View Single Post
Old 11-24-2012, 09:49 PM   #72
ESB Full Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Default Re: Bernard Hopkins - How great?

Originally Posted by Tin_Ribs View Post
Don't buy it all you like, means jack squat. It's a commonly accepted common sense notion that Hagler's height and body type weren't suited to him putting on another stone in weight whether you agree or not. Unlike Duran, Hearns, Leonard and Hopkins. Not all fighters are physically the same funnily enough, and God like geniuses such as Duran and Pea are hardly a normal barometer anyway. Still, if Hagler had had the luxury of moving up to face someone a champion as historically mediocre as Tarver and not an ATG master like Spinks, he might have entertained it.

Out of the career/mainly career middleweights, I'm struggling to think of one who could step up to 175 and have anything like a fair chance against Spinks. You're the first person I've heard slag Hagler off for not fighting him and that speaks for itself. Marv knew where his ceiling was, like Monzon did when he didn't tackle Foster, Galindez or Conteh and like Robinson did when he didn't tackle Moore (yeah, I know he fought feather-fisted Maxim, which is my point). And like Hopkins did when he never bothered to tackle Jones a second time when it mattered despite them being a similar size, which seems to have bypassed you.

Hagler paid his dues for years on his way up, probably for relative peanuts. It took a ****load of toil for him earn the title and the division was full of solid, worthy challengers to keep him occupied as well as potential blockbusters against Hearns, Duran, Benitez, Curry or Leonard should they choose to challenge him, with Tommy, Ray and Don being physically well suited to do so. Why challenge Spinks for financial **** all only to get your block knocked off? Don't bother answering, that was a rhetorical question. It's called high risk/low reward, or futility in this particular case and doesn't affect Hagler's legacy negatively, especially when he ruled all and sundry with an iron fist.

I agree that all the fighters you mentioned are greater than Hagler. They're greater than Hopkins too.

Can we leave it at that?
Spinks had no problem taking a beating from tyson, hagler didnt move up and give spinks his 'name' win. Marvin knew that all of his fights were going to be on tv, he couldn't entertain the thought of getting beat up by michael spinks. Hagler is a great, but not a top 10 or even top 20 all time fighter. Fitzsimmons and greb would have fought spinks, they are warriors, hagler is a businessman that feasts on smaller guys.

Leonard and Duran went the distance with the guy, if Hagler moved up could he even last the distance with Spinks, or would he get stopped within 3 rounds.
ushvinder is offline  Top
Reply With Quote