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

Your Fab 4 is one short ::

Obviously Marquez is the 4th, but it's a hell of an omission.

 

Nope, he meant Gainer.

 

I guess the rest of us are equally amazed that Hopkins has fought for eight more years yet still has eight fewer fights. One cancels out the other... and we're right back to not really caring about either tidbit

 

Nah, Gainer is simply The One.

 

Truth

 

It depends on which way you view it.

I almost started to state that the modern Fab 4 produced the greater number of fan friendly fights, but it's not that great of a difference once you list all of them,

The original Fab 4 had the much bigger events, and perhaps more historically significant and/or game-changing moments.

The number of duds and uncompetitive fights among each group is about equal.

If you were to put together a combined Top 10 pure action fights, then the modern Fab 4 would probably have more entries, but by no means a sweep of the top 7 or 8 slots.

 

Gainer KO1 Saddler

 

The 80's fights were far more significant and were every bit as dramatic. The recent featherweights put on some good scraps, but the anticipation and build up didn't compare to the fights from the 80's. It's 25 years later and those fighters and most of those fights are discussed on a regular basis. As for the featherweight fights and fighters...we'll have to see how that turns out 20 + years from now...

 

Somehow my math is worse than my spelling.

 

Ok so the 80's fights
Hagler-Duran
Hagler-Leonard
Hagler-Hearns

Leonard-Hearns 1 & 2
Leonard-Duran 1 ,2 & 3

Hearns-Duran

vs

Morales-Barrera 1, 2 & 3
Morales Pac 1, 2 & 3

Pac-Barrera 1 & 2
Pac-JMM 1 & 2

Barrera-JMM

For me the only 2 fights from the original fab 4 with rewatchability is Hagler-Hearns and Hearns-Duran. I can watch almost any of the featherweight 4 fights. Only bad fights are Pac-MAB 2 and MAB-Morales 2. Almost all of them are epic fights.

 

De la Hoya-Mayweather & Lewis-Tyson had more build up than any of the featherweight 4 fights, doesn't mean they were better fights. So this is an extremely weak argument and has nothing to do with the quality of the fights.

 

Like I said, in a vacuum the modern-day Fab 4 produced a greater number of pure action fights. I don't dispute that.

But at the same time, your argument is one-dimensional and also based purely on your opinion, based on your claim that only two of the nine fights from that generation are worth a second look. That makes it pretty tough to rationally debate.

Fights like Duran-Leonard I, Leonard-Hearns II and even Leonard-Hagler to a degree, are all fights that I can sit through more than once.

The thing about the 80's Fab 4 is that every fight made was significant in one way or another.

As sad a spectacle as was Leonard-Duran III, it fit the moment - Duran was coming off of his shocker over Barkley and Leonard was a SMW titlist.

Leonard-Hearns II was the first ever unification match at 168.

The rest go without saying, the history is already well-implied.

With this generation's Fab 4 we got a bunch of great fights but also a few money grabs.

Pacquiao-Barrera II was not only a dud but also largely unnecessary, other than to show the world that Arum and Schaefer could sing in harmony once again. Nothing was at stake, Barrera was coming off of a loss to Marquez and Pacquiao was in between championships. A rematch with Marquez would've happened with or without this fight, which was nothing more than a quick heist.

Pac-Morales III broke the tie, but it was clear from the second fight that we had already seen Morales' last great moment. Also of note - nothing was at stake for any of their bouts, and Morales was also coming off of a loss going into each fight.

The rest were significant and - with the exception of Barrera-Morales II - entertaining.

 

I can't debate whether the fights in the 80's were significant or not. I started to really follow boxing in the early 90's so don't really know much about whether they were significant or not, well in regards to the late fights between the 4 anyway.

I'm not going to debate the significance of the fights because in America the fights between the original fab 4 would have been far more significant. However the fights between the featherweight 4 would have been much more significant in the Philippines and Mexico.

Of course in the original fab four fights there usually was action at some points of the fight but for large parts of most of the fights they were lacklustre.

I think it says a lot when people have bring up the significance to argue that the fights were of better quality. Thats really like saying De la Hoya-Mayweather was better than Corrales-Castillo because more people watched it.

 

When I say significance, I mean to the sport itself, not whether it's culturally significant or if it will break PPV records.

 

back to the topic at hand...

Hopkins, for reasons already stated. :kidcool:

 

Hagler, for reasons already stated.

 

you suck! :fightme:::

 

wouldnt you say this results in a touch of bias?

 

I think that swings both ways, in fairness. I wasn't around for the Fab Four (was only a 1-year-old when Hagler fought Hearns in '85), & I sometimes can't help but feel there is some nostalgia manifesting itself in the form of bias from those who were around to live through what was doubtless a glorious time.

 

I think it would only swing both ways if I was saying "Hagler is the shit, but I must admit I wasn't really interested in boxing when Marco Antonio Barrera was around"

 

::

Okay, fair do's on that one, but how can you live through an era like Hagler-Hearns-Duran-Leonard-Benitez (forgive me, I am a huge El Radar fan :: ) & not have the fondest of memories for such a time? The matches, the build-up, the romance, the nature of the fights themselves, the personalities & pageantry...it doesn't surprise me that at least some people out there, of a certain vintage, probably do lean towards special eras such as that.

I'd actually be rather surprised, truth be told, if in twenty years I'm not telling any young up-start who will listen about what garbage today's Feathers are, & in the halcyon era of Barrera, Morales, Marquez, & of course the (by then, if not already now) immortal Pacquiao, life was sweeter.

 

I almost started looking forward to having been a fan through a romanticised era there.....until i started imagining all the bullshit from the kiddies. 'Pacquiao was wild and had no defence, modern fighters would pick him apart; Marquez was slow and weak compared to modern fighters with modern training and nutrition; his idea of a post work out shake was his own pish, ffs! You're just a plasma TV era nuthugger'

And so on.ray:

 

You're that young? Impressive. You speak (type) as though you're 60 and filled with years of wisdom.

 

How does a 60-year-old write? :dunno:

 

Like you? :dunno: ::

 

Nah, I do see what Sly means, in fairness. Not only your knowledge of the sports history but also how considered and respectful your tone is suggests somebody older. I was surprised when I saw your pictures as well, I pegged you as older.

 

I got the impression too that Ramonza was older than 26.

 

I thought Ramone was in his late 70s

 

They can threaten guys on the internet for talking tough, pal.

 

You guys give me the impression you think 26 is about 16, mentally ::