Mavin Hagler Eats Bernard Hopkins

[Jose FM]

Originally Posted by pjo479

manassa im 47 yrs old my friend and boxed the golden gloves and then some dont disrespect me im here giving my opinion like everyone else and trust me i have alot of knowledge on boxing

You have mine!

[Jose FM]

respect that is lol.

[pjo479]

lol ok son ill take your advice lol i never said he was one dimensional dummy learn how to read

[pjo479]

i think manassa thinks im knocking hagler and im not i could write an article on hagler and how good he was so dont be mad its only my opinion

[Thread Stealer]

Originally Posted by pjo479

Now I want to make this perfectly clear.
The Bernard Hopkins that we see today, would not have beaten the Marvin Hagler that we all know of.

When I'm looking at this, I'm talking of the Bernard Hopkins that dismantled Tito Trinidad. That Bernard Hopkins was one of the best middleweights in the history of the game.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler and Bernard Hopkins are very much alike, they're hard men.. inside and outside of the squared circle. They both brought a very intimidating presence into the ring, and they both could fight to back up that presence.

But there is one major difference in styles that differentiates them... versatility.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler was a great fighter, but a fighter that relied on 3 things, conditioning, will, and physical strength. It was his goal to press a fight for 15 full rounds until whoever it was that was in front of him was gone. He carried this throughout his career, and he was absolutely brillaint in his work.

However, what would he do when a guy refused to stand with him, a guy that knows how to win, and that wouldn't buy into Hagler's game? Well, we all saw what he'd do, he'd keep trying. Hagler's fight with Sugar Ray Leonard set the blueprint and is the fight that I believe accurately depicts how Bernard Hopkins would have "Executed" Hagler, except in far more emphatic fashion then the much smaller Ray Leonard.

Hopkins is also, like Hagler, a HUGE middleweight. Physically powerful, and bruising. In a matchup of pure strength, this one is about as even as it gets. Many may think Hagler was stronger, but in terms of size and boxing functional strength, he was NOT.

The Hopkins at the time of the Trinidad fight would NOT have thrown a shot here and there, jumping in and out with a shot and looking to grab. He was a guy who put together punches, and found beautiful angles to land crushing shots. (His power was much more devestating a few years back, it has deteriorated with age, even Hopkins himself has admitted this) Lets not disregard the fact that Hopkins, just as Hagler was, has ALWAYS been in absolutely flawless condition.
Being as strong as Hopkins is, he would not have catered to Haglers style. He would have stuck him with a jab from the get go, letting Hagler start to bring the fight to him, and dissecting him with his overrall BETTER SKILLS and well roundedness.

Hagler was tremendous, but Hopkins just has more to work with. Hagler would be chasing Hopkins all night, but unlike the Hopkins we saw vs Eastman (a Hopkins that I like to refer to as slowing down, losing punching power, and the overall tenacity), the prime Bernard Hopkins was an absolutely murderous fighter. He would have shucked in and out (Hopkins is such a quicker fighter then the somewhat methodical Hagler) landing many series of devestating shots and leaving when any resistance was offered up from Hagler.

Certainly Hopkins would take a few shots in the bout, but with Hopkins's jaw of CAST IRON, there is absolutely no way that Hagler would have gotten to him enough to force a stoppage or even to significantly hurt Hopkins in my opinion. He would have chased him hard, he would have pressed the issue, but once Hopkins started Banging him and getting inside and mauling him, not giving Hagler any room, tapping him on the thighs, tangling him up, freeing up an arm and ripping a few uppercuts and short hooks (Hopkins is a perfectionist at this craft), he would gain control of Hagler.

Hopkins was too fast, equally strong, and had MANY MANY more options then Hagler. When Option 1 would fail for Hagler, he would have nothing else to resort to, of course The Marvelous one would try in vein, but it would be futile. Even when he beat Hearns, he had one option, go through all that punishment and do what he does best. Strength, will, and conditioning. Hopkins would NEVER get into that kind of fight with Hagler, and the result would be a hard fought Hopkins decision, potentially even stopping him late. Sugar Ray Leonard pulled it off, and he was nowhere near as strong as Hopkins, Hopkins is catlike quick, and there's no doubt in my mind he could pull off the same gimmick to perfection, except better. Just like he pulled off the gameplan set forth by Oscar De La Hoya on Felix Trinidad better.

