How is Marvin Hagler not the best MW of all time?

[Joey Giardello]

I agree Monzon is better than Hopkins. It just seemed like you were totally discrediting Hopkins and his accomplishments.

Like I said earlier Monzon is one of the top 3 MW's of all time.

No. Hopkins is a ATG, and I rate him very highly. But he just wasn't a greater Middle than Monzon.

[STILL_DETOX]

I agree Monzon was a better MW than Hagler, by your logic that would make Hopkins the greatest with 20 defenses.

thats wat i was thinking:wank:

[Royalty]

Part of Hopkins beating more world champs at Middleweight was because he only had one of three (or four depending on opinions of WBO regard during his time) belts. Guys like Joppy and Holmes would never have been little c 'champs' wihtout more kindergarten soccer trophies to go around. Contrast that with Monzon whose sole 'titlist' win, Valdez, went on to be the champ briefly after Monzon retired.

If we're gonna go by "the man" theory as champions, then here's who Hopkins beat:

Oscar De La Hoya (@ 147, beat the #1 Whitaker when he was #2 in [B]the division)
Felix Trinidad (@ 147, beat De La Hoya)
Glen Johnson (@ 175, beat Tarver (who beat Jones))

The difference is: Hopkins beat "the men" at the better point in their careers than Monzon did with his.

Monzon's victories over Valdez and Benvenuti are legit. Valdez ended up becoming the lineal champion and Benvenuti was the lineal champion when Monzon beat him. But Griffith was considered past his prime whose his best years were behind him. Napoles had only one fight at middleweight. Keep in mind that the fight was even up until he retired in his corner.

Monzon's win over Moyer is debatable. If you consider that a legit win, fine.

[Royalty]

At the time of the stoppage, Napoles was starting to get a beaten and his face was a mess, Dundee even said that's why he pulled him out, due to the beating Monzon was giving him and he feared for Napoles's health.

At the end of the day Hopkins, still lost his title to Taylor, who would go on to be knocked out by Pavlik, Abraham, and Froch, and mainly lived of them Hopkins's wins. Pretty bad losses for Hopkins.

And Hopkins's was struggling with a out of shape De La Hoya, before going down to bizzare body shot. Napoles>>>>>>>>>>>>De La Hoya.

And Monzon beat better fighters than Hopkins at 160lb.

And these world champions, are belt holders, due to there being so many sancationng bodies. So please stop bringing them up and calling them world champions.

And Hopkins even says he wasn't as great as Monzon and wound't have beat him.

/End Of Argument. When Hopkins even admits it himself!

Monzon beat a total of 5 lineal champions. Only 2-3 of them are considered legit middleweight wins, seeing as the others were past their prime or weren't middleweights. Trinidad and De La Hoya at least had some fight(s) at middleweight against titlists, before facing Hopkins.

And just because Hopkins says he was better, doesn't mean it's a fact. It's his opinion. Just like it's my opinion that he's better.

None of our opinions are facts. They're just.. opinions.

[crold1]

If we're gonna go by "the man" theory as champions, then here's who Hopkins beat:

Oscar De La Hoya (@ 147, beat the #1 Whitaker when he was #2 in [B]the division)
Felix Trinidad (@ 147, beat De La Hoya)
Glen Johnson (@ 175, beat Tarver (who beat Jones))

The difference is: Hopkins beat "the men" at the better point in their careers than Monzon did with his.

Monzon's victories over Valdez and Benvenuti are legit. Valdez ended up becoming the lineal champion and Benvenuti was the lineal champion when Monzon beat him. But Griffith was considered past his prime whose his best years were behind him. Napoles had only one fight at middleweight. Keep in mind that the fight was even up until he retired in his corner.

Monzon's win over Moyer is debatable. If you consider that a legit win, fine.

