Hopkins vs Hagler

Most will pick Marvin by decision acknowledging the fact that a) Marvin wasn't a killer puncher and b) Hopkins is virtually impossible to knock out given his combination of ring smarts and chin.....and c) Marvin is a legend from the 80s and so people wouldn't be willing to pick a recent fighter over him....however I want you guys to actually break it down and explain why you think Hagler would win this?

 

Who said anything about Hagler needing to stop Hopkins to win?

Prime Hagler was a better and more versatile technician than Hopkins, and would outbox him. It would be a highly competitive fight, but Hagler would have the edge. He was better equipped to brawl, and from the outside Hopkins would have A LOT of problems with Marvin's piston like southpaw jab. Hagler had a longer reach than Hopkins, despite being shorter.

 

Hagler is one of those guys that often gets underrated for his skill and versatility. He was not just a physically strong guy.

He had a brain.

 

Yep. People tend to remember him primarly for the Hearns fight and think that was his regular approach.

 

I never said anyone said this. WTF are you asking this question?

Anyway....I think Marvin's got a good busy jab and that'll do him well in this fight. I think Hopkins is more elusive and smarter overall. Hagler may have had longer arms in terms of wing span...but height makes reach more effective...just look at Forrest vs. Mosley for example. Stylewise and physicality wise Hopkins would appear to have the better reach, if it turns into a boxing match.

Personally, I think it's guaranteed to be a close debatable decision. Equivalent talents.

 

Too close to pick imo. WOuld be closa and controversial.

 

I can see Hagler being agressive and landing more of the eye-catching type shots (not that there would be a whole lot of clean ones) which gives him the edge on the judges scores.

 

Hopkins lost to the only two elite level middleweights he ever fought. His middleweight reign was borderline garbage - his best wins are a superb welterweight, a cross-dressing cheat who took a dive, a guy who lost to Sven Ottke and Clinton Woods and a guy who was violently knocked out by the aforementioned welterweight and who needed a generous decision to beat Howard Eastman.

You have to respect his longevity - his basic skill level has enabled him to befuddle plenty of leap amateurs even in his very advanced years - and he has some very good wins at higher weights, but the pass he gets on his MW resume is odd considering how critical people are of others who dominated poor divisions at similar times.

MTF

 

:mut: :3: :atu:

That had to be some of the worst acting I ever saw from a non-landing shot.

 

yeah and Hagler lost to Watts and Monroe and lost to a blown up Welterweight that hadn't fought in over 3 years and had had only one fight in 6 years.....and his best wins were over a blown up Welterweight that had already been stopped at Welterweight, a blown up Lightweight hat had already lost at lightweight, at Welterweight and above, and a wild african puncher who would one day be knocked out cold in one round by Terry Norris......We can play these games all night Mr Hunter but uh, I don't have the luxury of your presumptions.....

 

not sure i agree hagler has the advantage when it comes to brawling. in his prime, hopkins was very effective on the inside, even if he was dirty and resorted to a lot of holding and hitting.

 

Willie Monroe would beat any middleweight Hopkins ever fought excluding Jones.

its a close fight. Haglers tendancy to start slow might cost him because Hopkins probably wouldn't slow and his ability to nick close rounds means there's no way hagler would be able to sweep the late rounds should he need to claw back a deficit. I'd favour hagler to land the more telling blows - pretty sure id score the fight for him- but the actual outcome is no sure thing. be a treat to watch either way

 

that post from MTF was so retarded I'm actually surprised someone replied to it

 

Word.

I shouldn't have dignified it with a response but couldn't help myself. With his silly reasoning you can destroy virtually every resume out there and I wanted to drive home that point into his thick stubborn skull.

 

You don't need a magic formula that "can destroy anybody's resume" to critique Hopkins run at 160. He fought weak opposition, legitimized his mw reign against a welter and then had his reign ended by a pretty average mw that never really notched another big win outside of Hopkins.

People like to imagine some mythical "prime" Hopkins but his best wins, performances and opponents all came later in his career. If he was past prime then he would've looked like some kind of Jedi Superman against average guys like Allen, Echols, Vanderpool etc.

 

His wins over Lipsey and Johnson were prime performances. But his opposition wasn't that good, overall. Not as far as facing and beating true MIDDLEWEIGHTS went. Hagler too didn't have the best resume, but IMO he was just more talented and skillful than Hopkins ever was, plus Hagler was stronger and more powerful.

B-Hop's signature win is Trinidad, who's best years were at 147 and 154. Tito was never at his best at middleweight. He didn't have any kind of reign there we can point at to legitimize him at 160. Joppy was a decent fighter but is there any doubt that any legit KO artist at 160 beats Joppy?