No, both Hopkins and Hagler were very versatile fighters.

Hopkins started off as more of an attacking right-hand puncher, but as he got older, became more tactical, and as you've seen the last few years, he picks his spots a lot and has a low workrate.

Hagler is sort of the opposite, whereas he was a boxer-puncher throughout most of his career, but became more of a brawler toward the end of his career, such as the Hearns fights and the late rounds versus Mugabi.

Hagler had heavier hands, a better jab, and was a little more proven when it came to brawling it out with big punchers. He took some big shots from Hearns and Mugabi. He changed his style to be more aggressive against the rangy, terrific boxer in Hearns and outslugged him. He jabbed the hell out of Mugabi, but eventually it was the bodyshots and in-fighting which took it out of The Beast. Hopkins's best brawling performances against big punchers weren't quite as impressive, but B-Hop is a little slicker and quicker than Hagler, IMO. He uses angles very well and is not only extremely crafty, but is also very experienced against southpaws.

I rank Hagler all-time on the MW rankings mainly due to his superior opposition level on the way to the title, but I would actually pick Hopkins to win a close decision head-to-head over Hagler.

[brooklyn1550]

Marvin Hagler UD12 Bernard Hopkins

[Thread Stealer]

Originally Posted by Assassin

Since when the fuck did Hagler rely on conditioning, will and physical strength? It amazes me how many people always seem to say that when they reflect on Hagler.

Yeah it was only that for Hagler.

It had nothing to do with his brilliant jab, underrated parrying skills, lateral movement, considerable power, combinations, ability to fight from either stance, etc...



Funny thing is, I'm not much of a Hagler fan at all. But I always seem to be defending him against people who understate his skill.

The "Hagler was a brawler" myth is one of my boxing pet peeves.

[pjo479]

look at the pace he set in all his fights man thats what i mean about strength and conditioning and if you want look at his tapes look at the vito antuofermo fight look at the marcus geraldo fight the duran fight and then some the guy set an amazin pace each time and the antuofermo fight was 15 rds so was the duran fight

[Leeroy]

Originally Posted by Assassin

I believe Hopkins is 11-0 with 8 KO's against southpaws. Against Hagler, I see that zero going away.

Hopkins is hard, Hagler is harder. Hopkins is tough, Hagler is tougher.

Hagler reminds me like Hopkins evil, superior twin.

Hagler was one of the best counterpunchers of his day to....His boxing skills have always been underrated.

The twin metaphor is spot on - Hagler is a little better.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by pjo479

lol ok son ill take your advice lol i never said he was one dimensional dummy learn how to read

Uh... In not so many words, you did:

But there is one major difference in styles that differentiates them... versatility.

Hopkins was too fast, equally strong, and had MANY MANY more options then Hagler.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler was a great fighter, but a fighter that relied on 3 things, conditioning, will, and physical strength.

It was his goal to press a fight for 15 full rounds until whoever it was that was in front of him was gone.

Even though he outboxed half his opponents? Bennie Briscoe, Willie ******, Vito Antuofermo, Mustafa Hamsho, Tony Sibson... Need I go on?

You make various other references to Hagler's limited skill set throughout your post, or how Hopkins' is much better all-round. This is simply not true, and anyone who knows a prime Hagler will almost definitely agree.

Another major flaw with your argument; you allow Hopkins some slack with regards to him being past prime against Eastman or whoever, yet you are unforgiving of Hagler - he was well past his prime against Leonard. He was on the slide against Hearns, believe it or not. Take it from me, I own every filmed fight of Hagler's and have watched each one three, perhaps four times - his peak ended in '83.

[brooklyn1550]

Anybody who has seen earlier Hagler fights than Hearns and Mugabi will realize how complete of a fighter he was. He had great boxing skills, a shotgun jab, he was a tremendous counter puncher, he was a complex fighter on the inside, good speed, and great power. Anybody who claims Hagler was just a come forward brawler doesn't know what they are talking about.

