and discuss

[Truth]

Thats a tough one...on one hand Hagler beat greats like Tommy Hearns, Roberto Duran and fought tough fighters like John the beast Mugabi. But then on the other hand Bernard Hopkins defending the middleweight title 20 times, and dominated the division for a decade before losing. Then afterwards he went up to light heavyweight and dominated the light heavyweight champion. He has also won a number of marquee fights in his 40's, which isn't easy to do.

Everyone is going to say Hagler because he is from the golden era of boxing and they will say he fought way tough competition, but I'm leaning towards Hopkins because his resume looks more impressive to me.

[Light_Speed]

If you look at the overall body of work it's Hopkins.

[FUC_U_PAYME]

better resume hopkins

[gingerbreadman]

Hopkins on numbers, but if you factor in the pictures it's Hagler.

[Juof]

I'll probably be crucified on here for this because people think it makes you look like a hardcore boxing fan if you say a great fighter from a past era is better than a great from this era.
But fact is that alot of people say hopkins best wins were against smaller guys guys moving, and if thats the case what does that make Hagler, i mean really he beat some very good middleweights but his legacy is based solely on fights with guys from lower divisions.
Hearns: good win, ill give him that.
Duran: won a clear but close decision against someone fighting 3 (4 if you include jmw) weight classes above his best.
Leonard: Whether you think he won or lost, Hagler had a close fight with a welterweight that had 1 fight in 5 years.
The rest are good wins but nothing special, his resume isnt all that.

This dude nailed it like it was nothing bravo to you good sir

[-MAKAVELLI-]

pernell whitaker

[jayjames616]

Hopkins resume is clearly better and its pretty obvious. This doesn't mean Bernard beats Hagler but Hopkins accomplished a lot more.