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.

azania wrote: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.

depends what you enjoy i guess. i thought the pascal fights were exciting, and the trinidad one for starters. obviously hes not everyones cup of tea. but when audley starts assuming taylort must have outworked him and got in his face it becomes a bit ludicrous.

Rodney wrote: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

Spot on. I see it the same way.

hazharrison wrote:

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.

its cat and mouse. what point does he get in his face again?

Lance wrote:

azania wrote: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.

depends what you enjoy i guess. i thought the pascal fights were exciting, and the trinidad one for starters. obviously hes not everyones cup of tea. but when audley starts assuming taylort must have outworked him and got in his face it becomes a bit ludicrous.

Taylor did outwork him in both fights. That's why the judges scored for him.

For me this thread is giving BHop a bit of a bad job. The BHop that turned up and smashed Tito is a match for any MW. The guy is a thinker, doesn't get hit (and never has) and has the ability to make guys dance to his tune gives Hagler fits and some more.

Lets not forget he's fought the best of the best... never been outclassed... and has beaten most of them.

For me, he drops a stupidly close decision that would end up with us debating for years who really won.

Lance wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

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.

its cat and mouse

But where does he circle outside? Looks like you missed it too eh?

hazharrison wrote:

Lance wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

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.

its cat and mouse

But where does he circle outside? Looks like you missed it too eh?

like i say cat and mouse. one minute bernard backing off and taylors coming in. then bernards comes in and taylor circles him. its constant, watch it. now show me where taylor gets in his face??? also, this is 3 from 24 rounds you have posted. wait until you have watched the rest....

Link the rest, they're all pretty much the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvzX4BBf9pE

Taylor's the guy trying to fight. Hopkins trying to nick points.

hazharrison wrote:Link the rest, they're all pretty much the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvzX4BBf9pE

Taylor's the guy trying to fight. Hopkins trying to nick points.

where does he get in his face?????

even when bernard backs off, taylor just moves side to side and rarely goes in for the punch.

Don't be such a pedant Lance.

Gee wrote:For me this thread is giving BHop a bit of a bad job. The BHop that turned up and smashed Tito is a match for any MW. The guy is a thinker, doesn't get hit (and never has) and has the ability to make guys dance to his tune gives Hagler fits and some more.

Lets not forget he's fought the best of the best... never been outclassed... and has beaten most of them.

For me, he drops a stupidly close decision that would end up with us debating for years who really won.

I'm not sure Hopkins is a great thinker though, he usually fought dirty as hell on the inside in an era where his opponents are absolutely clueless in, Hagler wouldn't let him get away with that.

Trinidad is a good win, Felix is a personal fav of mine but would lose to a Sibson in a decisive manner.

I'd have serious doubts whether Hopkins could survive an onslaught like Hagler did against Hearns, Taylor terrified him in the first half of the 1st fight, Hagler would run him out of the ring, I'm with Haz on this one.

Cheers Rodders

I dont really have too much issue with Hagler tipped to beat Hopkins but some of the stuff written about Hopkins is hard to understand.

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.

manos de piedra wrote:I dont really have too much issue with Hagler tipped to beat Hopkins but some of the stuff written about Hopkins is hard to understand.

same here. its easy to slaughter a guy when you have only seen a handful of his fights though i guess. there were plenty of people criticizing cloud the other day, who admitted they hadnt even seen him fight.

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....

I'm not sure Hopkins is a great thinker though

Apologies, but you don't get to 48 and still able to mix it without being massively intelligent in the ring.

Name a fight a guy has really rushed his style? Who's made him fight out of his comfort zone?

The guy spoils and when he needs to can seriously fight, make guys miss and then get his own off. Personally the style of Hagler opens Bhop up to counter him to death, especially with his vaunted right down the shoot.

Absolutely great article and I love these little theories us Boxing fans occassionally get, can't write in great detail on my phone, however sadly I also must disagree.

I always felt in fights where Hagler felt he was vastly superior to his opponent or that he held significant advantages over his opponents was when he was at his worst. Take Leonard and Duran, Duran blown up LW , fights come forward style Hagler relaxes, doesn't feel the need for the same intensity. Leonard, coming off a lay offthat was far too long to beat an ATG surely, was naturally bigger also, shouldn't have any problems, but did because he thought like that, same with Vito, why he decided to abandon what he was doing and look like great technical boxer. I've always thought anywho.

Regarding Hopkins' middleweight comp:

"I think, personally, I would rank Bernard after Robinson and Monzon, and I think I would put Marvin Hagler No. 1,'' said Steward, who was in Thomas Hearns' corner in 1985 when Hagler stopped Hearns in the third round.