I don't think Hopkins's win over Johnson is any better than the Griffith wins. Johnson was younger but he was far inferior to the fighter he'd become and hadn't really fought anyone of note yet. He still had a healthy development passage that included losses as head scrtaching as Harmon and egregiously wrong (to Glen) as Gonzalez. I also factor that Johnson, even at his best, was just a good fighter. Griffith is a genuine ATG that still had some in the tank. Oscar also wasn't really at a good point; he was coming off an ass whooping. He certainly doesn't compare to Nino. Tito couldn't have been any better than he was at that point and I'll take him as a better win than Napoles.

[bklynboy]

somebody explain this one to me

I love Hagler. I was a big fan of his. He is certainly a TOP 5, mayber even a TOP 3.

SRR and Carlos Monzon were great, so too were Harry Greb and Mickey Walker. Even if Hagler is "only" a TOP 5 that's still f**king great.

[crold1]

I love Hagler. I was a big fan of his. He is certainly a TOP 5, mayber even a TOP 3.

SRR and Carlos Monzon were great, so too were Harry Greb and Mickey Walker. Even if Hagler is "only" a TOP 5 that's still f**king great.

I think a genuine case for number one can be applied to Greb, Rob, Monzon, or Hagler. Everyone else competes for five or less IMO.

[Royalty]

I don't think Hopkins's win over Johnson is any better than the Griffith wins. Johnson was younger but he was far inferior to the fighter he'd become and hadn't really fought anyone of note yet. He still had a healthy development passage that included losses as head scrtaching as Harmon and egregiously wrong (to Glen) as Gonzalez. Oscar also wasn't really at a good point; he was coming off an ass whooping. He certainly doesn't compare to Nino. Tito couldn't have been any better than he was at that point and I'll take him as a better win than Napoles.

Fair enough about Johnson. I give Hopkins good credit, though, seeing as Johnson was coming in undefeated. But if you don't want to, that's fine.

I had De La Hoya losing to Sturm but he still managed to keep it competitive. He was also out of shape, due to not taking the fight as seriously as he should've.

Plus, you also have to take into the account that there was no lineal championship, during most of Hopkins' reign. The lineal championship that most people were going by were The Ring magazine's title and they stopped doing it during his reign. I think that's a primary reason why more of the titlists that Hopkins beat didn't challenge the number one in their divisions to become "the man". There was no extra reward, since they already held a title.

All theories aside, though, it doesn't work like that and I guess we'll just have to take it as it is.

[Tsukiyomi]

If we're gonna go by "the man" theory as champions, then here's who Hopkins beat:

Oscar De La Hoya (@ 147, beat the #1 Whitaker when he was #2 in [B]the division)
Felix Trinidad (@ 147, beat De La Hoya)
Glen Johnson (@ 175, beat Tarver (who beat Jones))

The difference is: Hopkins beat "the men" at the better point in their careers than Monzon did with his.

Monzon's victories over Valdez and Benvenuti are legit. Valdez ended up becoming the lineal champion and Benvenuti was the lineal champion when Monzon beat him. But Griffith was considered past his prime whose his best years were behind him. Napoles had only one fight at middleweight. Keep in mind that the fight was even up until he retired in his corner.

Monzon's win over Moyer is debatable. If you consider that a legit win, fine.

Other points aside, that is really some deceptive wording. If Napoles was even on points at that moment, he was getting beaten so viciously the last round or two that he would have ended up in a coma. So to point out the points and that he retired in his corner really is the ultimate in saving face for Napoles, he was getting massacred when his corner pulled the plug.

[Jim Jeffries]

Glenn Johnson would go on to become a pretty decent boxer.

Yes, he was undefeated when Hopkins beat him.

But can anyone tell me who Glenn had fought before Hopkins that had any resemblance to some sort of contender?

It might as well have been Johnson's pro debut the sort of riff raff he'd been facing.

Hopkins had one great win at MW to me, that was Trinidad. Above MW, the Tarver win was very good and the Pavlik win was impressive. Though the Wright and Pavlik wins are somewhat diminished by dragging those guys so far up in weight.

The fact that Hopkins was a 6 to 1 underdog against Tito, who was relatively new to MW, tells you something about Bernard's run at MW up to that point.