Hagler versus Hopkins, and why my mind is slowly changing

First topic message reminder :

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.

Hoppo wasn't green..........Beaten by a better fighter.....

Did his style dramatically change after?? No.....

What he ever have beaten Jones back then??? No..........

Green b******t

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hoppo wasn't green..........Beaten by a better fighter.....

Did his style dramatically change after?? No.....

What he ever have beaten Jones back then??? No..........

Green b******t

He'd had no amateur career and was a 20 fight professional.. who lost his first fight as a pro and prior to fighting RJJ fought a guys with a record of 26-14, 30-3, 12-14.

RJJ came far too early for him. He was green, accept that fact.

Hopkins has always fought the same way............

What would/could he do different????..........

He was fighting a guy he couldn't prepare for...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hopkins has always fought the same way............

What would/could he do different????..........

He was fighting a guy he couldn't prepare for...

He may have fought roughly the same way, but that doesn't make him the same fighter throughout his career. The version of Bhop that was around the time of beating Trinidad to a pulp was a far, far superior version of the period around when he faced RJJ.

That's a fact.

Bhop at the turn of the millenium > than Bhop in the mid 90s. By a distance as well.

What I'm saying right is that If I'm Tony Tucker and have only beaten stiffs would beating Witherspoon and Smith really get me ready for Mike Tyson???

NOPE.................because I'd be fighting an animal I couldn't prepare for even with more experience.......

Jones JR is an all time great with huge gifts making greenness irrelevant.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What I'm saying right is that If I'm Tony Tucker and have only beaten stiffs would beating Witherspoon and Smith really get me ready for Mike Tyson???

NOPE.................because I'd be fighting an animal I couldn't prepare for even with more experience.......

Jones JR is an all time great with huge gifts making greenness irrelevant.....

So do you not think the form that Bhop was in around the time he smashed Trinidad to pieces wouldn't stand any sort of chance against RJJ?

And lets not forget that a hugely inferior version of BHop still only lost the fight by 116-112. My money would be on a Trinidad version of Bhop giving RJJ a massive run for his money and if they were to fight 10 times wouldn't go 0-10.

No because he's a different fighter than Jones Jr...............

Tucker beat Douglas....lost to Tyson who lost to Douglas..........

Gee wrote:So do you not think the form that Bhop was in around the time he smashed Trinidad to pieces wouldn't stand any sort of chance against RJJ?

And lets not forget that a hugely inferior version of BHop still only lost the fight by 116-112. My money would be on a Trinidad version of Bhop giving RJJ a massive run for his money and if they were to fight 10 times wouldn't go 0-10.

Bit of hyperbole here, methinks. Hopkins wasn't at his absolute best in 1993 but he certainly wasn't "hugely inferior" for my money. He didn't lose for another twelve years after that point and was IBF champion within two years (could easily have been eighteen months save for the disputed draw first time out against Mercardo).

Hopkins' finest hour came in 2001, but Jones was a better and more complete, experienced fighter by that stage as well (the improvements in his game after switching from his father's training to Merkerson's was notable). I honestly don't think that Hopkins would ever have stood much of a chance against a Jones with a pulse, much less so if he was having to jump up in weight as he'd have had to do in 2001 / 2002.

Jones to decision him again, probably a little more emphatically this time. Roy was just the better fighter for my money.

I think hopkins didnt ever have the tools to deal with RJJ - and somehow I dont think hagler does either. Rjj = freak of nature and I dont see anyone beating him either at middle or lightheavy. Any poor performance against him shouldnt be held against anyone. Just that good. His ruining of Toney and masterclass against hopkins lend wieght to tjhe argument. I think of RJJ as I do the Young Ali - utterly without equal.

Largely agree at Middleweight, Shah. Think Foster may well have been a nightmare for him at 175, though. Jones went to the ropes a lot more at the higher weight and it was deceptive how quickly Foster could eat up the ring underneath him and close the distance - if he gets Roy trapped there then it could be curtains.

Foster didn't mind letting the other fella open up in order to land his own hammer blows, either, so Jones is going to have to be a bit careful when he's getting off those fast flurries; guys like Tiger, Quarry and Finnegan were all sparked in the middle of an attack against Bob.

Might just edge Foster ahead as my favourite for that one, although I wouldn't be surprised if Jones decisioned him.