"Just having a record is not going to do it,'' Steward said. "Unfortunately, Bernard has not had their type of competition. But he can't fight against another era. All he can do is fight and be the best he can be today. This is maybe the weakest I have ever seen the middleweight division.''

"He's a good, solid fighter,'' Clancy said Thursday from his home in Long Island, N.Y. "But at best, he is a top-10 guy. He came along at a good time. He didn't have to fight too many tough guys.''

Opposition usually is the deciding factor when rating boxers of different generations. Monzon, 87-3-9 with 59 knockouts, defeated the likes of Griffith, Rodrigo Valdez and Nino Benvenuti twice each in title fights. Bennie Briscoe was another victim.

Hagler, 62-3-2 with 52 KOs, defeated Alan Minter, Fulgencio Obelmejias, Vito Antuofermo, Mustafa Hamsho, Juan Domingo Roldan, Roberto Duran, John Mugabi and Hearns.

Robinson, 173-19-6 with 108 KOs, is considered by many to be the best overall fighter in history. He was a great welterweight before moving up in class. At the higher weight, he tangled more than once with Jake LaMotta, Carmen Basilio, Carl ``Bobo'' Olson and Gene Fullmer, and fought Rocky Graziano once.

As for Hopkins (45-2-1, 32 KOs), victories over Segundo Mercado, Simon Brown, Robert Allen, Antwun Echols and Keith Holmes don't inspire thoughts of greatness. Hopkins also has defeated Oscar De La Hoya Oscar de la Hoya nicknamed the Golden Boy , who is not a true middleweight.

Hopkins' most impressive victory came against Felix Trinidad Jr. in a 12th-round technical knockout in 2001.

Ranking Hopkins at 4 middleweight isnt really a damning indictment of his stature. Factor in his moving up to light heavyweight and performing well there at a seriously advanced age and I think it indicates a quality boxer.

I'm not sure why you're getting so hung up on records and how Hopkins' opposition stacks up when comapred to Monzon's and Hagler's, Haz. Nobody has once said on this thread that he's beaten better names than those guys or deserves to be above them in the list of Middleweight greats (although he certainly deserves to be ahead of Robinson, for me).

As I said earlier, this about how his style could cause problems for Hagler in a one-off fight. The fact that Hagler deservedly outranks Bernard as Middleweight doesn't make him immune to losing to him and we've seen a shed load of examples of fighters, right throughout history, who had the Indian sign over men who'd be placed above them by most fans and critics.

I thought you were a little hasty to totally write off Hopkins' chances (can see why you'd plump for Hagler, mind you, but I can't see Marvin having everything his own way as you proclaim), but at least then you were addressing the points of the article!

I see this as a distance fight almost every time, Hagler I don't think is getting knocked out by anyone at middleweight (Robinson left hook possibly) nor do I think Hopkins defence is porous enough for anyone to land enough to take him out. Even when guys do connect they realise that he does have a very fine chin himself.

Hopkins lost to Jones yes but I don't see Hagler dealing with that sort of speed at all well either and would make RJJ a very strong favourite to run away with a decision. Saying that Hagler only looked poor against Duran, Leonard and Antuofermo because he wasn't motivated is a bit of a red herring as they should have been with the exception of Hearns the fights he should have been most motivated for. I see it more that he struggled against boxers with a bit of nous just like Hopkins struggles with speed, weighing it up Hopkins has more in his armoury to worry Hagler than Hagler has to worry Hopkins.

1) Marvin murders Hopkins in the middle of the ring.

2) Hopkins knows this.

3) Hopkins wins a stinker.

TheMackemMawler wrote:1) Marvin murders Hopkins in the middle of the ring.

2) Hopkins knows this.

3) Hopkins wins a stinker.

Pretty much my line of thinking, Mackem!

Brilliant article Chris. I'm exhausted, maybe, just maybe, my summation was more succinct?

Bhop stinkily.

You're too verbose mackem.

A great article Chris, are you really only 24? I tend to go for Hagler by late stoppage. Just a thought but how do you think Hagler would have fared against Roy Jones at middleweight?

Sorry I should have read some of the earlier posts then I would have seen that Ghosty has already posed the question of Jones and Hagler.

Thanks, rapidringsroad - glad you enjoyed it (and to all those others who have commented, too).

Seems that while Hagler is still most people's pick for this one there is still a decent mix of predictions and some great points all round, just the kind of stuff I was hoping for.

RRR, I think I'd back Jones to decision Hagler at 160. Roy wasn't a Middleweight for very long but he was a truly terrifying proposition at that division; he was an unbelievable puncher at the weight, big for it as well (much bigger naturally than Marvin), was nigh-on impossible to nail and, of course, had that fantastic speed as well. I can see Jones being a little more cautious than usual and looking to score at range (let's face it, he's going to be beating Hagler to the punch every time) and just not letting Hagler get close enough to push him around and get to his body, which is probably the only area where Hagler holds the aces. It'd take a lot of movement on Roy's part but he had a good tank and I think he'd win it by about four points on all cards.

