Who has the better middelweight resume, Hopkins or Hagler?

I don see how you Can discredit the wins against EX- welterweight fighters who grew out of that weight and had to move up. They were good fighters at the weight earn a shot and lost to the champions .Then people fall back on that smaller man garbage to discredit the wins.Hearns was a Middleweight when he fought Hagler even went to 168 after and Welterweight was far behind him. Tito was not a Welterweight he was At the least a junior middle weight who just manhandled Joppy with ease. Fighters get Bigger...it happens.

 

No bias honest, but I pick Hagler as although the resumes comparing true middleweights they fought are similar, for me Marvin did it in more exciting fashion!

 

ok dip****, go through your top 5 below and tell me what are the best wins at middleweight of these 5 fighters

1)William Joppy
2)Keith Holmes
3)Glen Johnson
4)Antwone Echols
5)Howard Eastman



i'll give you a clue, they have won **** all between them and were part of the worst middleweight era in history.

 

Hagler. No arguing it.

 

now then ******, you didn't answer my question so shut the **** up, go back and answer my question.

with haglers lower weight fighters, you are talking about all time legends in hearns and leonard who not only won world titles at middleweight but went on to win world titles at 2 weights above middleweight. you are also talking about duran who after hagler, still went on to win a middleweight title, even when he was shot.

with hopkins you are talking about 2 much lesser fighters in tito and odly. all trinidad beat at middleweight was joppy (who has beat **** all at middleweight) and has then gone on to embarrass himself at that weight and above. all odly has at middleweight is an absoloute gift v felix sturm, so quit your bull**** and **** off back into your sewer.

 

Two legends and two of my favorite fighters of all time. Can't really pick on this one.

 

Good thread but what about Thomas Hearns?

I'd say Hagler has the better resume as a Middleweight.

 

oh right so your not gonna discuss any points i raised

hopkins is a ball ache for anyone head to head, i will give him that, he's clever strategically and very strong mentally, but i don't think he would beat hagler. would be a close fight though.

 

I would agree with you Headbanger. It's not that close - at all, I feel. Duran, Hearns and Leonard would beat almost everybody of Hopkins's opponents (Tito might've knocked out SRL/Duran in one out of five or so) so excluding them is unfair. Herns beat undefeated, underrated Hill for the light-heavy crown... None of Hopkins's opponents did the same. Duran became champ later on at the same weight. Mugabi was a good fighter too even at middleweight who could have given Tito some problems (probably lose though).

As for the rest of the opponents, Hamsho, Sibson and Vito are better than the very Green Johnson (fantastic performance though), the weak Joppy and Holmes. Echols is good though.

Hopkins's inability to adjust in the second Taylor fight really hurts him too and it often gets overlooked on here. Why do the first thing as in the first fight when it was obvious it was not working with the judges? Weight drain is not an excuse when you take the rematch. Could it be that the careful style of Taylor's with his speedy, long, adamant jab bothered him?

Hagler looked a bit clumsy against Duran but still adapted and snatched the win. And - who's looked good gainst Duran except for Hearns, Leonard and Benitez?

A unification tournemant is good but Hagler's run of Mugabi, Hearns and SRL trumps it with little difficulty. Being champ even after 20 defenses is a heck of an accomplishment but Hagler stayed on top for very long too so not even in longevity at the weight he's much better.

In an all-time sense things naturally look a LOT different both in longevity and quality of opponents and I think Hopkins would beat Hagler. BUT; when considering their reigns ONLY... There can only be one answer for me.