The Annual: Who's greater, Hopkins or Hagler?

Well for me, Duran's greatness was as a lightweight but his victory over Leonard DEMONSTRATED that greatness at the very, very highest level. But it's the fact he beat LEONARD that did it, not that he jumped to welterweight, per se. And he could have retired that night and I wouldn't rate him one bit higher or lower; certainly beating Davey Moore or Iran Barkley does nothing in my book to elevate his status, massively, they were just further fleeting demonstrations of it, scattered among years of partying and disinterest.

That's just the way I weight things. To me it's about demonstrating/proving how good you were at your peak, most of all. Some guys are made to spend their careers at one weight, some guys bodies mean they HAVE to move up at some point, some guys bodies mean they're well equipped to if they choose to. I just don't really see it as being a big intrinsic boon to a legacy, on most occasions.

Hopkins was 6'1 and wiry, Hagler was 5'8 and stocky....:dunno: That's no ground for deciding their 'greatness', IMHO.

 

So like U JUST Said, it was Duran's Win @ a HIGHER Weight Class that Demonstrated his Greatness @ a Higher Level...Ray Leonard was BIGGER, YOUNGER, FASTER & Presumably STRONGER, yet Duran Still BEAT him....Like Hagler, Duran had CLEANED OUT the Division he was Best Suited For, but UNLIKE Hagler, Duran Moved Up...& Rightfully, Duran is Held in HIGHER Esteem than Hagler is...

As for Bodytypes, Duran WASN'T Really "Built" for Moving Up Either...@ 147 & Higher, Duran was ALWAYS the SMALLER Guy...

REED "Gets" What U're Saying, but he Can't See ANY Downside to Proving your Worth in MULTIPLE Weight Classes...That's Something Hagler Never even DARED to Do....



REED:kidcool:

 

The fact that Leonard was bigger scores him points yeah. Just like beating Tarver who was a bigger scores Hopkins points. But it's the wins that score the points, not the divisions they take place in, in my book. The division is just one factor that weights (pun half intended) on a victories significance.

And the only bigger man Hopkins has beaten is Antonio Tarver. Does a win over Tarver really count for all that much in the context of the comparison of two guys with such long and impressive and meaningful middleweight reigns? Especially when Hopkins physique/style allowed him those opportunities and Haglers didn't really.

Not IMO.

 

Wait. Does Hagler get any additional points for not holding incessantly in every fight? The way Hopkins does? Does it matter in the final analysis that whereas Hopkins is unwatchable (because of his lack of adherence to the conventions of the sport), Hagler was one of the more exciting fighters to watch?

Hagler owned the ring. Great boxer. Smart fighter. Great short inside puncher.

Hopkins? All he does is hit and hold. Boring as shit.

 

I dont mean to take an Ike stance here, but many of Hagler's fights were hard to watch. ALL of Hopkins fights are hard to watch. It would be a poke fest. And not a fun one to watch.

 

2 more people who started watching boxing 5 years ago.

 

agREED
I like Hagler better and think he could have beaten Hopkins, BUT Hopkins has achieved more than Hagler, even at Middleweight (more defenses, more Name victims, longer reign, etc). So my pick is Bernard The Hateful Hopkins.

 

That's about how I see it, Sir. Hagler was the better fighter at Middle, with the better career as a Middle --- but in neither case would I call him hugely better. Hopkins gets the jump on him all-time, though (overall, not specifically at 160lbs.) by virtue of his other-weight achievements (in addition to his longevity, which Hagler simply cannot match), weighed against Hagler's, which stand at zero.

Really, at the end of Hagler's road as a MW, he retired. At the end of Hopkins', he simply kept on going strong --- surprisingly so. He tops Hagler, IMO.

However, the question is precisely, "Who is the greater fighter?" That's Hagler (just), so he gets my vote. Hopkins has the more impressive career overall.

 

You really think Hopkins beat the better men during his MW title reign? I strongly dispute that.

 

sorry broadwayjoe, or whatever troll this is. Hopkins has always been hard to watch, and Hagler always lets his opponents set pace.

 

It's Hopkins monsterously overrated boxing abilities that has helped 'shock and amaze' people. Can't beat Taylor, during 24 rounds of his apparent 'brilliant, adaptable boxing skills".... so he's written off,.. 'old, old old old old' ,.. comes back and pot-shots a win over Tarver "WOW!!!!!" ,.. looks like shit against Wright,.. then loses to Calzaghe,..."old, old, old, old old" ... "a prime Hops would have, a prime Hops would have!".... comes back and pot-shots Pavlik,.. "WOW!!!!!" ... it's these types of victories amongst his desperate struggles that give people a 'hit'.