Who else at Light-Heavy, though? I think he outscores Archie at the very least and maybe even takes him out early, is perhaps 50:50 against Charles (wouldn't object to anyone making Ezzard a favourite, though), and outside of that I'm struggling.

Guys like Griffin (first fight) and McCallum, compact fighters who punched from awkward angles, did give Jones a little bit to think about here and there, so maybe Spinks and that right hand of his could work some magic there, but it's debatable.

One thing's for sure, Jones puts a good whooping up any Super-Middleweight titlist we've seen so far.

Possibly Chris but I just don't see it, even while he was fighting there was an intelligence to him that would have found a way round the problem. Foster was good but not very subtle and Roy could have adjusted very well to him although perhaps alot more safety first than we are used to seeing. I agree though, that if he fought his usual fight he might end up somewhere in the crowd, but I do see him giving Foster a lot more respect than he did to Mccallum. Archie is a tough one but still physically limited in comparison. Super intelligent yes but perhaps similar to Bernard Hopkins whose brain makes up for lack of physical gifts especially in comparison to RJJ.

Ezzard Charles is a tough one I admit but does he have the skills to land regularly enough hard enough to beat Roy jones - possibly but I doubt it - if you take him as he is - the consensus top 5 maybe even top 1 LH, You'll get to see a crisper, no nonsense RJJ and I think a RJJ who aint effin about could do a number on anyone. That said I think Charles wins 4 rounds and Roy takes the rest.

As for the SMw - I agree entirely. For a little while I though Joe might give him a run for his money on workrate alone, but I see roy cut through the chaff and land clean, forcing Joe to cut down on his wild flurries. Joes tendency to scrap when hurt/embarrased would get him destroyed against a cool calm customer like Jones.

Charles beats him comfortably for me, aside from speed he's better in every way, no slight on Jones because Charles is head and shoulders above the rest at 175lbs, for different reasons would make Tunney, Foster and Spinks favourites as well.

I think style wise Calzaghe is always going to pose a lot of problems for Jones. If Calzaghe can keep it close after 7 or 8 rounds I think down the stretch with his engine, output and adaptability he'd finish the stronger of the two and could make it very close on the score cards, I'd still make Jones a decent favourite though. Ward as good as he is I just don't think he has the tools to beat Jones and I'd say the same for any version of Hopkins against Jones from 1993-2000.

88Chris05 wrote:

One thing's for sure, Jones puts a good whooping up any Super-Middleweight titlist we've seen so far.

excepting richie woodhall, chris... presumably just an oversight on your part

milkyboy wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

One thing's for sure, Jones puts a good whooping up any Super-Middleweight titlist we've seen so far.

excepting richie woodhall, chris... presumably just an oversight on your part

Aye you're right, my memory really is a bit ropey these days. As soon as the ban on multiple accounts is lifted I'll unleash Ralphy back on the world and set the record straight.

As for the SMw - I agree entirely. For a little while I though Joe might give him a run for his money on workrate alone, but I see roy cut through the chaff and land clean, forcing Joe to cut down on his wild flurries. Joes tendency to scrap when hurt/embarrased would get him destroyed against a cool calm customer like Jones.

I disagree. Calzaghe for all his technical flaws, has a granite chin which, even against Jones keeps him in this fight and are we not forgetting Roy's own delicate whiskers? If Calaghe hits him with the kind of shots he landed ahainst the likes of Byron Mitchell, Jones is a goner.

If Roy keeps moving, he wins but as soon as he decides to brawl, he comes a cropper with Joe and I can't see Jones even considering the possibility of a shoot-out with Calzaghe.

DAVE667 wrote:

As for the SMw - I agree entirely. For a little while I though Joe might give him a run for his money on workrate alone, but I see roy cut through the chaff and land clean, forcing Joe to cut down on his wild flurries. Joes tendency to scrap when hurt/embarrased would get him destroyed against a cool calm customer like Jones.

I disagree. Calzaghe for all his technical flaws, has a granite chin which, even against Jones keeps him in this fight and are we not forgetting Roy's own delicate whiskers? If Calaghe hits him with the kind of shots he landed ahainst the likes of Byron Mitchell, Jones is a goner.

If Roy keeps moving, he wins but as soon as he decides to brawl, he comes a cropper with Joe and I can't see Jones even considering the possibility of a shoot-out with Calzaghe.

