Hagler versus Hopkins, and why my mind is slowly changing

Afternoon fellas, hope all is well and that you can stomach all of the below to see why I'm feeling the way I am on this issue.

Here's one which has been bugging me a little bit lately. If you'd have asked me a couple of years back who I'd pick in a head to head match up between Bernard Hopkins and Marvin Hagler, two of the all-time top five Middleweights in history, then I'd have answered "Hagler" without much hesitation. Sure, Hopkins is a great, but how can the safety-first and cautious Hopkins, not known for his punch output, win a decision (I think we can all agree that, barring a cuts stoppage, he's not going to conquer the Marvelous one inside-schedule) against the aggressive, busy and iron-chinned Hagler? Hopkins to be outworked and systematically broken down from the centre of the ring as Hopkins runs away with the fight was, for a long time, how I saw it going.

In some senses, I haven't moved from that position in itself; if the pair of them fight at mid-range, holding the centre of the ring, then 'Marvelous' beats the 'Executioner' every single day of the week, for me. Hagler wasn't a bad inside fighter, and he wasn't clueless at long range either, but at middle distance with both men inside scoring range at all times and in the middle of the squared circle, he was magnificent. The jab, the ferocious counter-punching when his opponent made the first move, his judgement of distance etc. The way he went about breaking down Tony Sibson, for instance, in a fight which was fought on those kind of terms, was scary.

I guess that indomitable spirit of Hagler and the brutality that he displayed is very persuasive in terms of getting people to think that he could make a fight against most Middleweights in history one which would be boxed on his own terms. I tend to find that, in most cases, when a hypothetical match up between two divisional greats who are pretty much even in talent and ability is talked up amongst fans, the fighter who was the more attacking and aggressive of the pair in general will, more often than not, prove to be the percentage call.

But here is where I'm stumbling across a problem. Hagler was a fantastic instinct fighter; but when he had to really think about what he was doing, I tend to think he found the going a fair bit tougher. Dare I say it, 'Marvelous' is just about the last word you'd use to describe his ring smarts (not that they were poor, mind you).

It's never particularly been Hopkins' style to 'run', so to speak, or fight exclusively off the back foot. But he is capable of making his man go looking for him, and let's say he does and meets Marvin head on as few times as possible. How would Hagler react? If his performances against the cagey Duran and Leonard are anything to go by, then not particularly well!

Sometimes, I get the impression that it actually bugged Hagler that he was occasionally labelled as a slugger and, as a result, he had a tendancy to try and be too fancy and intricate for his own good, abandoning the qualities which made him such a formidable foe. When it became clear that Duran and Leonard were going to try and draw him in, get shots off and then back-peddle, Hagler should have just 'done a Monzon' and held his ground, be patient and wait until they eventually fell in to his trap of appearing docile - had he let them eventually come at him head on and swat, he'd have eaten them up, I think. Instead, he tried to show that his feet were as nimble as theirs. Unfortunately for Marvin, they weren't and he was left chasing shadows against Leonard (who he was never going to outspeed in a million years) and eating unnecessary jabs against Duran.

Hopkins, on the other hand, has never been one to forget his strengths. Doesn't throw many, but when he does it's usually quality work, particularly that notoriously sneaky right hand lead of his. At his best, you seldom saw him getting reckless and over-excited, even when he had his man hurt. He showed against Trinidad that he's not a bad 'matador' and, if the fight goes at long range with Hopkins looking to win going away, I think Hagler is going to struggle.

Hopkins' woes have often come against genuine, blinding speed, as was the case against Jones, Taylor and Calzaghe. However, I just don't think Hagler had the same speed to worry Bernard in that respect.

Moreover, while much gets made of Hagler's strength (rightly, I admit), the more I think about it the more I find myself thinking that Hopkins may have the edge in a scrappy, physical match up close as well. Hopkins has never been utterly devastating in one particular type of fight the way Hagler was in mid-range affairs, but he's a more rounded fighter than Marvin and, for my money, definitely the better inside fighter of the pair.

I took another look at Hagler-Antuofermo (I) not long ago, and as much as any other, this is a fight which plants seeds of doubt in my head about whether Hagler would be able to beat Bernard. Some argue that reports of 'robbery' in this fight are a little overblown. I agree to an extent, although I still feel that Hagler won it by at least three points (I think I had it 145-141 this time around). But it was the way in which he left the door open just a crack for Vito to hustle his way to that fortunate draw which has alarm bells ringing in my head.

