Marvin Hagler vs Roberto Duran compared to Bernard Hopkins vs Oscar De La Hoya

Leonard says the same thing in his auto biography. In it he also admits that Duran wasn't the same in New Orleans, just as Leonard had planned.

 

Hagler's stylitisc vulnerability to skilled boxers will always be an open question to me, seeing the problems he had not only with Duran and Leonard but also with the much less glamorous Willie Monroe - never really a top MW, but by accounts a pretty slick boxer.

It's a fascinating question how things would have turned out for him hade he been in his prime during the succeeding generation of Nunn, McCallum, Toney, Kalambay et al.

 

Yes, SRL was a phenomenal boxer, one of the best ever, but he certainly used whatever leverage he had to dictate the terms of a fight, much like Mayweather does today.

 

Interesting question. If Toney was busy and motivated that would be a very interesting fight.

 

BS, Hopkins was 169 against De la Hoya and that was at a catchweight of 158. Hopkins didn't put on as much weight after the weigh in as some others, but he was bigger than Hagler as a MW.

 

It's pretty hard not to classify Hopkins as a huge middleweight in my mind.

 

You are neglecting the fact that he (Hopkins) rehydrated at least 10 pounds over 157. Without that rehydration, he wouldn't have been the same in the ring.

 

Yep.

 

He wasn't huge for the modern era where it's common for guys to put on 20 pounds after the weigh-in, but he was bigger than the guys who fought at MW with same day weigh-ins. I doubt Hopkins would have fought at MW with same day weigh-ins past his 20s.

 

I couldn't care a fvck about Tyson, or the Benitez / Duran fight. You stated that Duran was never winning the fight. You were wrong, he was going into the 13th round on the OFFICIAL scorecards.

Who you think was winning is of no importance whatsoever to anyone other than you.

 

Then I suppose we should all be grateful that you are not a paid judge.