I wasnt suggesting that Roy would scrap - just that Joe scraps when he gets hurt and a cool customer like roy wouldnt play his game. Mitchell thought he had him, Lacy as well for a second after landing his only decent punch in the first round and they went after him thinking he was hurt and he gave them a beating.

hazharrison wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

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.

Oh dear.

Oh dear....

Sorry Haz, I don't have a problem with you rating Haglar over Hoppo, or believing that his record is substantially better, but to describe Duran's win over Barkley as one of the finest is boxing history is stretch things to the extreme. Barkley was "very average " a crude overachiever, exposed by an a ancient Duran, outclassed by Toney, and beat up by Benn, a somewhat fortunate Ko of Hearns ( having been taken to school up to that point) aside, there's little of note on his ledger. And to claim he fought a perfect fight? In what way exactly? He let an old man back into a fight, let him score a knockdown, and threw away a fight he should won at a canter. Add to that that he was huge compared to Duran, and to my mind you can only conclude it was a poor performance by Iran, or that he simply wasn't very good. Either way it does little to back up your arguement.

Barkley fought the perfect fight as follows:

Concentrated on body punching against and older, smaller man.
Backed Duran to the ropes.
Initiated prolonged exchanges.
Set a pace.
Refused to be overawed.
Committed to left hooks.
Fought at a furious pace.
Jabbed repeatedly.
Refused to let Duran rest in the clinches.
Fought a controlled fight (refused to be affected by the Davey Moore beating).

Duran's performance to turn back a hulking powerhouse of a middleweight (as a lightweight -- before PEDs made everyone multi-divisional and at the age of 37) was one of the finest boxing performances in history. He was the old Duran again for one final night. An absolute masterclass.

I have a hunch you've merely scanned through Box Rec at Barkley's record and made a rather clumsy assumption. Barkley was limited, erratic and troubled by eye damage throughout his career but he was as mean as hell, physically intimidating and a tough-as-old-boots street fighter. He holds two wins over Hearns, crucified Darrin Van Horn and whupped James Kinchen and Michael Olajide. He also ran Michael Nunn close (and of course, Duran).

Barkley's age, physical attributes and strategic fight plan made him a formidable obstacle for Roberto, back when a lightweight moving up to middleweight looked like....well....a chubby lightweight, rather than an artificially enhanced Greek God.

Barkley was tremendous that night. Duran was just special.

[quote="DAVE667"]

... and are we not forgetting Roy's own delicate whiskers?

Good point Dave. Those imagining Jones would tattoo the greats of yesteryear would do well to remember what happened when Jones ended up taking one flush. For the majority of his career, that didn't happen. Against history's great fighters, he would be hit.

DAVE667 wrote:

As for the SMw - I agree entirely. For a little while I though Joe might give him a run for his money on workrate alone, but I see roy cut through the chaff and land clean, forcing Joe to cut down on his wild flurries. Joes tendency to scrap when hurt/embarrased would get him destroyed against a cool calm customer like Jones.

I disagree. Calzaghe for all his technical flaws, has a granite chin which, even against Jones keeps him in this fight and are we not forgetting Roy's own delicate whiskers? If Calaghe hits him with the kind of shots he landed ahainst the likes of Byron Mitchell, Jones is a goner.

If Roy keeps moving, he wins but as soon as he decides to brawl, he comes a cropper with Joe and I can't see Jones even considering the possibility of a shoot-out with Calzaghe.

When boxers get old, often their ability to absorb a punch lowers. Just because RJJ has been sparked lately doesn't mean he was chinny in his prime.

Anyway a peak RJJ slaps Cal a new one.

That's some way to spin it Haz, trying make out the very average Barkley was anything more than just average, no middleweight worth his title should have been losing to an old fat former lightweight in Roberto Duran.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:That's some way to spin it Haz, trying make out the very average Barkley was anything more than just average, no middleweight worth his title should have been losing to an old fat former lightweight in Roberto Duran.

That's on a par with:

"Duran and Hearns isn't much different to De La Hoya and Trinidad"

and

"The Duran who faced Hagler was in anything but rude form, that version should have been beaten easily but wasn't".

Not really because Duran was already long in the tooth by the time he faced Hagler, paint it whichever way you want but he was not the same guy who was ripping the lightweight division apart. Other than beating the average Barkley he did zilch at middleweight.

.....other than push one of the greatest middleweights in history to within a whisker of defeat........