When the fight was in the middle of the ring, Hagler had complete control, that much is undeniable. However, after completely bossing the first four rounds, he suddenly decided to try and become Pernell Whitaker! I was amazed at how often Vito had Hagler backing up when, in reality, there was very little reason for Marvin to do so. And right throughout the fight, Hagler just never looked natural or comfortable fighting in reverse; every time Vito jumped in wildly, Hagler wound up taking silly and totally unnecessary shots that he just wouldn't have taken had he had his feet planted and been in position to unleash those trademark, booming counters of his.

What's more, when the fight became a phone booth affair, I was amazed at how Vito seemed to have the upper hand; Hagler just didn't work on the inside. Pushed Vito off him, sure, but very little in the way of effective inside work came from Hagler that night. It was in those clinches that Antuofermo was able to produce his best work and make a fist of a fight which had looked certain to get completely away from him early doors and, while the decision was still a minor injustice to Hagler, you can't help but feel that he did himself no favours by over-complicating matters. Make no mistake, Hopkins has always been more than able to hold his own inside the proverbial phone booth and I'd say that a dogged, scrappy inside fight suits him more than it would Hagler.

It's a common saying that Hagler became a totally different animal after that and, as he famously said, that he'd let his "fists be his judges" from that point on. It's also common to hear that poor Alan Minter, Tony Sibson and Tommy Hearns ended up paying for that, as Hagler took no chances in those fights and really did do a number on all three of them. However, as his struggles with Duran and Leonard show, he didn't fully learn his lessons, or if he did he was quick to forget them!

I just can't help feeling that Hopkins' ring smarts could trump Hagler's superior physical gifts and natural assets here. I want to pick Hagler, I really do....But it depends so much on it being a fight from the centre of the ring. In short, I think in this particular fight Hopkins has slightly more ways in which he CAN win than Hagler does. Ultimately, Hagler made a bad habit of suddenly abandoning tactics when they were working for him - is Hopkins going to make the same mistake?

Hagler all day in the fight is at mid range. But if Hopkins spoils and makes it a horrendous spectacle (a bit of a speciality of his) or decides to make Hagler chase him, I can see Marvin falling in to his trap and getting decisioned. And my gut feeling is that the latter two cases may just crop up a little more often than the first.

I'll be damned before I rank Hopkins higher than Hagler in the all-time Middleweight standings, and I do think that Hagler was the better overall fighter at 160 lb, but "styles make fights" really is the most proven theory in boxing.

Bernard Hopkins decisions Marvin Hagler by narrow margins on all three cards. There, I've said it!

But what say all of you? Let me know, cheers.

Hagler all day.

azania wrote:Hagler all day.

Cheers Az, I've been well and truly told!

You're welcome. It would have been a stinker also.

azania wrote:You're welcome. It would have been a stinker also.

If Hopkins fought the right fight then yes, ironically, it would be an absolute howler to watch, I agree with that one. Can never accuse ol' Popkins of being style over substance.

From the outset, both men have things going for them which cancel out their strengths and weaknesses respectively. Hopkins can be outworked, Hagler liked to throw a lot. Both a shade vulnerable against great speed (Hopkins more so, admittedly) and neither really had it in abundance. Hagler had that fantasic jab, but Hopkins has a canny defence.

To me, Hopkins would just force Hagler to think a bit too much, though, and when Hagler wasn't fighting on instinct he always seemed to make things hard for himself.

azania wrote:Hagler all day.

and twice on sundays

Don't see any way Hopkins beats Hagler at 160. Different levels.

I'm not surprised that general consensus is against me here; as I said above, there was a time when I'd have gone firmly with Hagler on this one.

I am a little surprised that Hopkins' chances are being so readily dismissed so readily and emphatically, though! Surely I can't be the only one who likes Hopkins in this one?

I'm not blind to Hopkins' faults, but I think you'd have to conveniently airbrush all of Marvin's to make him an overwhelming favourite here. Hopkins has demonstrated that he can deal with fighters bearing similar traits to Hagler (albeit they were cut-price versions), whereas Hagler has been found out in tactical fights more than once. Dress it up all you like (he wanted to put on a show against Duran, was robbed against Antuofermo, Leonard ran etc) but there were times when he was outsmarted and made to work bloody hard for wins which should have come much easier, and in some cases the win didn't come at all.

