Mavin Hagler Eats Bernard Hopkins

[Shev]

Ive got a Hagler boxset and Hagler had the edge over Hopkins in virtually all areas. After getting robbed in Philadelphia ironically and he exclaimed he was not leaving matters to the judges anymore. What fighter can change his style so drastically? Hagler wanted to fight the best not for legacy because it was in his nature not handpick other fighters. Hopkins would just be another Philly fighter on Hagler resume.

[pjo479]

thanks red rooster i have access to haglers tapes anytime i want and have seen alot of them maybe i havent watched all in detail but in any case its a good fight and i think this thread could hold up to any thread in here lol

i been around the boxing seen for a long time and will always enjoy others opinions thanks guys

[oblate]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Hagler was better in every way. Better long range, stronger in close. Better at pretty much everything. Hopkins was crafty and skilled, but not enough to take Hagler off his game.

i agree.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by JimmyShimmy

Hagler did what he did very well, but he did not do everything. He did not have the ability to solve the greater puzzles. Everyone always says that Hagler had an 'off night' when he fought Duran. He had an off night because Duran showed up who could feint and move well but did not have the strength to pull it off.

Hagler’s boxing ability was decent, but has lately been over glorified. He out boxed a lot of 'out-boxables' if you catch my drift. When did Hagler ever dissect a technician?

Hopkins has the tools - the strength, the inside ability, and he'd use the possum tactics to frustrate Hagler to a UD.

Tho short, this is one of the finer posts i have seen in my time here. No smoke, no mirrors, just plain hard hitting simple stuff.

[Sweet Science]

I think most people are picking Hagler to win because they like the way he fought, his crowd pleasing style, sheer guts etc. Whereas, most think Hopkins was boring and more technical, not at all exciting to watch. Our subconscious would be less likely to pick out the subtle genius of Hopkins, as opposed to the overltly skilled menace that was Hagler

Lets say Shane Mosley never fought Vernon Forrest, and we were all debating the possible outcome of a mythical match between Sugar Shane and The Viper, most people would natuarlly assume Mosley would easily win. The fact is an unremarkable/unexciting yet fundamentally sound fighter can sometimes overcome a prodigous superstar, simply because they do everything consistently well. We need to look at the sum of parts.

I pick the wily Hopkins by very close decision.

[Sweet Science]

I think most people are picking Hagler to win because they like the way he fought, his crowd pleasing style, sheer guts etc. Whereas, most think Hopkins was boring and more technical, not at all exciting to watch. Our subconscious would be less likely to pick out the subtle genius of Hopkins, as opposed to the overltly skilled menace that was Hagler

Lets say Shane Mosley never fought Vernon Forrest, and we were all debating the possible outcome of a mythical match between Sugar Shane and The Viper, most people would natuarlly assume Mosley would easily win. The fact is an unremarkable/unexciting yet fundamentally sound fighter can sometimes overcome a prodigous superstar, simply because they do everything consistently well. We need to look at the sum of parts.

I pick the wily Hopkins by very close decision.

[Street Lethal]

They are both great, but Hagler is more tested against elite middleweights. Certainly his accomplishments are greater. I also think he is more talented. He would win the fight by applying constant pressure. He wouldn't go for Hopkins dirty tactics. I think Hopkins goes the distance however.

[Vanboxingfan]

Originally Posted by Sweet Science

I think most people are picking Hagler to win because they like the way he fought, his crowd pleasing style, sheer guts etc. Whereas, most think Hopkins was boring and more technical, not at all exciting to watch. Our subconscious would be less likely to pick out the subtle genius of Hopkins, as opposed to the overltly skilled menace that was Hagler

Lets say Shane Mosley never fought Vernon Forrest, and we were all debating the possible outcome of a mythical match between Sugar Shane and The Viper, most people would natuarlly assume Mosley would easily win. The fact is an unremarkable/unexciting yet fundamentally sound fighter can sometimes overcome a prodigous superstar, simply because they do everything consistently well. We need to look at the sum of parts.

I pick the wily Hopkins by very close decision.