Someone earlier in the thread had compared Hagler's opposition at middleweight to Hopkins' and claimed Hopkins had fought better middleweights which is why I wandered off topic.

I just don't see the Hopkins that struggled with the lively trio of Mercado (first fight, Hopkins was almost stopped), Taylor and Jones being able to contain Marvin. I feel Hagler is being underrated and viewed as a slow-ish but grinding pressure fighter when there was far more to him than that.

I think he nails Jones, too.

I guess it makes the spats more entertaining to take an extreme stance but some left field assertions on here Haz. The caveat on all the top middleweights is their competition. Bhop lacks names, but so does monzon and so does hagler. When you dominate, it's unusual for the opposition to standout... Weak era? Or just made to look so? Hard to tell.

Stretching credibility on hagler's opponents though. Sibson nailed on champ in another era? Really? I liked him, he was great to watch, but he certainly wasnt this huge punching beast i'm hearing about. A few show reel ko's mask a fairly average stoppage percentage, and he came unstuck more than once at the highest level. Antuofermo regularly comes up on the worst middleweight champion discussions. Obelmejias never fought anyone with a pulse except hagler twice, hamsho nothing more than an honest trundler, and he got two bites. Hagler paid his dues with the tough phillie middles of the 70's but as champion he cleaned out a desperate division that had him fighting guys twice who were lucky to get one shot. His name is made on the back of the big names moving up. As champion, Hearns is a great win, Mugabi, a gutsy one, minter a good one to win the title. Can't get excited about the duran performance.

Really though, there's only hearns in there that you'd give a chance to against Hopkins. It's not knocking hagler, he did what he had to and did it in style. He was a truly great fighter, but you'd expect any of the other best middles in history to do the same in his era... like bhop... though in a different manner.

You're topping and tailing hopkins career with the less convincing performances on the way up and tail end of his middle career... and ignoring his dominance in between.

For me, the fight goes one of two ways, Bhop spoils and counters his way to a scrappy decision. Or hagler just plain out works him, taking him out of his comfort zone. I'm not sure myself. Hagler, higher ranking, but bit of a pickem in a who beats who. If pushed i'd err to marv forcing the pace too much for bhop, but i wouldn't be going to the bookies with it.

hazharrison wrote:Someone earlier in the thread had compared Hagler's opposition at middleweight to Hopkins' and claimed Hopkins had fought better middleweights which is why I wandered off topic.

I just don't see the Hopkins that struggled with the lively trio of Mercado (first fight, Hopkins was almost stopped), Taylor and Jones being able to contain Marvin. I feel Hagler is being underrated and viewed as a slow-ish but grinding pressure fighter when there was far more to him than that.

I think he nails Jones, too.

Fair enough on the first point, then. I'd agree with you that Hagler's Middleweight resume reads better than Hopkins'.

The thing is, when it comes to any hypothetical match up you can twist it like you have done in the second paragraph. Those fights above were Hagler at his worst, and obviously if you match that version of B-Hop against the Hagler who bulldozed Hearns or dismantled Sibson, then Hagler would run out a clear winner. On the other hand, though, if the Hagler who switched off and tried to be too clever for his own good against Antuofermo, or who spent far too much time stalking and looking mean when he should have been throwing punches against Leonard, went up against the best of Bernard (so, for instance, the Bernard who beat Tito or Johnson) then it's entirely possible that Hopkins can nick a decision.

I don't think I'm underrating Hagler as a pure fighter with this article, personally. In fact, I stressed the point that he's a better all-round Middleweight in my eyes than Hopkins; if you took the best dozen or so Middleweights of all time and had them all fight each other once, I think Marvin would build up a better win:loss ratio against them than Hopkins would. I'm simply arguing that, based on styles, Hopkins may have been all wrong for Bernard, that's all.

That’s taking the worst of Hopkins though. The version of Hagler that fought Watts and Munroe wasn’t particularly great. He wasn’t great against Duran or Mugabe either.

manos de piedra wrote:That’s taking the worst of Hopkins though. The version of Hagler that fought Watts and Munroe wasn’t particularly great. He wasn’t great against Duran or Mugabe either.

So what was the best of Hopkins at middleweight (against a bonafide middleweight)?

The problem with fights like this is that we take both fighters to fight in their normal way .....We see Hagler bobbing forward throwing the southpaw jab trying to work inside...busy!!..We see Hoppo working and spoiling.......