Duran and Leonard weren't even natural Middleweights, either.

As I said, it's entirely possible that Hagler can implement the same plan he put together against Sibson and the like, and if he does then Hopkins has got serious problems, but Hopkins' strength and trickery could well undo him, for me.

I think either could win on a given day and depending who is judging. I think the fight would be uneventful because the two cancel each other out in a lot of areas. Potentially even more so if they have a healthy respect for each other. I think you could end up with a fight like Hopkins v Taylor with two fighters really struggling to establish any superiority over the other. Plenty of close, hard to score rounds leaving the outcome uncertain and the potential for either fighter to win. I think Hopkins holds a slight advantage on the inside with Hagler having a slight advantage on the outside. I have tended to favour Hopkins by the narrowest or margins because I think hes that little bit more likely to fight the fight on his terms up close. But I honestly think it’s a pick em.

I'd have to with with Hagler on this one.

People keep using the Duran and Leonard fights to beat Hagler over the head with. OK firstly, I actually didn't mind the Hagler Duran fight. It wasn't a great fight but I wasn't surprised that it went the distance. Yes I know that most were predicting a Hagler blow out win but Hagler generally just did not have those type of "tools". I thought that Hagler won this fight comfortably on the scorecards. I also thought that Hagler beat Leonard too. Just thinking about it, Hagler didn't look that good against Mugabi, so are we now going to say that he didn't do well against sluggers either?

I agree. I think Hagler would suit Hopkins and He'd take a decision. Honestly, I think Hopkins is simply a better fighter.

I just don't know where to place Hagler really. His performances against Duran, Leonard and Mugabi really make me question his all time standing from an ability perspective. What are his defences against Hamsho, Sibson, Lee and the rest worth? I'm always suspicious they were a pretty average bunch.

Hagler beat Duran alright, Atila, but I don't think he really enhanced his reputation in that fight. Either side of it, Benitez beat Duran by something not all that far off a shutout and Hearns completely annihilated him. Hagler took on Duran even further above Roberto's best weight than those two did and still Duran had Marvin pretty confused for nine or ten rounds, even if he never looked in serious trouble of actually losing the fight outright.

I just can't shake the feeling that while Hagler didn't have the blinding speed which Hopkins hates, Hopkins does have that canny ring IQ to upset Hagler and make him uncertain about how he's going to fight, ala Antuofermo (I) and Leonard. Hopkins is probably the better inside fighter and is definitely the better boxer going away. As others have said, it's difficult to see how exactly this fight would go in terms of what kind of boxing match it'd be, but I think there are more possible scenarios to favour Hopkins than there are to favour Hagler.

Hagler the better fighter for me in general, definitely the more impressive record at 160 as well, but on styles I think he has his work cut out against Bernard, to say the least.

azania wrote:Hagler all day.

Chris you need to know how to shorten your artcles. Az has just gotten your point accross in 3 words

Nah it was a good read and finished just in time to pack up and go home.

I still think that Hagler takes the decision but each to there own

i think hopkins would be a clear winner in a surprisingly entertaining fight.

hopkins fights have sometimes been dull because his opponents slow down and stop throwing their usual amount of punches, due to constantly being countered. or in the case of calzaghe, stop punching him and start tapping him with wild arm swings. hagler had a lot of heart, and a younger hopkins was willing to meet in the centre of a ring to get his shots off. having seen almost every bernard fight, and not just his older self over the past few years, im confident hopkins fights this one on the front foot, and tries to take the play away from hagler. hagler is not fast enough or smart enough to beat hopkins to the punch

I've said for a long time that Hopkins decisions Hagler nine times out of ten, his strengths namely his brain would cause a whole host of problems. His defence would be a hard nut to crack for Hagler too, trying to overcome someone who wouldn't meet him head on is the major flaw he has.

For the record I have Hopkins 3rd or 4th at middleweight depending on my mood of Robinson.

I think some people are getting carried away with this idea of Hopkins as master boxer. Jones Jr. dealt with him comfortably.