That was the failings of Hagler than anything, you seem intent on painting Duran as a great boxer at middleweight when he was not, christ the best middleweights like Hopkins, Robinson, Greb and Monzon don't get taken that deep by a lightweight.

Duran was great against Hagler and Barkley and off the top of my head, Greb was pushed by lightweight Mike Milko. And he was no Duran, the greatest lightweight of all.

Off to kip.

In the words of Eric Cantona (probably): Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.

hazharrison wrote:Barkley fought the perfect fight as follows:

Concentrated on body punching against and older, smaller man.
Backed Duran to the ropes.
Initiated prolonged exchanges.
Set a pace.
Refused to be overawed.
Committed to left hooks.
Fought at a furious pace.
Jabbed repeatedly.
Refused to let Duran rest in the clinches.
Fought a controlled fight (refused to be affected by the Davey Moore beating).

Duran's performance to turn back a hulking powerhouse of a middleweight (as a lightweight -- before PEDs made everyone multi-divisional and at the age of 37) was one of the finest boxing performances in history. He was the old Duran again for one final night. An absolute masterclass.

I have a hunch you've merely scanned through Box Rec at Barkley's record and made a rather clumsy assumption. Barkley was limited, erratic and troubled by eye damage throughout his career but he was as mean as hell, physically intimidating and a tough-as-old-boots street fighter. He holds two wins over Hearns, crucified Darrin Van Horn and whupped James Kinchen and Michael Olajide. He also ran Michael Nunn close (and of course, Duran).

Barkley's age, physical attributes and strategic fight plan made him a formidable obstacle for Roberto, back when a lightweight moving up to middleweight looked like....well....a chubby lightweight, rather than an artificially enhanced Greek God.

Barkley was tremendous that night. Duran was just special.

one man's limited,erratic and troubled by eye damage mean as hell ,physically intimidating and tough as old boots is another man's crude overachiever I guess, but you r analysis of the fight is spin. Of course he backed him up , he was much stronger and bigger., and yes in the early rounds he initiated the exchanges, not suprising really that this Duran would look to counter rather initiate. He set a pace that he couldn't keep up! Rather than being perfect , I'd say that was a massive , probably desicive mistake. he committed to left hooks?Jabbed furiously? In a boxing match? Give over, Barkley could and should have won at a counter.
As for your hunch about my judging of him by looking at boxrec, no I followed the mws closely after Haglar retired to see who would emerge, so I'm well aware of Barkley's attributes. He simply wasn't very good- up there with Andries in the overachievers club.

Ah, right. So Barkley did all that without thinking. Just kinda happened? Got ya. That's me told.

Any man that can top Tommy Hearns twice is better than not very good.

In fairness to Barkley, the performance that Duran came up with that night might well have upset quite a few other Middleweight titlists and certainly would have done for the Sturms and Geales of this world.

Duran was absolutely superb in that fight and Barkley must have been shocked that Roberto seemed to have the antidote to just about everything he tried; Barkley tried to make his size count, but Duran held his own on the inside. He tried to pin that jab on him but, after being AWOL for years beforehand, Duran's legs suddenly returned and he was so clever, getting off first and then getting himself just out of range for when Barkley tried to react.

Still, as good as Roberto was that night, Barkley didn't fight the perfect fight by any means. He seemed so bewildered and shocked that he couldn't just overwhelm Duran that he totally ran out of ideas later on and kind of just invited Duran to do as he pleased, particularly in the tenth, one of Duran's best rounds and the round which seemed to buoy him for the big eleventh where he got the knockdown.

Barkley rallied well to win the twelfth but not quite enough to save his title, for me. He'd obviously banked on being able to blast Duran out of there but, once Duran survived that massive left hook (round eight, was it?) he looked a little lost, to me.

88Chris05 wrote:In fairness to Barkley, the performance that Duran came up with that night might well have upset quite a few other Middleweight titlists and certainly would have done for the Sturms and Geales of this world.

Thank you. A bit of common sense in an otherwise bewildering thread.

Look what I turned up on another forum:

London Ring Rules

** Poppy has shown up a few lbs below 160 as well, indicating he, like Marv, in a pinch could make 154 limits.

Poppy is taller, but he does not have a bigger frame than Marv. The gist of this thread born out of the masterclass Poppy pulled on an obvious off night Pavlik. May be up there with what ol Arch used to make routine back in his day, but also Poppy needed his best ever performance to beat Kelly

This begs the question, what the hay has Poppy been smokin' the rest of his career? The only other performance against a top, in shape fighter coming close is Tito who was obviously a smaller fighter moving up.

