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.

in other words....

hash tag at twitter gimp

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

Haito wrote: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.

Hardly a "love in". I've acknowledged Barkley's failings and I'm certainly no fan, however, he has been described on here as "very average" and you yourself label him "no world beater" which is horse ****. On his night, he was a handful for any middleweight.

"on his night"

You just said it. Celtic on thier night beat Barcelona. Doesnt mean they are world beaters. You have to do it on a consistent basis something Barkley never did. He was better than average but he was no world beater. it isnt "horse****" its true

In the annals of history, he's in the same ballpark as Benn. So, whatever that is in your mind, he's that.

Dissing Benn on a thread with Haiti... Could get ugly.

Tricky one Barkley, talked a good fight certainly, and usually gave value got money. Certainly enough good performances to lift him above 'average'. The second hearns fight and the tough fight he gave to nunn in particular stand out... Balanced with some less credible losses in there too.