This is a guy that was beaten twice by Jermain Taylor for crying out loud. Taylor didn't do anything other than fight hard -- there wasn't a lot of science to it. What else on his Hopkins' middleweight record suggests that he could contend with a force like Hagler?

Hagler was on a different level to Hopkins, who has been overrated of late. Bernard fought a lot of garbage at 160. Hagler fought and beat everyone and when I say beat, I mean beat -- none of this fiddling and farting to a points win. Different animals.

hazharrison wrote:I think some people are getting carried away with this idea of Hopkins as master boxer. Jones Jr. dealt with him comfortably.

This is a guy that was beaten twice by Jermain Taylor for crying out loud. Taylor didn't do anything other than fight hard -- there wasn't a lot of science to it. What else on his Hopkins' middleweight record suggests that he could contend with a force like Hagler?

Hagler was on a different level to Hopkins, who has been overrated of late. Bernard fought a lot of garbage at 160. Hagler fought and beat everyone and when I say beat, I mean beat -- none of this fiddling and farting to a points win. Different animals.

Jones and Hagler were different animals, too, so I don't tend to read too much in to that here. Nary a similarity between them and to be honest, I don't see Jones losing to many Middleweights in history in any case, and I'm including Hagler there.

Hopkins lost to Taylor, sure (another fighter with the kind of speed which Hagler can't match), just as Hagler had his titles stolen away from him by an inactive career Welterweight who, on the basis of his fights after that point, didn't have a great deal left in the tank. Swings and roundabouts.

It's not so much about Hopkins being a "master boxer." It's about how his style, strengths and weaknesses match up with those of Hagler. You can say that some of us are getting carried away with Hopkins (and as I've said, I'm not blind to his faults and weaknesses), but if you're going to completely dismiss his chances altogether in this one then I'd say you'd have to be getting carried away with Hagler's championship career as well, because it displayed more than one chink in his armour which lesser Middleweights than Hopkins were able to show.

Would have to disagree there, being dealt with by Jones is no indicator of how Hagler would do against Hopkins, completely different fighters. It's no worse than being beaten by a semi retired Leonard who was half the fighter Jones was at middleweight.

As is common with any long standing champion Hopkins has some mediocre opponents on his record but it's no as if Hagler was beyond that either, Scypion and Lee being prime examples.

88Chris05 wrote:Hagler beat Duran alright, Atila, but I don't think he really enhanced his reputation in that fight. Either side of it, Benitez beat Duran by something not all that far off a shutout and Hearns completely annihilated him. Hagler took on Duran even further above Roberto's best weight than those two did and still Duran had Marvin pretty confused for nine or ten rounds, even if he never looked in serious trouble of actually losing the fight outright.

I just can't shake the feeling that while Hagler didn't have the blinding speed which Hopkins hates, Hopkins does have that canny ring IQ to upset Hagler and make him uncertain about how he's going to fight, ala Antuofermo (I) and Leonard. Hopkins is probably the better inside fighter and is definitely the better boxer going away. As others have said, it's difficult to see how exactly this fight would go in terms of what kind of boxing match it'd be, but I think there are more possible scenarios to favour Hopkins than there are to favour Hagler.

Hagler the better fighter for me in general, definitely the more impressive record at 160 as well, but on styles I think he has his work cut out against Bernard, to say the least.

Care to elaborate on that last statement Chris? I'm much more familiar with Haglars opponents than Hopkins, so I can't really comment myself, but both enjoyed long reigns, Hoppo made more defences, but Hearns and Duran aside, Haglar's victim list isn't that Stella, but not poor either, his best oopponents not being genuine mws doesn't help. Was the standard of Hoppo's opponents that much worse that you could say Haglars record was that much more impressive?

Hagler's level of opposition at 160 was far better then Hopkins'.

Taylor beat Hopkins fair and square, Hagler's loss to Leonard highly contentious.

What does Hopkins do to stymie Hagler? Who's the best middleweight he actually defeated? Keith Holmes? He was a bully at middleweight -- not some master craftsman -- but he'd not bully Hagler. Hagler was an adaptable 15-round monster who could switch stances effectively, box (as he did against Briscoe) or war (as he did with Hearns).

Hopkins' great trick was to outsmart plodding or one-dimensional fighters such as Pavlik, Cloud, Pascal and Trinidad (and I love Tito). Hagler was far from that. He'd have beaten Hopkins up.