 

So one win over Antonio Tarver is enough to settle this debate? Really?

 

I think wins over Pavlik and Wright and draw against Pascal, all way after Hopkins peaked, are good achievements and they tip the scale for him. Overall I do agree with you in that changing weight division is not automatically worth more than cleaning out single one, but Hopkins has more big wins. Thus, he is the greater fighter

 

I think it's possible that Hagler is one of the most overated fighters ever.

 

They were good wins. But he doesn't get points for beating bigger men, because Pavlik & Wright were Middleweights.

And by that stage of Hopkins career he had to move up. He didn't move up to fight bigger men anyway, accounting for the Tarver & Pascal wins, he moved up because his body had outgrown the division. I really don't see how that scores a fighter points. Hagler was a born middleweight, his body was built for one division - that is NOT a mark against him.

That's bullshit.

 

All correct. I didn't mean to give Hopkins extra points there for beating bigger men, I gave him points for beating good fighters well past his best. On other words: Hagler's title reign was perhaps a little bit better, but what Hopkins did besides his title reign, gives him the edge. Had Hagler continued his career after the Leonard loss and beaten fighters in the class of Tarver and Wright at middleweight, it would be the same thing

 

Fair enough. I can understand that point of view, but to me (now ::) the point in a resume isn't about adding up every win like computer game points, it's about whether it provides a proper gauge to just how great a guy was. It's about shining light.

Sometimes a guy can go beat a bigger man and prove something and sometimes guys have to rack up a couple of wins post-prime because they didn't get the chance against top guys in their youth.

But, to me, if everyone still thinks Hagler was a better Middleweight, and both guys were known as middleweights then Hopkins later wins haven't tipped the balance in proving who was the better fighter.

 

I dunno, maybe Im just arguing for the sake of it ::

 

'Better' and 'Greater' are two different things though.

 

A point that's often missed.

 

Sometimes deliberately.

 

It would be a boring fight.

 

There's more to it than that, man. Hopkins/Tarver and Hopkins/Pavlik were both looked at as mismatches by most going in. The night of, those were great wins.

 

Hopkins did more than that.

 

Lots of the fights between the fab 4 really sucked. So Nard vs SRL probably would have too.

The new (and improved) fab 4 (EM, JMM, MAB, Pac) had much better fights.

 

A lot more. On most cards I've seen, Hopkins did enough to become the oldest boxing champion of all time.

 

There's probably real no wrong answer, though as I break it down myself, I now start to second guess my voting for Hagler.

However, one thing that seems to be glossed over is who they fought on the way up. Granted what they did in their primes and in Hopkins' case post-prime weighs much greater into the equation.

But Hagler deserves credit for his level-of-comp while awaiting a title shot, whereas Hopkins' was average-to-mediocre enough to where it's still questioned to this day whether he was green or entering prime for his first fight w/ Roy.

I guess the difference is how far ahead you had Hagler prior to Hopkins beating Tarver. What Bernard has done in the twilight of his career is what makes this a debate, IMO.

I still lean towards Hagler, though by the slightest of margins.

 

For sure, Hagler faced better men coming up, & also during their respective title reigns.

 

thats a weak argument though

The REST of their competition is NO CONTEST

Hagler's middleweight opponents, the actual middleweights were VASTLY SUPERIOR to Hopkins

Hagler had already essentially beaten every top contender in the division before he ever got a title shot... once he had the title, the middleweights he faced were, on the whole, clearly a stronger group than those Hopkins defeated

Hagler is very clearly the greater middleweight... also, considering that Hopkins' big "guy coming up" win was against a guy who did next to nothing above 154, while Hagler's was against a guy who was twice the light heavyweight champ (beating two very solid belt holde3rs in Andries and Hill, respectively) , he CLEARLY loses that argument as well at middleweight

I dont see how it is even a contest if we are just talking 160

Hagler is obviously the more accomplished middleweight

Hopkins gets, and deserves, credit for his late-career accomplishments above middleweight and that, in my estimation pulls him either even or slightly ahead in terms of "all-time great, p4p" ... but at 160? there is no unbiased argument that could possibly make Bernard Hopkins greater

 

Shut it, pea brain. I've never posted here under a different name.

I see you are still talking out of your ass on a regular basis. Some things never change.