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

Fair enough. But I also think there is more of a premium for having multiple title belts now than there was during Hagler's time. At the time, I don't recall Hagler being criticized for not moving up after the Leonard fight.

 

I'm not suggesting he was criticized. But let's just say he did move up and he won the light heavyweight title before he retired. Don't you think that would enhance his greatness?

 

To be honest, Hagler moving up and beating up Bobby Czyz for a piece of the 175 title wouldn't do much for me since Hagler beat much better fighters at 160. I guess I am less focused on the additional title belts than the quality of the opposition.

There wasn't really a significant fight for Hagler at that time, except for maybe a Hearns rematch at 175. While 175 was a strong division during Michael Spinks heyday, after he gave up the title, there was a sharp decline in the quality of the division for a while.

 

This isn't very fair to Pascal.

He's proven himself as a legit light heavyweight and was even regarded enough to where his fight with Dawson was recognized by most outlets as being for the vacant lineal light heavyweight championship.

Even if Pascal goes on to lose his next five fights, nothing changes the significance of his fight with Dawson, or Hopkins' fight with Pascal.

 

Forget pieces of the belt. If, like Hopkins, you could look back at Hagler's career and say "that guy was also the clear #1 at light heavyweight", I don't think you'd be able to tell me with a straight face that it doesn't make him any greater.

 

You're a good man, Jake.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I don't see it that way. If Pascal goes on a losing streak, to me it does change the significance.

 

But you also say it's important to understand the landscape at the time. It's pretty easy to discredit a fighters resume in retrospect.

 

You make it sound like it would just magicially happen. There were three different title belts held by fighters who hadn't established themselves and showed no interest in unifying at that time.

I guess what I am getting at is it's hard to compare two fighters from different times while only using one time as the basis. Who knows, if in 1987 there was a recognized #1 at 175 who was a name, but vulnerable, fighter and Hagler could have made good money for the fight...then maybe he might have gone for it. But that wasn't the case.

 

Fair enough man. To each his own. :bears:

 

Right, but if a fighter flops shortly after winning a title and never gets back to that status, I don't think it's unfair to think he's not as good we originally thought.

 

BTW, I am enjoying this discussion. It's cool to have a civil discussion even when the folks involved don't agree. It's been a while...

 

But then in that regard, it's easy to dismiss a number of Hagler's title defenses, shit his very title winning effort.

 

agREED

 

Same. :bears:

 

Hagler knows a lot about fighting guys that moved up

 

And Hopkins DOESN'T???

Please stop.

 

:bears:

 

Is the fairer system to disregard or denigrate Hopkins' achievements in moving up?

Part of this is challenging oneself --- & many great fighters have moved up in weight, whether in the frame for it or not. Some succeeded on the strength of their abilities, & others did not. I would not penalise Hagler for not moving up, but Hopkins' achievements post-Middle are, in my view, substantial, & deserve to be warranted above a fella retiring after losing the championship.

 

possibly, I think its a superb match, I like Hagler a bit more to win it, but its a great matchup

 

I think it MIGHT even it up, but not make it better

before he got his chance to unify against Holmes and Trinidad (and later cementing it with a vivisection of William Joppy::) , Hopkins faced absolutely HIDEOUS opposition... his best opponents were Antwun Echols and Glen Johnson... thats the absolute TOPS of his opponents, after that you have Carl Daniels, Syd Vanderpool, Robert Allen and guys like 276 year old Simon Brown who was so shot it was incredible, Segundo Mercado and Joe Lipsey... terrible resume there, and he did not always look spectacular against them either

Hagler's pre-title wins include Willie Monroe, Bobby Watts, Eugene Hart, Bennie Briscoe, Kevin Finnegan, Vito Antuofermo (whom I think all would agree he actually beat) ... that is all before he won the title and its already clearly a superior list of fighters to Hopkins, then when you add in Minter, Vito (again) , Hamsho, Scypion, Roldan, not even including Hearns (just to placate the crowd here who seem to think that Hearns, who won the middleweight title twice and the light heavyweight title twice is somehow of the same value as Felix Trinidad, who was a lesser fighter to begin with and did NOTHING above 154 except kill Joppy) you still get no-contest... Hagler's opposition was much stiffer than Bernards and he dominated them

I think Bernard Hopkins was a GREAT fighter and would give any middleweight (including Hagler or Monzon) a lot of trouble... but if we're ranking them, Hagler has to be the greater middleweight, and I dont think even wins over Pavlik and Wright would change that, at best they might pull Hops even

 

I don't think they'd pull him even, personally. I don't even think they'd pull him that close. And I definitely don't think Hopkins deserves extra points for having dragged them up to above Middle. He gets points off for doing that.

So really & truly, again, it's the Tarver win which people think takes him above Hagler. Is beating Antonio Tarver really that big?:dunno:

EDIT - I see you voted Hagler, so I'm really remonstrating to the wrong man. I thought by what you'd said earlier in the thread that you were going with Hopkins in this one.

 

Well said.

The knee-jerk reaction for wannabe boxing historians would be "Hagler easily". But truthfully it's a toss-up. I lean towards Hopkins but it's definitely a close decision either way.

 

Hopkins was a phenomenal fighter. He'd give any middleweight, ever, a bastard of a fight. I still think Hopkins 98-99 edges out Jones, actually.

 

Hopkins has the edge for me.

I think their competition at 160lbs is fairly even. Hagler has Hearns and Duran on his resume, of course, but both men had already been stopped by Leonard at WELTERWEIGHT before Hagler got to them. Hopkins had modern smaller greats on his resume too in De la Hoya and Trinidad. Hagler's competition at Middle was marginally better but Hopkins had the longer reign as champion (far more defenses in any event) and so I think that evens it out overall.

The deciding factor then would be Bernard's success at the higher weights.

When it's convenient for some they say that "weight jumping" is irrelevant...but in the case of someone like (dare I say it) Floyd Mayweather...some people suggest that the former superfeather weight should have taken on Winky Writ at 154lbs!

The point is...Bernard, unlike Hagler took on huge challenges at higher weights (Calzaghe and Tarver) and so this should be the deciding factor if we are being genuine.

 

I disagree fairly strongly.....for all the reasons I've already went through and won't bore you with again :NotThink:

 

You wanna take this outside brother? issed::fightme:

 

Right that's it, you've been grinding my seeds for too long sly. E-blood-fued forever!:flip:

 

This.

Focusing on the at the number of title defenses is a simplistic (and convenient) way of comparing the two fighters time at middle. Hagler's opposition at Middleweight was clearly better than Hopkins'.

 

Have I done that? I'm just saying that acting like the move up is the only point of difference that matters is dishonest when one of the guys was never really expected to and didn't have the frame for it even if he did.

Acknowledge the move up sure but acknowledge also that Marvin faced and defeated the better opposition. Criticizing Hagler for not moving up is akin to doing so because he didn't fight into his 40's like Hopkins.