Bernard Hopkins vs Marvin Hagler.

MW SRL and Monzon would have been tougher fights for Hopkins at 160lb then Hagler.

 

Oh yeh Hagler was very wobbly ... Gee I was at the fight,live. he got hurt but I failed to see him rocking. But thanks for sharing

 

He would look for an out. Can anyone seriously imagine Hagler looking for an out ? Or milking a supposed injury ?????????????????

 

Some people don't realise how much of a problem Hopkins would be for Hagler.

If you were to create a fighter to beat Hagler, it would be a fighter extremely close to Hopkins's style.

Duran made a prime Hagler, tentative and cautious. If Duran was stronger - a natural at the weight, and mixed things up with more power punches than he actually threw during the fight he might well have won. He was probably a bit too defensive minded and never had tools to get physical and take it to Hagler on the inside.

A prime Hopkins is better in every area than a 32 year old Duran at middleweight. Height and reach, accuracy, quicker hands and feet, more power, better ring generalship, etc.

It's not really in Hopkins's make up to be careless and go to war. He wouldn't force the fight against Hagler. He'd probably fight a similar fight to Duran but with more confidence to exchange punches and show a bit more variety when it came to defense and offense.

Hopkins simply has the style, tools and versatility to outfox Hagler.

 

I never said he was 'wobbly' but he was hurt, something you yourself admit. Good for you watching the fight live though i'm sure it's one of the reasons why there's an extra tint of rose on those spectacles you seem to be sporting

 

Hopkins is quicker than the Duran who fought Hagler. And you admit that the speed of Duran was one of the reasons he gave Hagler problems. While Duran fought a survial type of fight he wasn't exactly running. He was shifting, side to side, within range. Hopkins would show better defense than Duran as he has faster feet and reflexes and his defense is more varied.

My point is that if Duran could cause Hagler a problem by making him look bad in a relatively, cagey fight, then Hopkins has the tools to beat him.

 

The question is why didn't he try to adjust or try something different when that was the case? If you're the intelligent fighter that people are making you out to be, you do that, you don't simply fight with the same strategy.

Personally I think people make too much of the stance issue in the Leonard fight. Leonard was going to outslick Hagler in the first four rounds no matter what stance Hagler adopted. He was simply quicker and more fleet footed. I don't see that he gave the first four rounds away. Leonard took them with his better attributes.

Hagler perhaps should have tried to brawl Leonard, but even that would have been risky if he failed to knock him out early and became lethargic in the second half of the fight.

It's interesting to think what actually goes on in his mind. He probably thinks he won all those fights and didn't need to adjust, although it's hard to fathom with the Dawson fight....

 

It's funny how Hagler started to have more success when he went southpaw. So I don't think it's out of the question that if he came out southpaw during the first 4 rounds he would have been more competitive during those rounds or perhaps even won them.

Even Gil Clancy stated during the commentary that he watched Leonard sparring with southpaws in the build-up to the fight and he couldn't handle them well.

Stances aside.......You could say that Hagler gave away the first 4 rounds as he stood off Leonard. Everyone thought before the first bell rang that Hagler would storm out of his corner and pure serious pressure on Leonard. Hence, the reason why many picked him by knockout early. He was stronger at the weight, had more power, and had confidence in his durability to take risks. This was Leonard's first fight at the weight and he had one fight in 5 years.

Hagler gave Leonard far too much respect during those first 4 rounds. Not only by standing off him without intensity but also by fighting in the orthodox stance.

 

Just have to disagree that Hopkins was quicker of hand than Duran at MW. Also I just don't see that Duran causing Hagler problems in a cagey fight means Hopkins wins. (I think Duran would cause Hopkins problems in a cagey fight too !) You also have to consider that Hagler's mindset would be different for a Hopkins fight. Hagler went into the Duran fight with a counterpunching, conservative strategy, which Duran refused to fall into, which created somewhat of a stand-off There would be no such strategy against the taller Hopkins.

Ultimately a Hagler Hopkins bout would start off cagey, and extremely close, but as the fight wears on Hagler's extra power and strength on the inside is the difference.

 

Hopkins said himself, there's a difference between fighting a guy and fighting a guy off of you. Calzaghe and Dawson both made him fight to defend without giving him time to adjust. He tried with mixed success, but ultimately couldn't make it count over 12 rounds. And the way he talked after the Cloud fight about activity being a modern scoring tactic suggests that maybe he thought he landed the cleaner punches. Walking back to his dressing room after the Dawson fight I saw he talked to a jeering fan and pointed at his own face saying "look at my face, what did he land". The Calzaghe and Taylor fights are much more reasonable in thinking he edged it.

The stance issue does get over played, but for me it was an issue of pacing. He allowed Leonard to control the pace. I do give Leonard credit for what he did, but there was no sense of urgency after the rounds were going by. It wasn't Leonard waning but Hagler ramping it up that brought him success in the middle rounds. It's not a glaring flaw, it's just a characteristic or personality trait that sometimes seems to affect his will to shift tactics. If, for example, he insists on stepping into his jab as Hopkins circles, that might lead him to giving up a round or two instead of trying to set up a feint for something else while Hopkins does as he pleases. It's a small factor but a potentially decisive one.

 

No pal, just reality. And not buying into the hype ... Love how you guys love to say,`Hagler was hurt` ... Even though your talking about a guy who fought any and all comers and never hit the deck. And because I and some others, don`t agree with your point of view, I wear rose colored glasses ??? It`s typical , Hagler wasn`t given a shot for years he TRULY earned it. And no alphabet titles for him, the real deal. And he still doesn`t get the proper respect.

 

This is a great informative post. When Hopkins has fought guys who really go for the win, he bends a bit. Sometimes, even looking for an out (fake injury). If he is allowed to dictate, he controls the fight. I am saying that Hagler (not leonard fight Hagler, he was past it) takes it Hopkins, similar to what Taylor, Calzaghe and dawson did. And gets Hopkins defensive. Prime Hagler would bring it and bring it effectively. People seem to think that Hagler would be scared or not agressive enough to bring it to Hopkins, are they serious ?

 

It's not 1982 anymore, Hagler gets all the respect he deserves and rightly so. He's much loved and respected by modern boxing fans more so then even SRL and Hearns. People appreciate his long hard journey to the top and doing things the hard way. As a MW Hagler is ahead of Hopkins in a ATG sense atleast in my opinion anyway i'd say Hagler is top 3 while Hopkins at best is top 5 BUT in a h2h prime for prime fight people recognise Hopkins brings the ring IQ and phyiscal tools to defeat Hagler but that doesn't diminish Haglers greatness.

For example personally speaking I rank Hopkins higher then Jones in a general ATG sense but h2h i'd give Hopkins no more then a 20% chance to beat Jones prime for prime.

 

Jones achieved more than Hopkins ever did. As an added bonus he gave Hopkins a nice loss :good