Hopkins vs Hagler

That debate has been had here a thousand times. Those who want to claim that Tito was a great middleweight have to hang their hat on his performance against William Joppy. William Joppy :: When he is the basis of the argument for saying someone is a great fighter because they best him, the jig is up.

MTF

 

Nothing to do with that.

If that was the case, I'd pump up Joppy as some sort of world beating hall of famer that would beat a lot of middleweight greats, and I know that is far from the truth.

Watch the fights with Joppy and Cherifi, and compare them to Tito's performances against Vargas, Reid, Thiam. Go even further back and watch his fights with Zulu, Waters, Campas, etc.

He was clearly a much better fighter at the lower weights.

 

Joppy was an ok fighter, nothing more. He wasn't a bum, per say.
But far from SPECIAL. I'd pick the likes of Jones, Monzon, Hagler, Lamotta, Robinson, Hearns, McClellan, etc. to beat the hell outta him.

 

It's no shame to lose to Roy Jones.

Both Jermain Taylor fights were close and could have gone either way (I thought Hopkins won the rematch)...and Jermain was young and undefeated and Hopkins was already on the downside of his career. I never saw Hagler beat anyone when he was at the age Bernard was when he lost two close fights to Taylor. a PRIME (in terms of age at least) Hagler lost to Watts and Monroe and when he lost to an inactive former Welterweight he was still only 34 or so.

My point is, not to take anything away from haggler...but to show that you can tear even Hagler's down if that's your agenda.

 

what made that punch of his effective was timing more than speed

 

Not well you cant

 

REED's Never Seen a Fighter CONSISTENTLY Land that Punch, Against an Array of Opponents, w/Out Possessing Good Handspeed...






REED:hammert:

 

I've said it before on this forum many times but I distinctly remember an article in one of the magazines. I think it was KO Magazine that was written immediately after Hagler's loss to Leonard. The writer was completely tearing down Hagler's resume. It's actually very easy to do if you want to.

 

Correct. Joppy was a decent titlist and nothing more than than. Hardly a bum but at world level he loses to pretty much any good-great champ.

He is the entire basis of the argument that Trinidad, who was a superb Welterweight, was also a superb Middleweight and this means that Hopkins' win over him is a magnificent win.

MTF

 

You've tried it here before. I remember you arguing that the likes of Minter and Antuofermo were basically shite, for example.

MTF ::

 

Look, you can rattle on about Hagler all you want because that is your agenda in this thread. I don't have an agenda regarding Hopkins. I've repeatedly said that I rate him highly, credit him for dominating a weak division, said it isn't his fault his comp was poor and that he has a number of superb wins at higher weights. It has fuck all to do with Hagler - that is an accurate appraisal of Hopkins MW reign.

'Nard faced two consensus elite-level MW's and lost to them three times. If you want to start adding a load of subjective stuff about how he was 'green' when RJJ beat him and that he won one or both of the Taylor fights have at it, but that is a bunch of subjective stuff based on your opinion.

The objective FACT is that in his fights against RJJ and Taylor, he is 0-3.

MTF

 

:: at taylor being an elite level middleweight

 

not saying he didnt have good speed. he did. but so did hagler.

 

Trinidad had like 45 fights and like 4 of them were at 160. He's 41-0 below 160 and 2-2 at 160. He turned pro at 140 and was welter champ for 7 years. He looked gaunt at 147, proportionate at 154 and a little chubby at 160.

Another then knocking out Joppy, who was a decent jr middle sized opponent, there's nothing to suggest Tito was a true mw at all.

Mw was the weight Tito finished his career at that wasn't his best weight. You know, like just about every other fighter that ever lived...

 

With the benefit of hindsight, you can say that Hopkins just beat a blown up welterweight that wasn't as good at MW. But the reality is that, leading up to the fight, that wasn't the perception at all. Many people, and not only Tito's rabid fanbase, were picking Tito to win, and big (I think the odds were 4-1 or 5-1). My opinion is that wins have to be judged within the context in which they happened. Hopkins' win over Trinidad was a great win over an outstanding fighter that almost nobody doubted at the time. I think a case could even be made that Hopkins' broke Tito mentally that night, explaining his rather quick deterioration after that.

