Hagler by a landslide, the only reason Hopkins gets rated so high on here is because he was a competitive fighter for a long long time, but he was never the best in any of the 89 eras he was in, hagler was the best of his day, today or any day before he was the champ
Hagler didn't whip Leonard or Duran. And with Vito he tired out in the first fight. But he as sure a dominate middleweight champion.
Hopkins was arguably the best fighter in the world after he beat Tito and until he lost to Taylor (Sep 2001-July 2005). Ring Magazine ranked him #2 in 2001 (behind Mosley; completely disagree), #1 in 2002, #2 in 2003 (Roy beat Ruiz that year), #1 in 2004 and until he lost to Taylor. He moved up to LHW after he lost to Taylor. And he remained top 5 p4p for another 4 years (while he was in his 40s). Hagler was seen as the best fighter after he beat Hearns in '85 (afaik). You could make a case for Spinks because Spinks went up to HW and beat Holmes 5 months after Hagler-Hearns. Even if we say Hagler was the best of his day, it lasted 2 years. Hopkins was also considered the best for 2 years (at the very least). And one of the best for over a decade.
Hagler had the iron-willed, iron-jawed blue collar badass aura that fought through hell in a deep division that included him getting screwed by judges until he finally became the undisputed MAN! Once he became the man he was like a pitbull with a bone that would never let it go. It wasn’t until a fellow ATG was able to steal the middleweight crown after Marvin had finally shown slippage during an all out brawl with a hellacious puncher. Marvin was a skilled boxer who could also engage in brutal slugfests and always come out ahead. Bhop started late in life, much to his credit, but was unable to become the champ until after several tries. Even then, wasn’t it for a vacant belt? Hopkins gradually earned his own respect but there were some low spots that definitely took away some of his shine. His defense against Morrade Hakar was a disgrace; this wasn’t Bernard’s fault, but nevertheless he was affiliated with it. Roy Jones absolutely punked him on live tv - “Bernard, the only reason you have a belt is because I moved up. I let you have your belt. 60/40 AND I WHOOP YO ASS!” Bernard wanted nothing to do with Jones or trying to avenge his biggest loss. Personally, I don’t hold the Taylor losses against him. He did enough to win but it seemed like TPTB wanted a new face, maybe similar to Hagler / Leonard. But Bernard absolutely humiliated himself when he flopped with Dawson. HAGLER WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE SOMETHING LIKE THAT!
Didn't he blast out DeLaHoya at a 156 catch-weight 2 fights before Taylor and then beat capable Howard Eastman in the very next fight?
He wasn't close to his physical prime He peaked as a fighter in the Pavlik fight imo but physically was not peak at 40 years of age
George, you are arguing semantics. Hopkins beat Tarver, Pavlik and Pascal after he lost to Taylor, the latter 2 opponents YEARS after. He probably was in his physical prime when he stopped Johnson, but that doesn't change the fact he was close to prime when he lost to Taylor.
Hopkins had become tired and worn out at 160 and could no longer effectively make the weight. His output had been dropping and he was having to conserve energy much more so than earlier. The rise in weight lifted these constraints and suddenly he was able to noticeably raise his output. He looked like he had a new lease of life up there hence his sudden rise in effectiveness. At the time when the Haglers and Monzon were retiring he was banging away in higher divisions.
And yet, John, Bernard has a mediocre record above 160. On top of that Hagler and Monzon started their careers at far earlier ages than Hopkins did, and both had more professional fights than he did.
Mediocre Clint? If that's mediocre a lot of people would love to have it. In his first outing post 160 he absolutely schooled the top light heavyweight in the world. He's now done the 160-175 double. The guy is 18 years deep into his pro career and 41 years old. Hagler fought for 14 years as did Monzon. The feat is crazy no matter which one one can objectively look at it. He then easily beat Winky Wright at catchweight, Winky is the Ring P4P #3. Hopkins going in was P4P #5. He loses a split decision to Calz which is somewhat disputed in many corners. Next fight Pavlik, the reigning top dog at 160 moves up and is taken to school by Hopkins. At this stage Hopkins is nearing 44. 2 years later at 46yo he draws with and then beats the lineal title holder at 175. Hopkins is then Ring rated P4P #4 at 46 years of age. After this things taper off for him, little wonder considering he is 46+ and has been fighting for 23 years. This isn't mediocre, it's incredible to say the least. Guys like Hagler and Monzon had been retired a decade at this point, and that's only talking years in the game. He's the oldest champ in history. Hopkins is in all likelihood a once in a lifetime happening.