His level of opposition wasn't that great and I would say Hopkins has more wins against genuine middleweights, you're massively over rating Hagler and his opponents there to the degradation of Hopkins who's far better than you're giving him credit for.

You ask who the best middleweight is that Hopkins beat but we can ask the very same question of Hagler who gets a lot of credit for beating a pair of greats moving up the weights to face him.

Duran and Hearns isn't much different to De La Hoya and Trinidad, if anything Trinidad was the more proven of the quartet above Welterweight.

I had Hopkins losing a pair of contentious decisions to Taylor also while Haglers great trick was also to bully smaller men, it works both ways.

Haz, the Taylor/Hop fights were very close. They could have gone either way.

horizontalhero wrote:Care to elaborate on that last statement Chris? I'm much more familiar with Haglars opponents than Hopkins, so I can't really comment myself, but both enjoyed long reigns, Hoppo made more defences, but Hearns and Duran aside, Haglar's victim list isn't that Stella, but not poor either, his best oopponents not being genuine mws doesn't help. Was the standard of Hoppo's opponents that much worse that you could say Haglars record was that much more impressive?

I'd feel comfortable saying that Hagler has a record to trump Hopkins' at Middleweight, HH. Hagler forms a holy trinity at the top of the 160 lb pile for me along with Greb and Monzon, but Hopkins belongs in the next tier in my estimations. Marvin did have a seven year stretch as the absolute, undisputed master of the division; Hopkins stacked up twenty defences all told, but only half a dozen of them as the consensus divisional kingpin. Hearns remains a better win than anything Bernard has on his Middleweight ledger, for me, and I don't think Hagler's win against Mugabi should be forgotten here, either. Yes, Mugabi was crude and yes, he was a career 154 pounder - but he was undefeated, genuinely feared throughout boxing, went on to claim a world title after Marvin beat him and also was at the absolute peak of his powers.

Don't get me wrong, there isn't a world of difference between them as Middleweight records go and I'm sorry if I made it come across that way, but I cannae have Hopkins on the same pedestal I have Marvin on when it comes to the 160 pounders.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:His level of opposition wasn't that great and I would say Hopkins has more wins against genuine middleweights, you're massively over rating Hagler and his opponents there to the degradation of Hopkins who's far better than you're giving him credit for.

You ask who the best middleweight is that Hopkins beat but we can ask the very same question of Hagler who gets a lot of credit for beating a pair of greats moving up the weights to face him.

Duran and Hearns isn't much different to De La Hoya and Trinidad, if anything Trinidad was the more proven of the quartet above Welterweight.

I had Hopkins losing a pair of contentious decisions to Taylor also while Haglers great trick was also to bully smaller men, it works both ways.

1. Briscoe, Munroe, Hart, Finnegan, Seales, Watts, Minter, Antuofermo, Lee, Sibson, Roldan, Hamsho all better than the likes of Keith Holmes and William Joppy. Hagler cleaned house at middleweight -- beat every ranked fighter in his path.

Duran and Hearns far better than Oscar and Tito. All-time greats, better fighters than the latter duo and did more at the weight.

What exactly did Duran do at middleweight other than beating the very average Barkley?

Hopkins also cleaned house and beat every ranked fighter in his path and trying to suggest that Finnegan, Hart, Munroe, Hamsho and Lee for starters are better than Holmes or Joppy is bordering on the insance.

You seem intent on massively exaggerating Haglers reign when he benefitted heavily from having two greats moving up to face him, lets take Hearns out of the equation and his opposition isn't that good at all.

I would take Eastman over the majority of Haglers opposition personally, we only know who Roldan, Hamsho and Watts are because they fought him, they have done absolutely nothing to be held on such a high pedestal.

Sibson is a very under rated fighter. In any other era (post Hagler) he would have been a champ.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What exactly did Duran do at middleweight other than beating the very average Barkley?

That was one of the finest displays in boxing history. Labelling Barkley "very average" is short-sighted -- he fought an almost perfect fight against Duran but was unlucky to come up against one of the greatest in history in inspired form. Barkley was a better middleweight than anyone Hopkins beat.