Even though I'm a huge Hagler fan I enjoyed reading this post as I believe there is an element of truth in it, not often mentioned. Personally because I'm such a huge Hagler fan, I can't objectively pick a winner. Certainly if they could have fought, I would been routing for Hagler every second of the way. But that certainly isn't going to influence what takes place in the ring. They are different fighters but what they did, they both did well.

[Drew101]

Neither of these fighters would be able to dominate one another for any extended period of time. Hagler may have had more physical talent at his very best, but I'd give peak Hopkins the edge in terms of ring generalship, and, yes, in terms of versatility as well. Because they both possessed excellent chins, and had superb stamina, we can be fairly certain that this goes the distance. We can also be fairly certain that many of the rounds would be tightly contested, with little to choose between either of them.

Hopkins, at his best, was good enough to give anyone hell. That includes Hagler. However, I think Hagler's style, in general, would enable him to steal enough of the close rounds to emerge with a close, highly contested decision.

[Sakura]

I'll take Hagler. Physically stronger and better tested Leonard, Hearns, Duran etc...

[rekcutnevets]

The main reason that I am taking Hopkins, is the pride issue. Hagler's pride is what would defeat him here. Hagler can't stand being thought of as a loser. He hates Leonard to this day for winning against him. Judges scored it for Leonard, but Hagler hates Leonard for the judges giving him the verdict.

Hagler was as tough as they come, but is touchy in how he is percieved.

I believe the winner of this fight is going to be the one doing the boxing. Which ever comes forward, is losing this one. Hagler could outbox Bernard, in my opinion. It would be a difficult task, but one I think he was capable of. The problem for Hagler is that Bernard would also find this out while they are fighting. Bernard adapts very well, and does not care if the crowd starts booing. If Bernard was getting beat coming forward, don't you know that he would stop? He would not care if the fight became boring. He would assume the role of the passive fighter until Hagler took the bait. If you know Hagler, you know he would take the bait. Let the fans start booing the fight, and he is going to try to stop them. That is when he loses. Hopkins would counter well, use his reach, and use his one-two.

Hopkins by close decision after throwing away rounds baiting Hagler, plus the rounds he loses narrowly by trying to pressure Hagler.

[Muchmoore]

Originally Posted by Leeroy

My opinion has not changed. Discuss this matchup.

Hagler beats him at his own game and roughs him up,

Hopkins isnt fighting a movie star or Robert Allen for the 50th time here

Hagler UD.

[Cojimar 1945]

I should think Hopkins would be heavily favored over Roldan.

[cardstars]

Hagler wins imo. Those early rounds Hopkins likes to throw away would be eaten up by Hagler and perhaps BHop gets tagged with a few good ones in there to screw up the rest of the fight for him......if there is a rest of the fight

[fists of fury]

Originally Posted by rekcutnevets

The main reason that I am taking Hopkins, is the pride issue. Hagler's pride is what would defeat him here. Hagler can't stand being thought of as a loser. He hates Leonard to this day for winning against him. Judges scored it for Leonard, but Hagler hates Leonard for the judges giving him the verdict.

Hagler was as tough as they come, but is touchy in how he is percieved.

I believe the winner of this fight is going to be the one doing the boxing. Which ever comes forward, is losing this one. Hagler could outbox Bernard, in my opinion. It would be a difficult task, but one I think he was capable of. The problem for Hagler is that Bernard would also find this out while they are fighting. Bernard adapts very well, and does not care if the crowd starts booing. If Bernard was getting beat coming forward, don't you know that he would stop? He would not care if the fight became boring. He would assume the role of the passive fighter until Hagler took the bait. If you know Hagler, you know he would take the bait. Let the fans start booing the fight, and he is going to try to stop them. That is when he loses. Hopkins would counter well, use his reach, and use his one-two.

Hopkins by close decision after throwing away rounds baiting Hagler, plus the rounds he loses narrowly by trying to pressure Hagler.

You bring up a very interesting point here. Pride before the fall? It's certainly possible, because Hagler had that warrior mentality that Bernard could capitalize on.