Hagler-Hopkins

i think Hopkins might win the first few rounds but the middle rounds where Haglers body shots and high workrate start to come into play will slow down Hopkins marginally as Hagler gets stronger and faster. The4n the mid rounds would be close with Hagler coming out on top and winnign the last rounds IMO

 

Hopkins - better boxer, better defensively, better technically, smarter, with similar physical abilities

 

Hagler on points at least. Could be inside the distance. I cast a conservative vote since Hopkins was good at surviving. Folks overrate Hopkins on this web site.

 

Probably, but Hagler gets overrated just as much.

 

I've always liked Marvin, but having a chance lately to see more and more lesser known fights from his prime leads to a greater appreciation. As slick, crafty, and defensively skilled as Hopkins is, I think Hagler finds a way to squeeze out a tight win on points.

 

Really? I think there's plenty enough Hagler detractors on this board to maintain a middle ground. Personally I see Hagler winning a great fight for the purists. Bundles of technical skill and fierce exchanges from both sides. Hagler pulling it out in the last third of the fight. His punch volume and workrate (see Hagler - Obel 1 for an example) pull it out once the intensity of the bout diminishes the boxing skill level.

 

I think Hagler is light years better than Hopkins. Most people think of Hagler as a brawler due to his last 3 fights, but the man was a great boxer puncher. Nothing Hopkins has he has not seen before. He has beaten faster men. Beaten harder punchers. More aggresive fighters. Better boxers. Hopkins too has that weak mentality he showed in the JC fight rolling around bitching from weak slaps to his protective cup. He did not try to fight his way out of adversity he tried to cheat his way out. Hagler would expose Hopkins.

 

Hopkins was 43 when he fought Calzaghe, in case you didn't know. When human beings are 43, it is impossible for them to have the same stamina they had when they were 23 or 33, taking an opportunity for a breather without being penalized by the ref is not a weak mentality at all, it is a very shrewd old boxer, I bet similar tactics were used by Archie Moore and countless others when they were in their 40s, or even late 30s.

Hopkins has nothing Hagler hasn't seen before? OK, who did Marvin ever fight who had a better defence than Hopkins? Who did he ever fight that was as big and strong as Hopkins at mw? Hopkins may not be a better fighter p4p than Leonard, Hearns or Duran, but he does bring things to the table that Hagler never encountered at mw and things that Hagler would not find easy to deal with.

There's no right answer here, for all I know Hagler may have beaten Hopkins handily, but Hagler was not light years ahead, and using some biased example from when Hopkins was 43 is just stupid.

 

Marv's right jab is the difference in this one. Marvelous W 15 X

 

hopkins comes away with this one. hes better then hagler in just about every regard.

 

I'm not saying he's way overrated or anything like that, just that he is every bit as overrated as Hopkins on this forum.

Each one has their share of posters who view them as some kind of god, but I think it's safe to say that Hopkins has more detractors than Hagler. The belief that Hagler is also somehow a level above Hopkins is far more common than vice versa, despite the fact that neither his overall career or all-around ability were really any more impressive. See the post below yours for an example.

 

Yes, that would be one of the differences. Very underated Hagler punch that has the ability to put just about any fighter out of his stride.

 

I see your point LOL

 

I tend t agree with the jab making the difference.

Nothing gets through a good defence like an all-time great jab and Hops left-hand work is poor in comparison.He would need to hustle a lot more than usual to compensate for what would be an easier points scorer for Marv than anything X has in his arsenal.

 

depends which hopkins we are talking about really so we are all singing out of the same hym sheet

are we talking about the physical prime of Hopkins where he was a fairly aggresive boxer puncher with a good jab and unpredictable shots

or

the older slower hopkins with the brillaint defense but less athletisism but more ring craft


the younger hopkins versus hagler would be an amazing fight an all time great fight.

Hopkins tries to lead but hagler uses his skills to counter an dput him under pressure, leading to them trading in the middle of the ring (which i think Hagler would egt the better of) Hopkins would be tryinmg to box and use his reach but Hagler would get inside land his combos and get outside again but he would get hit and maybe lose afew rounds. This version of Hopkins i can see a late stoppage in favour of Hagler or a Hagler UD.

the older version of Hopkins i see Bernard doing better. He would be forcing Hagler to lead and Hagler would oblige but would walk onto afew Hopkins right hands which would lose him afew rounds. But what troubles me in this fight Hopkins didnt tend to have the stamina when an opponent forced the fight so might tire in the second half of the fight which Hagler would make him pay for. I see hagler winning a fairly close fight on a UD after dominating the last few rounds and getting most of the middle rounds. I dont see Bernard getting stopped here though.