 

Hopkins had BETTER Handspeed than Hagler, Neil...Not a Cavernous Gap btwn them, but BETTER...






REED:hammert:

 

I think Hopkins 'which way am I going now' footwork would be stifled by Haglers jab and when Hopkins went defensive Hagler would have enough hand speed to score. He could also hurt Hopkins to steal rounds and maybe even drop him.

 

Well one of his lost at 160 was against the best fighter he ever fought, and the other was after a 2 and a half years layoff. You can spin it as much as you want, but fact is that the joppy fight was considered at the time as one of titos best performance

 

Hopkins was a better pots hitter but Hagler has noticeably quicker hands when he got a target to sit in front of him. Look at the combo he took out Sibson with. Looks like a shoeshine combo in real time but watch the replay and he's throwing consecutive haymakers.

 

Well i should have used belittle instead of blame, but doesn't change anything. Anyways thats typical of low life troll, focusing on insignificant little detail instead of the main argument. Congrats. Btw you should man up a bit. Your little e-vendetta is really lame

 

Hopkins is regarded as the best fighter Tito ever fought because he beat Tito, a welterweight. Not because of his mediocre reign at mw, losing to Taylor or beating the legendary Kelly Pavlik.

I don't view Floyd as a prime, great true welterweight because he beat Baldomir and that's basically what you're doing with Joppy.

I mean, why wouldn't Tito have been better when he was younger and fighting guys his own size?

 

Yes...and to those facts I say...so what? Dude was 40 or so in the Taylor fights and he lost to RJJ!! Roy Jones Jnr!! You think hagler was beating Roy Jones Jnr? Hagler who went the distance and had a competitive with the same blown lightweight past prime Duran that hearns would destroy soon after?

Like I said before...no shame in losing to Roy Jones...especially at middleweight. And no shame losing a competitive fight or two at age 40 against a young undefeated top ranked prospect.

 

The benefit hindsight is the benefit of it; i.e. you can that people were wrong in the first place. Boxing history is littered with examples of fights where people were utterly wrong before the fight. Ali was a 8-1 underdog to beat Liston. Every single reporter at the fight bar one had Liston down to win. Ali battered him. Hindsight shows that Ali was a much better MW than Liston. That's one of hundreds of examples.

MTF

 

An idiot who can't read or write properly calling other people 'incredibly ignorant' :: The forum clown calling other posters a 'clown' ::

Irony x 1000 ::

Fucking spastic.

MTF ::

 

Subjective v objective.

MTF

 

I was being generous to him. If he isn't, it actually strengthens my argument.

MTF

 

Yeah but it didn't mean that Liston was a bum. It meant that Ali was so good that he could embarrass a great fighter like Liston. Tito was a formidable opponent whether Hopkins embarrassed him or not. Tito was undefeated going into that fight, active, and riding a wave of confidence.

 

Say the imbecile who actually posted some articles that contradicted his argument not long ago ::

After this one, you should have the decency to not talk about anybody reading comprehension ::


And yes belittling hopkins win against tito on the basis that tito was a former ww is extremely ignorant in a thread involving hagler and hokins, since hagler signature win was also against a ww. But then, youd have to know a little about the sport to know this, and you've shown numerous times that your knowledge is strictly limited to britsh fighters

 

Tito wasn't a 'bum'. Where did I say that he was? He was a superb welterweight, a very good light-middle and, based on the strength of his big win at 160 (Joppy) a good MW. Hopkins, who most people consider an ATG middleweight, should be embarassing good middleweights.

MTF

 

I'm not disputing that, the odds simply highlight Liston was a formidable foe at the time and an important part of Ali's legacy, just as Tito for Hopkins. Not a lot of people were considering him a bloated WW, if any.