Hopkins didn't clean house. He'd have never been champion if Jones hadn't moved on. Hagler mowed down every ranked fighter around him save for a handful of men such as Dwight Davison and James Schuler who lost to guys Hagler chewed up in any case.

"Let's take Hearns out of the equation". What sort of nonsensical comment is that?

azania wrote:Sibson is a very under rated fighter. In any other era (post Hagler) he would have been a champ.

Right on. "Sibbo" was a monster when his nerves didn't get the better of him. Huge puncher.

You can also look at how an aged Hopkins fared against Tarver, Calzaghe, Pavlik or Pascal. Granted not at middleweight but good indicator of Hopkins talent and ability. Hagler might deserve to rank above Hopkins at middleweight but I dont see where the argument he is a different level comes from. It has a close fight written all over it for me. Hopkins might be beatable but he was a big strong middleweight with a great inside game. Seriously doubt he would get beaten up. If he loses I think Hagler outpoints him from the outside in a hard fought decision.

Sorry Haz but I can't begin to take that past post seriously.

hopkins was past his best by the time he fought taylor, yet i thought he won the first one and drew the second.
im not saying hopkins was anywhere near finished, but it was time to take stock of what he had lost over time, and has readjusted his style since. at any other point in his career hopkins would have beaten taylor comfortably

Hopkins' peers -- Jones and Toney -- don't speak highly of him. To them, he was the third guy in the room and not at their level.

Hagler's peers don't share that opinion.

What exactly is Hopkins' great inside game? Straight right, stick the head in and hold. He almost dogged it against Calzaghe -- who wanted to fight rather than grapple.

The best fighters Hopkins faced at middleweight were Jones, Trinidad, Taylor, Holmes and Joppy. He went 3-3.

When was Hopkins at his peak? I get fed up with people saying he was not at his best when he lost then saying he was green when RJJ beat him up. The guy is still competing at the highest level and is not a name that young guys feed off.

Lance wrote:hopkins was past his best by the time he fought taylor, yet i thought he won the first one and drew the second.
im not saying hopkins was anywhere near finished, but it was time to take stock of what he had lost over time, and has readjusted his style since. at any other point in his career hopkins would have beaten taylor comfortably

Or: He fought a live middleweight for a change?

Taylor just plain outfought him -- got in his face. Can you imagine Taylor getting in Hagler's face?

jones speaks very highly of hopkins these days, as does ward. has toney ever spoken highly of anyone??? maybe we should dismiss jones at middleweight, as toney and hopkins have spoken poorly of him at certain times?

calzaghe didnt want to fight. he wanted to bamboozle him with arm punches to get a poor decision....

your brother audley speaks more truth

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sorry Haz but I can't begin to take that past post seriously.

That hardly surprises me.

hazharrison wrote:

Lance wrote:hopkins was past his best by the time he fought taylor, yet i thought he won the first one and drew the second.
im not saying hopkins was anywhere near finished, but it was time to take stock of what he had lost over time, and has readjusted his style since. at any other point in his career hopkins would have beaten taylor comfortably

Or: He fought a live middleweight for a change?

Taylor just plain outfought him -- got in his face. Can you imagine Taylor getting in Hagler's face?

got in his face??? so you havent seen the fights then im guessing???

James Toney?? well if he says so.....

Lance wrote:jones speaks very highly of hopkins these days, as does ward. has toney ever spoken highly of anyone??? maybe we should dismiss jones at middleweight, as toney and hopkins have spoken poorly of him at certain times?

calzaghe didnt want to fight. he wanted to bamboozle him with arm punches to get a poor decision....

your brother audley speaks more truth

Brilliant post. I take it you didn't watch Calzaghe vs Hopkins?

It dont think it was possible for Taylor or Hopkins to have outfought each other. The entire match lacked any fight whatsoever.

hazharrison wrote:

Lance wrote:jones speaks very highly of hopkins these days, as does ward. has toney ever spoken highly of anyone??? maybe we should dismiss jones at middleweight, as toney and hopkins have spoken poorly of him at certain times?

calzaghe didnt want to fight. he wanted to bamboozle him with arm punches to get a poor decision....

your brother audley speaks more truth

Brilliant post. I take it you didn't watch Calzaghe vs Hopkins?

thanks

and yeah i saw it. was close, but neither guy wanted a fight, there was plenty of respect there, they just went about different ways of nullifying the other. hopkins held and feigned, calzaghe did the windmill to stop hopkins getting close. a lot of what joe was throwing was not punches.

at what point did taylor get in hopkins face over the 24 rounds they fought???????

manos de piedra wrote:It dont think it was possible for Taylor or Hopkins to have outfought each other. The entire match lacked any fight whatsoever.