Not a Poppy fan, too whiny and dirty tricks for me, but I'm willing to give him his due as tough, savvy, talented, disciplined class of the middles of his era. Hagler fought in a tougher era and had the more storied career, yet Poppy did something Marv never did which is hang around long enough to reinvent himself.

Marv shouldn't be downgraded for not doing that, but it is a feather in Poppy career, which to this point had been less than Marv regardless of modern day statistical anomolies of more alphabet title fights.

Who was it laughing about any fight involving Marv being an easy fight? That's it, but I guess in a hypothetical matchup, we'd have to say the same about Poppy.

One factor that works for Marv is he has the better chin. I've seen Poppy hurt and down, though he recovers well. Marv also has more power against a more numerous cast of better competition than Poppy has shown.

It's be a great fight, part technical, part brawling, a whole lotta adjusting tactics to see who breaks who down. I favor Marv. His only real weakness was an insecurity over his boxing prowess where he tended to give away rounds trying to prove he could beat a top boxer by boxing. Seeing that Poppy ain't a pure boxer type, that wouldn't be a factor in this fight.

Hagler wins. Much more dangerous, durable, and consistent fighter.

wow so interesting. a guy who cant write very well and hates hopkins.

hopkins aint a pure boxer....

pavlik had an off night....

hopkins only other good performance was against tito...

pathetic...

somebody who hates hopkins and refers to him as poppy thinks he would lose, well thats it then, point proven afterall

A lot of posters here will recognise him Lance (it's a bit of a clique thing).

No-one can prove which way a hypothetical match would have gone, unless they have a time machine. It's all just opinion so please, don't take it to heart so much.

I'd love him to come back

ShahenshahG wrote:I'd love him to come back

** Ah, but would it not surprise you to learn that the spirit of LRR has been amongst us, right under your noise and as elusive and deceptive as a feint from Will 'O the Wisp, all this time?

And what to speak of should I return in any case? Half a decade on and still the same newspaper headlines line our bins the day following print. Lil' Floydy still doing little but banging his top lip against his bottom one profusely, I see! May the Ghost give him a scare and take that '0' lest the tragedy continue.

Sadly, the heat of my particular kitchen is too much for you young whippersnappers to survive; you bear all the similarities to Mr Ramsay, while yours truly finds himself thrust to the lofty perch inhabited by Mrs Lawson.

Salutations.

88Chris05 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:I'd love him to come back

** Ah, but would it not surprise you to learn that the spirit of LRR has been amongst us, right under your noise and as elusive and deceptive as a feint from Will 'O the Wisp, all this time?

And what to speak of should I return in any case? Half a decade on and still the same newspaper headlines line our bins the day following print. Lil' Floydy still doing little but banging his top lip against his bottom one profusely, I see! May the Ghost give him a scare and take that '0' lest the tragedy continue.

Sadly, the heat of my particular kitchen is too much for you young whippersnappers to survive; you bear all the similarities to Mr Ramsay, while yours truly finds himself thrust to the lofty perch inhabited by Mrs Lawson.

Salutations.

Sometimes ignorance really is bliss. You slut

ShahenshahG wrote:I'd love him to come back

Shah, ever had a girlfriend you dumped, she was maybe a bit of a bunny boiler, probably irritated the hell out of you.

Years go by. You find yourself alone, or in another tedious irritating relationship and find yourself thinking of the good times with that earlier girl.

That's you mate.

milkyboy wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:I'd love him to come back

Shah, ever had a girlfriend you dumped, she was maybe a bit of a bunny boiler, probably irritated the hell out of you.

Years go by. You find yourself alone, or in another tedious irritating relationship and find yourself thinking of the good times with that earlier girl.

That's you mate.

Thats probably anyone subjected to your company for 5 minutes

Meow

milkyboy wrote:Meow

I wish Waingro was here

Ah waingro... Like a lost puppy. I miss him and the joy he brought

88Chris05 wrote:In fairness to Barkley, the performance that Duran came up with that night might well have upset quite a few other Middleweight titlists and certainly would have done for the Sturms and Geales of this world.

