Hopkins, Hagler, and Monzon

Your forgetting Hagler unified the IBF title.

 

He didn't really unify it, IBF just started recognizing him as the champ after the Scypion fight. It would have been ridiculous of the IBF to recognize any other champion than Hagler at the early stage of its existance.

 

I rate wins like Joppy and Eastman tbh, they're decent contender level wins. I don't hold it against Hopkins that only six of his defences were of the lineal title and the rest were alphabet defences, wins are wins. And to be fair, he defended his alphabet straps with all the air of a dominant champion. Hagler is still over him though, for the major deciding factors are the main ones GreatA mentioned for me, that Hearns>Trinidad and Duran>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leonard. I want to say though that Trinidad at mw is a good win, not just an oversized opponent, an actual good win at 160 pounds, no ifs or buts in my opinion. He had moved up in weight and demolished Joppy and therefore was a serious player at the weight at that time. Of course in hindsight it's not a great mw win, but if we're going to consider opponents in the context of what they represented at the timne, then that must be done fairly and on both sides of the equation. Trinidad is easily a good win.

 

I'd pretty much agree except Hopkins has been at world level for something like 18years, although I'm sure your counting the MW world level, which was 12years I believe.

I'm not 100% sure Duran is a superior MW to Delahoya based on DLH being bigger and having emphatic performances himself at 154 and performing well

Hopkins was 38/39 against Taylor, Hagler was 32 against Leonard if I remember rightly

 

I do think its hard to split them. Hagler certainly has the best opposition, in terms of wins Hopkins/Monzon are close with the edge to Monzon although his 3 best wins were past prime. Hopkins and Monzon are the most dominant with the exception Hopkins got owned by Jones, but he's by the far the best opponent any of the 3 faced. Hopkins has fought at the top level the longest and has registered wins at LHW, something neither of the others have done. Both Hopkins and Monzon are very intelligent boxers, Hagler less so and probably fought the wrong fight a few times. Hopkins is arguably unbeaten since 1993 and is elite as a 45yo. All 3 are very complete, powerful wills to win and fight to their strengths, balancing defense with offense.

 

I was talking about middleweight only. Pound for pound Hopkins rates quite highly for me with his light heavyweight performances. He has a chance to do it again against Jean Pascal.

Duran was a better middleweight of the two. De La Hoya looked terrible against Sturm and was then KO'd by Hopkins after early success. Duran won his title more legitimately from Barkley and was competitive against Hagler. Junior middleweight results don't count for much in my opinion. Duran still held a title at that weight and was formidable. I do not doubt that he could have beaten Vargas.

Hagler was 33, but he was an old 33. Unlike Hopkins, he never got to show whether he could have beaten Leonard decisively in a rematch.

 

Yea I think Delahoya wasnt in shape for Sturm, and it was a bad style, if he fought more styles at MW, especially come forward brawlers, I see him having more success.

I'm not 100% sure Duran beats Vargas, maybe but Vargas was very good for a little while, not that Duran wasn't I think its a close fight, with Duran having the edge

Its partly Hagler's own fault he didn't come back, he likely could have got a Leonard rematch if he wanted it. He said he sometimes thought of coming back years later and thought better of it valuing his health.

Are we sometimes under championing boxers who get out of boxing with their faculties in tact though? Sometimes as fans its almost as if we want a boxer to continue until they are brain dead and doing it all for short money

 

I don't know. His strength and power did not seem to have much effect at middleweight.

I'm fairly certain that Duran beats post-Tito Vargas especially. A good style match-up for him in my opinion.

I doubt it very seriously. Hagler wanted a rematch, Leonard retired, Hagler retired and Leonard came back. Hagler wasn't going to play that game with Leonard anymore. It should have been an instant rematch like Hopkins's with Taylor.

I think Hagler's retirement was a great decision. There was nothing else for him but Leonard to fight. The likes of Nunn, Kalambay, Graham, even McCallum were new blood and it wouldn't have been very wise of Hagler to fight them. Eventually someone would have got to him, see Leonard's fight with Terry Norris.

 

I think Duran would beat Vargas personally. The young Vargas was a quality fighter, and Duran is not invincible at that weight. But everything considered i think he might end up hurting Vargas personally.

 

Hagler
Hopkins
Monzon

All three were tremendous ...

 

Monzon
Hopkins
Hagler

 

Head to head Hopkins beats both. Everyone on this thread conveniently ignored the difference in weigh in rules. Due to the 30 hour rule 3 of the last 4 middleweight champs were freaking huge compared to the old timers, and in this instance size matters.

 

Hopkins didn't usually put on too many pounds after the weigh-ins until later on in his career.

 

But Hopkins was, and still is, a freakish gym rat. The fact that people nearly always ignore the changes in weigh-in rules is a pet peeve of mine. It just bugs the hell out of me.

In Marvin's era there was no SMW division, and the same day weigh in rule was still in effect, so most of todays middleweights would have been light heavies. Haglar never showed any interest in moving to 175, and there were good reasons for that.

 

I'm beginning to think it really boils down to who you like...Hagler, Monzon and Hopkins all offer several stylistic wrinkles that would be difficult to overcome for the other. Hopkins made a living being able to solve any (most... ie Calzaghe) southpaw he met in the ring. But the Hagler who tended to box more would have given him a more difficult time and would have been the best southpaw he ever met at middle. Monzon and Hopkins is a definite chess match...Could Hopkins take away the jab of King Carlos? Hopkins was excellent at catching a jab then getting inside...but Monzon varied his jab, so it wasn't easy to read or pick up a tendency on. Monzon with his height and physical strength would have given Hagler trouble and I can see Monzon being able to break up Hagler's offensive rythym by being strong enough to grab him in a clinch and make him constantly reset. But one thing to consider before you give this to Monzon is how would Monzon deal with a durable, mobile southpaw? Hagler's own jab may help him offset the effectiveness of Monzon's jab just from the southpaw style (and Hagler had a vicious jab)...and everything Monzon does comes off the jab.

All three give each other fits and ask some very hard stylistic questions of each other...IMO.