Originally Posted by SJS19
Hagler loses to Hopkins.
Alot of guys on this classical forum are fantastic and quoting historical statistics and stories. Generally most of those same guys just plain suck at technically breaking down a fight and coming to an objective conclusion. They have one golden rule, " Always pick the older guy."
Hopkins is bigger than Hagler, and he doesn't lack for the speed department either. Hopkins uses more intelligent foot and lateral movement and off sets others with his movement. Ask yourself, could Hagler dictate against a peak Hopkins? Who has?
Hagler is an ATG Middleweight, maybe the greatest, but he doesn't match up overly well with Bernard Hopkins.
You mean Hopkins is taller, right ? But bigger ??? Hagler was bigger through the shoulders, biceps and legs. I mean using your criteria, Hearns ws `bigger` than Hagler. Picking Hagler has nothing to do with the `older` guy theory. Hopkins, while having good footwork, isn`t a fleet-footed speedster. So, I do feel that Hagler would walk him down with Pressure and cut the ring off as well. Dictating a fight isn`t always about a guys ability to move, poke out some cute shits and box carefully to a decision. I am saying that Hagler moving in aggresively, walks Hopkins down and is busier than Hopkins. I mean prime `82 ` Hagler. You assume that Hagler `lets` Hopkins slow the fight down, and fight it at Hopkins pace. I say that Hagler too had great boxing skills and the physical equipment with tenacity to match to grind Ex down. And prime Hagler was in amazing condition, so he could keep the pressure on for 15 rds if needed. Plus Hagler would go hard to the body, and I think he would muscle Hopkins (who isn`t as strong as Hagler) inside. Hopkins legend has grown as his body did in his later years. But, if you took prime Hopkins at 160 matched against `82` Hagler. Hopkins is NOT keeping Hagler off of him...