Duran was absolutely superb in that fight and Barkley must have been shocked that Roberto seemed to have the antidote to just about everything he tried; Barkley tried to make his size count, but Duran held his own on the inside. He tried to pin that jab on him but, after being AWOL for years beforehand, Duran's legs suddenly returned and he was so clever, getting off first and then getting himself just out of range for when Barkley tried to react.

Still, as good as Roberto was that night, Barkley didn't fight the perfect fight by any means. He seemed so bewildered and shocked that he couldn't just overwhelm Duran that he totally ran out of ideas later on and kind of just invited Duran to do as he pleased, particularly in the tenth, one of Duran's best rounds and the round which seemed to buoy him for the big eleventh where he got the knockdown.

Barkley rallied well to win the twelfth but not quite enough to save his title, for me. He'd obviously banked on being able to blast Duran out of there but, once Duran survived that massive left hook (round eight, was it?) he looked a little lost, to me.

Duran would have been a problem for any middleweight of any era that night, including Hopkins.

I don't know about running out of ideas -- his late fade seemed to come as a result of his left eye swelling shut. Duran started landing rights at will -- demoralising Barkley somewhat while geeing himself.

I also don't think he banked on blasting Duran out either. He fought a controlled fight. He jabbed for a change, and did it well. He fought as well as anyone could have hoped he would.

Great fight.

Barkley way underrated on this thread. Check out his bouts with Harrison, Olajide and Van Horn. He was weight drained for Benn -- his punches seemed to lack pop that night (and he still nearly took Nigel out of there).

Barkley would have set fire to Jermain Taylor.

If you're are pretty decent boxer and tuff then you are going to get out boxed, and tuffed, by Hagler. Simple.

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:In fairness to Barkley, the performance that Duran came up with that night might well have upset quite a few other Middleweight titlists and certainly would have done for the Sturms and Geales of this world.

Duran was absolutely superb in that fight and Barkley must have been shocked that Roberto seemed to have the antidote to just about everything he tried; Barkley tried to make his size count, but Duran held his own on the inside. He tried to pin that jab on him but, after being AWOL for years beforehand, Duran's legs suddenly returned and he was so clever, getting off first and then getting himself just out of range for when Barkley tried to react.

Still, as good as Roberto was that night, Barkley didn't fight the perfect fight by any means. He seemed so bewildered and shocked that he couldn't just overwhelm Duran that he totally ran out of ideas later on and kind of just invited Duran to do as he pleased, particularly in the tenth, one of Duran's best rounds and the round which seemed to buoy him for the big eleventh where he got the knockdown.

Barkley rallied well to win the twelfth but not quite enough to save his title, for me. He'd obviously banked on being able to blast Duran out of there but, once Duran survived that massive left hook (round eight, was it?) he looked a little lost, to me.

Duran would have been a problem for any middleweight of any era that night, including Hopkins.

I don't know about running out of ideas -- his late fade seemed to come as a result of his left eye swelling shut. Duran started landing rights at will -- demoralising Barkley somewhat while geeing himself.

I also don't think he banked on blasting Duran out either. He fought a controlled fight. He jabbed for a change, and did it well. He fought as well as anyone could have hoped he would.

Great fight.

Barkley way underrated on this thread. Check out his bouts with Harrison, Olajide and Van Horn. He was weight drained for Benn -- his punches seemed to lack pop that night (and he still nearly took Nigel out of there).

Barkley would have set fire to Jermain Taylor.

Have you seen duran vs Camacho 1 and vinny paz 1??

ShahenshahG wrote: Have you seen duran vs Camacho 1 and vinny paz 1??

Yeah whatever.

Have you seen a pigeon swallow an Alca-Seltza?

Great fight.

"Barkley way underrated on this thread. Check out his bouts with Harrison, Olajide and Van Horn. He was weight drained for Benn -- his punches seemed to lack pop that night (and he still nearly took Nigel out of there).

Barkley would have set fire to Jermain Taylor.[/quote]”



Stop the love in with Barkley. Dear me. He was wild. He was no world beater. Lame ,nonsense bad sport excuse for his loss to Benn. Aswell He went to war toe to toe and got beat in his backyard by a fighter that out of the two is more unfairly underated on here.

make your mind up queer boi, which [/quotes] are yours?

I suppose someone who uses ”queer boi” in a totally unneccesary comment sums you up pal

#numpty.

#@twitter gimp
sorry i don't understand your post. The /[quote] thing confused me. It doesn't take much. sorry x