Fighters with short arms that could fight well on the outside.

Sorry. I meant Chiquita.

 

All I am saying is he is said to be an action fighter and he was pretty much how you are saying. A boxer first. His reputation as a an exciting fighter is what I have a problem with. Some of that could be, for some reason, many of his fights are recorded on some shit film. Hagler was sort of before my time.

 

Free Ike will be too stupid to understand why, but I found this humorous.

 

stronger backpedal than Revis

 

Wasn't a fan at the time of Hagler reign, but once read an article of an old ring magazine just after the hearns fight, and they said Hagler wasn,t a superstar before this fight cause while he was mean looking, he was considered rather boring. So I don't think it's revisionism.

As I said before, I think he was pretty fun to watch, but I can see why some people don't enjoy his fights

 

Yeah...Hagler wasn't always exciting. People remember the hearns fight when they think of Hagler and so see him as this mini-Tyson destroyer. He wasn't. He was a boxer puncher with a solid chin...and his punch wasn't devastating. His finishing ability was second to none however....

 

What about boxers with medium length arms who fought well on the inside and outside. New thread?

 

If some writer for The RING said it, it must be true. :doh: I watched all of Hagler's title fights and plenty of his previous fights and I've rarely been bored watching him. Being a boxer doesn't always equate to boring. Just because he wasn't brainless & chinny brawler like Gatti doesn't mean he was boring.

The way I remember it was that Hagler was considered a beast up until the Duran fight, but he hadn't had that "signature" win because Leonard retired and the original Hearns fight was postponed in 1982.

Then he had the more difficult than expected fight with Duran (only of one the best fighters ever and at that time as crafty a veteran fighter as there has ever been) and then all of a sudden the media was all over him and calling him overrated, etc... all off of one fight and basically ignoring the outstanding career he had up until that point.

And then came the Hamsho rematch and the Hearns fight and he was a beast again.

A good rule of thumb is to not believe everything printed in the RING.

 

yup, he could really box nicely when the situation called for it (like the 2nd and 3rd Carbajal matches)

 

You know who else was a brilliant outside fighter when it was necessary? Ruben Olivares

 

I agree

 

Yup, he was a great boxer, very well schooled and he usually started fights by jabbing (he had a terrific jab) and moving... He had unerring accuracy, however and eventually he would start to wear guys out and with that, he would start really pounding the hell out of them... he's a dictionary definition of the so-called "Boxer-Puncher"

 

The Tony Sibson fight is a perfect example. Sibson was a good and tough fighter who was not expected to beat Hagler, but was expected to test and possibly extend him into the later rounds. And Hagler boxed the crap out of him for a few rounds and then put him away in the 6th. Sibson didn't win a round and was thoroughly beaten up. And as soon as Sibson seemed to be fading, Hagler closed the show.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zXQ4o85ak9s" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

 

I think that Hagler speed would be the difference against Monzon. I like him to win pretty convincingly

 

Sibson was brave as could be in that fight

I liked his comment afterwards, very good sport... "I didn't realize it was such a huge step-up in class. But that class is a class of really just one man"

 

Hopkins and Robinson may have something to say about that....

 

Robinson, maybe...

 

I don't think it's fair to dismiss Hopkins outright. Those guys might beat him...even if they did it wouldn't be by more than a round or two.

 

I didn't see bwayjoe's response...but from what you've said I'm assuming he's not giving Hopkins any respect.

I don't understand how people can't see that Hopkins was a better fighter than Hagler. They penalize him too much for losing to a Prime Jones (which Hagler would have as well) and losing to Jermaine Taylor (when he was 40).

Hagler, at 40, may have lost to Jermaine Taylor too.


Hopkins is a smarter fighter and more versatile fighter than Hagler was, IMO, with as much stamina and almost as tough.

 

Based on what, exactly?? Your being a big fan of his?? Hagler was an excellent boxer, who could also slug with the best of them. He was as versatile as it gets. He was primarily a southpaw, but he was also effective from the right-handed stance. He was also plenty smart. And he didn't need to resort to dirty tactics on a regular basis.

Hopkins was a great fighter, but Hagler was better.

And no one penalizes him much for losing to Jones. That's bullshit. Jones was just better than him. And I don't know that Jones beats Hagler. This is just another example of you taking something that isn't proven and acting like it's a fact.

Hopkins was criticized much more for the draw with Mercado than he was for the loss to Jones. And of course, you didn't mention that fight.

Your whole post is another example of "coulda, woulda, shoulda".

Feel free to comeback with something that resembles a fact.

 

I don't agree. I would take Hagler or Monzon to win clearly over Hopkins. To me, it would be a competitive fight, but one with a clear winner.

 

Probably because he isn't.

 

Yep. You know how Stafford is...the fighter he likes HAS to be the best.

 

The draw with Mercado occurred in Mercado's home city in Ecuador, with Hopkins flying in before the bout with no time to adjust to the altitude of Ecuador, which clearly affected him. Hopkins rematched him in Florida and dominated and stopped him.

 

Hopkins would never beat Hagler

 

Agreed, I've always been a Hopkins believer, and I think he deserves a high historical ranking, but let's not get carried away. Who was his best win at middleweight? Tito, a highly overrated, 1 dimensional welterweight?

I think he'd be a tough fight for anyone, no doubt, but I would be confident of both Hagler and Monzon beating him.

 

Glen Johnson, Echols, Joppy, Holmes, Tito, De La Hoya were all solid wins......maybe not individually...but when you consider that he beat all of those guys and many others on a 20 defense streak over a decade...he proved consistency and the ability to handle any style with ease.

Plus you simply CANNOT ignore what he did at LHWT after his Middleweight career (Tarver specifically)...because that proved that he was a BIG middleweight and had plenty of reserves that he didn't even need to use during his middleweight career. He was bigger than Hagler.

Secondly you can't just say that "Hagler beat Hearns and Duran....Hopkins beat Tito and De La Hoya....so that means Hagler was better"

If that was teh case...Cassius clay shouldn't have beaten Liston at the time when he fought him...for example. You have to look at style, ability, intangibles and dominance (where applicable).


anyway...6'1" Hopkins that is more elusive and crafty than most you give him credit, with ridiculous stamina, adaptability, toughness....vs 5'9" hagler.....i gotta make Hopkins the favourite in that fight.

 

But to discount his chances outright against anyone at middle is wrong, IMO.

 

Let me put this as succinctly as I can.

Hagler and Monzon were all time greats.


Hopkins is/was and never will be a great fighter.

I have laid the case out several times and no one can argue with it. Hopkins isn't beating either of them at 160. Not once, not in 100 times. Hopkins would be "competitive" like he was versus Calzaghe , when he wasn't trying to quit, by holding and stinking, but he would never actually win. Bernard Hopkins resume at 160 was horrendous and he went 1-3 against the only legitimate 160 POUNDERS fighters he faced during his reign. His best win was against Glen Johnson and even though Glen was younger, he was a lesser fighter when Bslopp beat him than he would become. As much as I like Glen, he wasn't a great fighter any way you slice it.If you want to say Hopkins beats Hagler or Monzon you do so solely as an opinion, an uninformed one. Hopkins never beat a fighter as good as Carlos and Marvin.He fought one who was as talented in Roy and he lost, and lost clearly. Case closed.

 

Can't argue with this...airtight case.

Free Ike has Spoken!!