 

Hopkins' signature wins at 160 are against Trinidad, a devestating welterweight who's best win at 160 was against a man who many thought lost to Howard Eastman, and another excellent welterweight who many people believe took a dive after a feeble-looking body shot apparently knocked him out. The best two middleweights (i.e. people who actually campaigned there for a period) he faced were RJJ and Jermaine Taylor. He lost three times in three fights to these fighters.

Which part of this statement is false? The fact that the French-Canadian spastic agreed with you should probably tell you how wrong you are on this.

MTF :dunno:

 

His win over Johnson was a good win, but Johnson was a good, and not great, fighter (and I have always been a fan of his: he was always good to watch). Johnson lost to several other good, but not great fighters, including Sven Ottke and Clinton Woods.

That is probably Hopkins third best win at MW. A win over a guy who lost to Sven Ottke and Clinton Woods.

Again, there is nothing contentious about that statement. Everything there is fact.

I rate Hopkins historically. His longevity has been remarkable and his skills are proper old-school. He beat his limited opposition at 160 with the comfort you would expect from someone held in his esteem. But his resume at 160 is thin.

MTF

 

It isn't Hopkins fault that his resume at 160 is so thin. He fought probably the best available comp at that time. Brown, Echols and the like were the best of a bad bunch of contenders and he dispatched them comfortably. He gets the credit he should for that. He was maybe just a little late to the party - even five years before his prime 160 was full of good and great fighters who would have whipped the same guys he whipped and no doubt some of whom (maybe most of whom) he would have beat.

MTF :dunno:

 

Lypsey and Johnson were undefeated nobodies. That Johnson got good like 10 years and 8 losses later doesn't make it a big win.

 

Not HUGE wins I agree, but as far as when Hopkins was at his physical peak and prime, I think those are performances we could point to.

Post Trinidad is when Hopkins began to decline.

 

Which mw great best wins came against an actual mw ? Certainly not Hagler Which best win is against a ww (Hearns), nor Monzon which best win came also against a ww (napoles or griffin) or Lamotta (Robinson). To blame Hopkins for that shows an incredible ignorance of the sport (not too surprising considering the clown who made this argument) , especially considering that tito looked fantastic at mw against Joppy and Cherifi. People were saying before the bhop fight that tito looked even better at mw than jmw; so that "not a mw" bullshit has to stop. And Hopkins tremendous succes at higher weights showed that he wasnt simply a decent fighter ruling a weak division.

And claiming that he lost against JT twice again shows an incredible ignorance, sinfe most acknowledge that they were terrible decisions (especially the second fight)

 

Tito didn't beat them because he was such a great middleweight. He beat them because size aside, they were not elite fighters. Tito was CLEARLY quicker and sharper at the lower weights. He was more labored as a middleweight.

I'm one of the bigger Tito fans on this forum, and I attest that the guy was not a middleweight. How many middleweight greats would Tito have been able to beat historically?

 

Did Johnson LOSE to Them @ 160lbs, Mr. Feebles???...

You and Others RIGHTFULLY Point Out Ricky Hatton's BEST Weight Being 140, to Put Floyd's KO of him in Proper Perspective...But the Same Rule Should Apply to Glen Johnson Losing to the Aforementioned 1 and 2 Weight Classes NORTH of Where he Faced Bernard...




REED:dunno:

 

Not Sure WHO Would Win, but REED Can't Fathom Hagler "Outboxing" Bernard...He'd HAVE to Outfight him...

Bernard was EVERY BIT as Ringsmart as Hagler, and WOULDN'T Be Lured Into the Type of Slugfest Hearns Was, Unless Marvin Went that EXTRA Mile to FORCE It...

Hopkins is 6'1, Hagler 5'9...Bernard was MORE Athletic (ie., QUICKER Hands, QUICKER Footwork) Too...Bernard Could Feint, Jab, Move, Parry and Counter w/the BEST of Them, INCLUDING the Shorter, Slower of Hand and Foot Hagler...

Hagler Could Obviously WIN, but What GREAT Middles Did he "OutBox" that were Taller AND More Athletic???...





REED:dunno:

 

i dont think hopkins had quicker hands than hagler. Id say their handspeed was comparable.

 

Hopkins' Sneaky, Right Hand Lead was Quicker than ANY Punch in Hagler's Arsenal...


REED:hammert:

 

The fact that you're a big tito fan is exactly why you claim he was not a real mw. It gives you an excuse for his loss against bhop. Joppy and Cherifi were not p4per, but they were very solid fighters. He looked as good as he ever did against these two guys. Especially against Joppy.

 

I'm not sure what difference it makes, in the context of Johnson. I actually think those loses were at weights that were better for him than 160 - Johnson's career highlights are probably at 175 (RJJ, Tarver, the trilogy with Woods) rather than at 160, where he amassed a good record against poor opposition before losing to Hopkins.

MTF

 

Yet more proof of the complete lack of reading comprehension of the board's resident, imbecilic French-Canadian.

MTF