We always neglect the fact that these are two smart guys who may have game plans tailored for eachother!!

I think Hoppo is the more skilled of the two...as for heart, desire etc well they are pretty much on equal terms with the mental stuff...

A look at Hagler's record shows that he had plenty of off nights.......Antuofermo and Duran being lousy performances which cost and nearly cost him big......

Hoppo a more skilled technician than any of those .............

My problem with giving Hoppo the the win however is WORKRATE.......What he thinks is enough and what will be enough might be completely different....

I see Hagler nicking enough rounds to pinch a decision.....

Anybody that thinks Hagler is a much better fighter than this guy is living in cloud cuckoo land..

Pretty much any of his performances from 2000-2004 I would say.

Hagler lost fair and square to Monroe but was robbed against Watts (and Antuofermo). He was still a little green when he went in deep against Philadelphia's finest but became a better fighter because of it.

Duran was in rude form, despite being outgunned, and Hagler had started to slide against Mugabe (spotted by Leonard from ringside). A lot of emphasis is being placed on Hagler's final fight, when he'd passed his best (and still won according to many good judges).

Milky. Hopkins dominated from Tito to Taylor with not a lot between that. Apart from Trinidad, when was he amazing?

Where is this lousy Antuofermo performance coming from? It was a barmy decision!

manos de piedra wrote:Pretty much any of his performances from 2000-2004 I would say.

And who did he beat during that time that makes you think he'd top Hagler?

This is more fun than when I have a chip on at Oscar!

I cannot believe you think Antuofermo wasn't a lousy performance..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I cannot believe you think Antuofermo wasn't a lousy performance..

He won 11 rounds. How was that lousy?

hazharrison wrote:This is more fun than when I have a chip on at Oscar!

Aye, with your always harsh views and critical appraisals of Oscar and Hopkins you've more than filled the void left from the old 606 of LRR's hatred of 'Larry Big Pants' and 'Lil' Floydy'!

Oh, how I miss him. I still laugh at Cal'slappy and a crack he once made about baby Joe being slapped senseless by his midwife (leading to his affectation).

Not according to some of the publications and boxers watching like Alan Minter....

Looks less like a robbery the more I watch it too...

So Hagler was green when he faced Munroe and Watts but Hopkins wasn't against Jones, you seem to want to paint things in one direction in favour of Hagler.

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

Thought Marv was sloppy against Roldan too..

hazharrison wrote:Hagler lost fair and square to Monroe but was robbed against Watts (and Antuofermo). He was still a little green when he went in deep against Philadelphia's finest but became a better fighter because of it.

Duran was in rude form, despite being outgunned, and Hagler had started to slide against Mugabe (spotted by Leonard from ringside). A lot of emphasis is being placed on Hagler's final fight, when he'd passed his best (and still won according to many good judges).

Milky. Hopkins dominated from Tito to Taylor with not a lot between that. Apart from Trinidad, when was he amazing?

Rarely amazing haz, he just picked the lowest risk win strategy and stuck to it. Bit like the Eastman fight, never got out of second gear, never needed to.

I was just flagging the marvelous one's uninspiring challenger list that you'd been bigging up fella!

hazharrison wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Pretty much any of his performances from 2000-2004 I would say.

And who did he beat during that time that makes you think he'd top Hagler?

Im looking at from the perspctive that I dont think theres anything in his performances to make me think Hagler beats him easily. Hopkins was never a spectacular fighter with the power to end fights early. Hes a functional fighter.

Putting it another way, I dont think Hagler has a performance that makes me overly confident he beats Hopkins. As I said originally, I view it as a pretty 50/50 fight that could come down to basically what the judges on the day prefer. Rounds that are close, hard to score and subjective. Most of the arguments in favour of Hopkins that I have read indicate a close-ish, scrappy probably ugle win whereas the arguments in favour of Hagler seem to be he chases Hopkins out of the ring and is a different level altogether. Its that more than anyone picking Hagler to win that I would challenge. The only time Hopkins has really been beaten in anything like a comprehensive manner was to a pretty great Jones who has all the tools and raw athleticism to beat Hopkins.

Im not basing my opinion he beats Hagler (I wouldnt be particularly confident he does in any case) on any single win or performance but more a general overview of his career.

It was a better list than Hopkins' -- that's all I'm saying.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So Hagler was green when he faced Munroe and Watts but Hopkins wasn't against Jones, you seem to want to paint things in one direction in favour of Hagler.

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

I don't agree. Hagler earned his spurs against Briscoe, Hart, Watts and Monroe and came out better on the other side.

I didn't say Hopkins wasn't green against Jones.

Duran was in fantastic form. He had stopped Cuevas and destroyed Moore. His mojo was most definitely back.