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

Tarver was the only bigger man he beat. Making middleweights come up to fight him at 170 didn't score him any points on the weightclass front.

 

I'd argue not very different. Greatness is just the extent your betterness was proveafied.

 

Could Hopkins beat Hagler, head-to-head at Middle?

 

cdogg, had Hopkins beaten Wright & Pavlik at 160 would that have made his 160 resume better than Haglers, IYO?

 

He did, however, do more nonetheless. Running a very strong Champion like Joe Calzaghe so close sure beats retiring, as does schooling Kelly Pavlik, & comprehensively decisioning Ronald Wright. The same goes for a draw with Jean Pascal. All this has occurred beyond the reach of both Hopkins' prime weightclass & years --- & not by a little, either. Hagler could not hope to duplicate such success & competitiveness, anymore than he could match Hopkins' near-peerless longevity.

Hopkins, in my book, makes a lot of ground on Hagler in rgeards to longevity, which I know you find to be an over-rated criterion for assessment. To each, his own. Hagler I find the somewhat more formidable Middleweight, & he had the better MW career & title reign --- but the better career overall? I don't agree with that.

 

Still one more than Hagler beat.

 

Tarver was about a mere 2cm taller and alot thinner. Hopkins has a way thicker physique, equipped with heavyweight sized shoulders. I dont think Tarver was the 'bigger' man at all.

I think to this day Tarver remains Hopkins best win, but that's only if you ignore his incredible, incredible competition at middleweight that is.

 

Yeah & Glen Catley was one more super middleweight than Benny Leonard ever fucking beat, is Dingaan Thobela the greater fighter now?

 

Well Hopkins ability to fill out to 175 is half my point. I just don't see how that's a demonstration of greatness over a 5'8 stocky guy who's body &style were suited to one division. It's just a total circuit frying non-sequitar to me.

 

If you're going to weight Hops lhw exploits in his favor then you need also note that it is the weightclass he began in. Not really as impressive a feat when viewed in that light. Using that as a mark against Hagler is dishonest. He never had the frame to move up in weight.

You can also note that outside of Roy Jones, Tarvers career has been mediocre at best. Good win? Absolutely but Antonio is not a great fighter.

If we go head to head, I like Hagler to win but Hop is a very live dog here for mine. It goes to points and is very close.

 

I totally just blew my own mind.

When Hagler lost to Leonard, his last professional boxing match, he was less than two months away from his 33rd Birthday.

Hopkins had a fight at almost exactly the same age, an IBF defence against Andrew Council. Hopkins was still slightly less than four years away from his first major win in a huge fight, vs. Trinidad.

But forget all that... you guys want to know what's really amazing?

Marvin Hagler hasn't boxed since April of 1987.

Yet...

Marvin Hagler is less than 11 years older than Bernard Hopkins.

 

Hagler wanted to be a movie star:

 

What is dishonest? Hopkins was immediately over-matched as a Light-Heavy upon his debut, & it was a managerial decision (a smart one) to move a developing fighter down in weight. You are painting it here as if Hopkins was always a Light-Heavy, & then drained down massively to make the MW limit. Maybe you're not doing so maliciously, but the fact is Hopkins wasn't some kind of natural LHW from the outset of his career who pulled himself down in weight, ala De La Hoya at 130 & 135.

 

What I'm saying is hop clearly had the frame to move up. Hagler never did. It's dishonest to penalize Hagler in this discussion for body type.

 

Im glad somebody else feels this way. I felt like I was drifting through deep space like bender in futurama there.ld:

 

I guess this isn't as cool as I thought.

 

So what are you suggesting? We shouldn't include the stuff Hopkins did post-middle?

 

Include it, of course, just don't weight (sorry I'm not sure how to avoid that weak pun!) it massively more favourably.

 

So where the incentive to take fights against bigger guys that most think you'll lose?

 

I think it's possible you don't know very much about Hagler.

 

yeah, you kind of swung and missed with that one ::

 

11 years, man!

 

To be fair, Hopkins skipped 168.

 

This.

And...let's not forget that the 168 lb division didn't even exist for most of Hagler's career. And at that time it was a joke of a division that nobody gave a rat's ass about. For the folks who criticize Hagler for waiting for Hearns and Leonard to move up to Middlewight whiie not moving up himself, do you really think Hagler moving up to fight Murray Sutherland or Chong-Pal Park would be more significant and dangerous fights than Hearns and Leonard, or even many of Hagler's other challengers??

 

Yeah, but outside of Tarver, Hopkins name fights at 175 were against fighters from 168 and below who also moved up.

 

Fair.

Still, even if you consider Pascal a former 168lber, the fact remains that he's the champion of the light heavyweights and he beat Chad Dawson.

 

I definitely consider Pascal a former 168lber. So far in his career, he has fought the bulk of his fights at that weight, including a title fight there before moving up. Let's see how his career (and Dawson's) unfolds before deciding how significant that fight is.

I suppose Hagler could have moved up to 175 after the Leonard fight and cherry picked a title during the free for all that was going on after Spinks moved up to heavy...but I can't recall anyone who was interested in seeing Hagler make that move at that time. It's easy to look back and say Hagler never made a move up, but it's important to have a handle on what the boxing landscape looked like at that time.

 

Fighting and beating Tarver wasn't cherry picking a title though.

 

I didn't say that...although I don't think Tarver was ever remotely an elite fighter. There wasn't much of a reason for Hagler to make the move up at that time, outside of padding his resume with an alphabet belt or two for relative chump change. And after 15 years of consistently fighting quality opposition before losing his title in a fight he had been wanting for years and not getting a rematch, I don't blame him for retiring when he did.

 

Totally fair. Still, in my eyes, you can only go so far with reasons why someone did something and someone else didn't. Hopkins has put the time in since middleweight, won two fights where he was almost universally expected to get spanked, and in my opinion, seperated himself from Marvin Hagler. To each his own.