Perhaps poor terminology on my part -- he showed Hopkins no respect (like Calzaghe) and outworked him.

hazharrison wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:It dont think it was possible for Taylor or Hopkins to have outfought each other. The entire match lacked any fight whatsoever.

Perhaps poor terminology on my part -- he showed Hopkins no respect (like Calzaghe) and outworked him.

no. he showed hopkins plenty of respect and they fought like it was a chess match. as i say, you havent seen the fights, its clear. they are on youtube, check em out, doubt you will enjoy them though

Lance wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Lance wrote:jones speaks very highly of hopkins these days, as does ward. has toney ever spoken highly of anyone??? maybe we should dismiss jones at middleweight, as toney and hopkins have spoken poorly of him at certain times?

calzaghe didnt want to fight. he wanted to bamboozle him with arm punches to get a poor decision....

your brother audley speaks more truth

Brilliant post. I take it you didn't watch Calzaghe vs Hopkins?

thanks

and yeah i saw it. was close, but neither guy wanted a fight, there was plenty of respect there, they just went about different ways of nullifying the other. hopkins held and feigned, calzaghe did the windmill to stop hopkins getting close. a lot of what joe was throwing was not punches.

at what point did taylor get in hopkins face over the 24 rounds they fought???????

Didn't get in his face Joe Frazier style but didn't show Hopkins any respect and let fly with his shots. Rocked him in round two of the first fight. Got stuck into him is perhaps a better way to put it.

Calzaghe tried to fight, Hopkins tried to spoil and nullify (as usual).

he didnt get stuck into him. he actually threw less than hopkins in the second fight. he circled him on the outside and tried to beat bernard to the punch. you have seen the calzaghe fight, and assumed taylor must have outworked him too. poor posts...

maybe if you bothered to watch some of hopkins fights you might have a bit more respect for what he does. he certainly didnt look to spoil against johnson, trinidad, tarver, pavlik, joppy and plenty of others... but i guess its easier to make assumptions and use them as the basis for your negativity

Lance wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:It dont think it was possible for Taylor or Hopkins to have outfought each other. The entire match lacked any fight whatsoever.

Perhaps poor terminology on my part -- he showed Hopkins no respect (like Calzaghe) and outworked him.

no. he showed hopkins plenty of respect and they fought like it was a chess match. as i say, you havent seen the fights, its clear. they are on youtube, check em out, doubt you will enjoy them though

Or, I don't agree with your assessment. Pithy comment.

Both Taylor/Hopkins fights were low tempo, low wrokrate affairs lacking bite and urgency. Pretty much a case of two fighters who couldnt get to grips with each other or exploit each others weakness. They were hardly conclusive affairs either. Hopkins could easily have won both of the fights with a different set of judges. Its not like Taylor went in there and schooled him. He nicked two highly subjective contests.

When has Hopkins been in an exciting fight? They're all cagey affairs. The older he gets the more cagier his fights are. Hopefully someone retires him.

Hagler for me anyway you want to slice it. Many use Haglers performances against Duran & Leonard as a measuring stick, that was the worst of Marvin and let's be honest that ain't bad.
Shoe on other foot Hopkins getting wobbled an dropped emphatically against the likes of Segunda Mercado , labouring against the limited Robert Allens of the world, imagine Hagler facing that Hopkins ?

I think Hagler was just flat out better than Hopkins, regardless of Hopkins's technical prowess. Hagler was more dominant and impressive against better opposition.

Hagler busts Hopkins up, unless Bernard cheats and turns it ugly lulling the action is the only way he sees the final bell for me.

Cheers Rodders

Lance wrote:he didnt get stuck into him. he actually threw less than hopkins in the second fight. he circled him on the outside and tried to beat bernard to the punch. you have seen the calzaghe fight, and assumed taylor must have outworked him too. poor posts...

Yeah, right. Got me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQP30PAmrUU

Advise me where Taylor circles outside here? Claims centre ring throughout.