[pjo479]

my intentions were not to say hagler didnt have skills i know what skills he had and i too my friend have an amazin collection of fights from hagler myself my point is simply i think hopkins wins the fight enoigh from me ok i dont have time t o debate with you all day if your from ny lets meet id be glad to talk boxing anyday with ya

[pjo479]

all be it said and done read these reasons i think he is the best mw all time then and see if i dont know what im talking about . just because i think hopkins beats him dont mean i dont see him as the best

[Leeroy]

Originally Posted by pjo479

IF he could make Hopkins fight his fight, then we're looking at a fight that Hagler wins with just sheer determination, using his smarts, and making Hopkins uncomfortable. I just can't see it happening. I think through anything that Hagler brings to the table, Hopkins sticks to his guns. He's smart enough to know what needs to be done to win the fight, and he knows to stick to the plan through ANY ROUGH spots that may occur.

Look how squared up Hagler's style was, he was always setting to let his punches go, and Hopkins is the kind of guy that can punch and move, stop and fire hard and quick combinations and get out, or tie up. He's just too smooth!

Hopkins has that uncanny ability to fight anyway he wants to fight. He can be smooth and fluid, he can stalk and pound, abuse the man and beat them up like a pure brawler. There is NO one set way that Bernard Hopkins can beat you! I think this would be a hard fought bout any way you look at it!

Here - this will refresh your memory....Everything Hopkins does Hager did a little better.

[pjo479]

Here it is. The reasons I have for placing Marvelous Marvin Hagler ahead of even Ray Robinson, Carlos Monzon, and Harry Greb in the all-time rankings at middleweight.
1: Consistency. Hagler started his career with a 26-fight unbeaten streak. After dropping two of three fights (to Bobby "Boogaloo" Watts and Willie "the Worm" Monroe, both close, both in Philly), Marvin went 37 more fights without a loss. In other words, for 14 years, 67 fights, you could bet that Marvin Hagler was showing up to fight, to win, and over 90 percent of the time he was going to get it done. Check his winning percentages against the other guys. If Hagler had fought as many times as Robinson, he'd have lost about 10 fights. Sugar Ray lost 19. When Robinson was off, against Turpin, Basilio, Fullmer: he lost. When Hagler was off, he was robbed in a controversial draw against Antuofermo, or had to rally to pull out the win over a resurgent Duran. And we won't mention the poor strategy that turned what should have been a late TKO win over Leonard into a split decision loss.
2: The tools. How many other fighters have had the physical package that Hagler did? He ranks near the top of the middleweight heap in nearly every category of skill and talent. Who had a better chin? Maybe LaMotta? But even the bull was stopped by Robinson. Who was stronger? Greb has a case, but it's hard to see even the Human Windmill pushing Hagler around. There've been harder hitters, but then, beyond a certain point punching power becomes extraneous. Hagler had enough to close the show against top fighters. Speed? So Hagler was a hair behind Robinson and Leonard. So was everybody else. He maximized his speed with a deceptive reach (ask Tommy Hearns) and superb timing. What about the now-underrated boxing skills? Starting with the second Hamsho fight, Hagler built a reputation as a stalking, menacing bomber. But prior to that, Hagler was often regarded as a 'cutie', controlling pace and distance, counterpunching, and tricking opponents into setting themselves up. And when it comes to footwork, there's more to it than Leonard doing laps around the ring edge. Hagler was a master of positioning and keeping opponents where he wanted them. Too bad he forgot he was so good at it for the first half of the Leonard fight.
3: Simple. He wanted to be the best, so he was. What a concept. Actually, it goes a little deeper. He wanted to be the best, so he put in the work he had to to get it done. Hagler was never even a little out of shape, he was never unprepared for an opponent, he never half-assed it in the ring. The Duran fight, one that always draws a lot of criticism, was a result of Duran pulling a surprise style change. The first Antuofermo bout was a first matchup with a tough, awkward opponent. And Sugar Ray, well, Marvin let his head get a little in the way of that one.



I never said he wasnt great or lacked skills just think Hopkins has the style to beat him ..... just an opinion dont attack me on it