Would Hagler get through Hopkins title defences undefeated?

I am convinced Hagler goes through the lot unbeaten.

 

easily. Hopkins would not get through Hagler's undefeated

 

Looking at it objectively on a time period scale -

Hagler had 12 wins post title then lost to SRL. This took place over 6 1/2 years.

Hopkins had 20 wins post title then lost two to JT. This took place over 10 1/2 years.

On the same timeline Hagler would have to fight 4 years longer than he did. He was looking tired by the Mugabi and SRL fights. So around SRL time he would be fighting Trinidad. He would be fighting Taylor 4 years after this.

I cannot see Hagler beating Taylor at this time. He'd be fine in Hagler's prime but we would be a long long way past this. He'd have another 6 fights of wear and age as well as the time factor. Could he get to Taylor post Trinidad? Probably but it's not a complete certainty as he was tailing off and cutting more frequently. He'd have to find motivation at a time when he had none left.

In the reverse Hopkins would be fighting SRL around the Trinidad time. I can absolutely see this version of Hopkins smothering SRL and outworking him. I can see him comfortably outclassing the likes of Hamsho, Sibson, Roldan and co. and using his size and cunning to make Duran work hard and comfortably decision him. The hardest on paper might be Hearns but Hopkins would ambush him imo. He'd time his rushes and maul Tommy in close.

So i think it would start to get iffy via that timeline post Trinidad for Marvin. Can't see him having enough left to beat Taylor for sure. Can see Hopkins going all the way.

 

I suppose it depends if you swap their entire careers or just their title runs. Hagler fought far superior opposition on his run to the title than Hopkins did, even if you include Hopkins fights all the way up to Trinidad when he became undisputed. Hagler had considerably more miles on the clock by the time he became champion than Hopkins did; give him Nard's shite opposition in his early days and his late start and he'd have significantly less wear and tear. Vice versa too if Hopkins had to navigate the tough Philly scene from an earlier age prior to getting his shot - more miles on the clock. Of course, if were talking about Hagler having his historical route to the title and then Hopkins' opponents during his reign, John maybe has a point above.

I've never rated Taylor even quite on the level of someone like Frank Tate tbh; he was thoroughly mediocre outside of his jab and quick hands and I'd back even an old faded Marv to turn the trick as long as his sometimes dubious ring generalship didn't rear it's head. Hopkins was stale and tight at the weight by the time of the Taylor fights and probably won the rematch anyway, but I still consider the first fight to be a black mark on his record that he gets an easy pass for sometimes.

Prime for prime Hagler obviously decimates Hopkins's challengers and although Hopkins might well come through Marv's reign unbeaten too, he'd be feeling the strain of it by the end more than during his own time.

 

yes

 

Hopkins list is pretty weak. Joppy was pretty good. The others that were best were all coming up in weight like Oscar and Trinidad. Neither was very good at 160 lbs.

 

I don't think there is anything between Hagler and Hopkins, they are on the same level. I also think Hagler's opposition is by many looked upon with a bit of nostalgia (the late 70s and 80s in general on here) and not really much better than Hopkins' if at all.
I think it is more likely that Hopkins goes through Hagler's reign than vice versa simply because Hagler started slipping right around the same time Hopkins was actually getting recognized. Hagler would beat any single fighter Hopkins' defended against prime for prime but as JT said he would be slipping from like Echols/Holmes onwards. Trinidad in the place of Leonard, he might already have done what Leonard did and beat Hagler. I do not see Hagler fighting until Taylor tbh. He would have lost the desire way before that.

 

Yes he would. And due to the weakness of Hopkins' opposition, Hagler could make all those easy defenses in half the time Bernard did. The only category in which Bernard ranks higher is longevity. I will take quality over quantity any time.

 

Yeah Hagler in his prime would beat them all.

But a 40 year old Hagler vs someone like Taylor I'm not so sure of. Maybe he beats Taylor, maybe he doesn't depends on how he ages.

 

Why the absence from the forum, Fergy?

 

Just to be clear, the OP says Mercado through Taylor? Which is from Hopkins being a splinter titleist/contender (not the undisputed champion) through to him losing his universally recognised title? A ten year span of being both a contender and a champion, Hopkins being champion from 2001 to 2005. Granted it should probably have been longer considering King standing in his way etc.

So I'm a bit a baffled as to why people are giving Hagler just over 6 years, his recognised tenure as champion to do what Hopkins did in 10 and comparing what actually came to pass for Hopkins to what might have done for Hagler? Plus adding on four imaginary years. That's a skewed playing field at best considering that Hagler was actually undisputed champ for longer after a much tougher rise through the rankings even if you think Hops should've been accorded the chance to unify earlier than he did (in which case you might as well say that Hagler should've at least been the man from Antuofermo 1 onwards in 1979 and probably a splinter titleist from even earlier if there had been four belts to choose from).

In other words, take Hagler from 77 through 87 to make the situation comparable and not biased toward Hopkins.

 

Also, genuine question and not being derisory, who do people think was the best middleweight Hopkins defeated? Though I might as well make no secret of the fact that it genuinely boils my noddle that respectable posters on here think that Hopkins and Haglers title challengers were more or less equal in quality. I don't want to be unfair to Hopkins here, but it's been a longstanding trend on here well back into the old ESB days with people saying he and Marv fought similar quality comp as champions, and it baffles me a bit. Do people really think that Joppy and Tito were better middleweights than Minter, Sibson and Hamsho etc? Or Hearns as a h2h force? Granted I think that the likes of Sibbo and Minter are really underrated these days.