Hagler Vs. Hopkins

Echols II, Johnson, Trinidad, Joppy.

 

I said more skills, not just any skills

 

Hagler any way you slice it.

 

I think Hagler was just flat out better than Hopkins, regardless of Hopkins's technical prowess. Hagler was more dominant and impressive against better opposition. Hopkins's only real edge is his height.

 

Disagree on both counts

 

I really don't think Hopkins was a particularly great thinker as many seem to.A fine ring-general for sure, but not out of the ordinary for a top boxer-puncher.

It appeared more to me that he was simply a lot better fundamentally than most of the nondescript fighters he fought.

He was dirty as hell and knew how to fight inside, in an era where most of his opponents were clueless there.

Monzon in comparison was making technically sound and crafty fighters dance to his tune every single time...Hopkins for the most part made crap fighters look crap.

 

Obviously.

 

Clearly Hagler. Overall, he beat tougher competition.

 

Hagler being more dominant and impressive against better opposition? Hagler was actually less dominant in his era than Hopkins was in his in terms of defenses and length of reign. But I do concede that both fought different opponents and it's anyones guess how they would have done reversing each other. Hopkins in the 80's and Hagler in the 90's.

And your saying Hagler was more impressive against better oppostion. I agree that he fought better opposition, although not by a country mile. But Hagler wasn't anymore impressive in terms of the way he won. Thats where the styles of both must be respected and balanced fairly.

Hopkins wasn't the type of fighter who would destroy his opponents like Hagler did with Minter and Hearns. Although IMO he dominated his opposition as thoroughly as Hagler did, but in a different manner.

 

I think a guy like Tony Sibson was better than anyone Hopkins beat as a MW, and Hagler outclassed and disected him in spectacular fashion. His resume at MW is just far better and I think he performed more impressively against top opposition for the most part, aside from a bout like Trinidad.

 

That´s just not true but only a biased oppinion. Hopkins never struggled like Hagler with his opposition. I think Hopkins reign is similar to Joe Louis´ his opponents didn´t look as good because he was so dominant.

 

:good

 

This is never an easy fight to call.

I'll just say this: 2 of Hagler's losses were against Philly fighters. Where was Hopkins from again?

Tough fight no matter which way it goes.

 

Take it from me, Sibbo was better by far than anyone Hopkins faced and probably stronger than Hopkins himself. I'm not sure Hopkins could take all that Sibbo would dish out. It would be a fight for survival.

Personally, I believe Sibbo would have dispensed with the frail Trinidad rather quickly in the same manner Tony Ayala did with his victims. This might be another Carter-Griffith type match or perhaps Sibson-Collins. Sibbo would definitely be champion in this era.

I also have doubts as to whether Hopkins could weather an assault the kind which Hagler had to endure from Roldan, Mugabi, Hearns.

Hopkins could probably defeat Caveman Lee in a bruising bout by around the fifth round but he would be just another contender in Hagler's day struggling to move up the ranks.