Hagler Vs. Hopkins

I take nothing serious you post about Leonard, Hagler, Ayala or Norris or anything that anybody could anyhow relate to them. :thumbsup

 

Truely astonishing opinion. Infact, unbelieveable. Hopkins' chin was granite when tested.

 

So which of Hopkins's MW conquests were the equivalent of Schmeling, Walcott, Baer, Farr, Lewis, or hell even Braddock? Robert Allen?

If it's not true tell me which of Hopkins's MW opposition was as good as someone like Sibson or Antuofermo. As a matter of fact, find me a single MW Hopkins beat that was even as good as the naturally smaller fighters Hagler fought such as Hearns, Mugabi, and Duran. Or Leonard if you feel Hagler deserved that one. Hagler's opposition was far better, and he dominated pretty much all of it. If we are really going to get into comparing their opposition I suggest you stop now, it's really very one-sided in Hagler's(or Monzon's) favor when you actually take a look at it.

 

Well, I didn´t compare their resumes, accomplishments or achievements. I just compared their dominance during their reign and that is comparable. Everything else is all Louis that´s for sure.

 

Read what I answered McGrain. Beeing disrespectful and trying to make me looking ridiculous just makes you looking like a fool. Think about it.

The best wins Hopkins and Hagler combined at mw had were:
1. Hearns
2. Trinidad
3. Duran
4. DLH
The rest of their competition is pretty comparable, perhaps Hagler´s slightly better but that is equaled by Hopkins greater dominance. Both ruled in a pretty mediocre era when you look at the average competition not the greats. Saying that Hagler fought the by far better opponents is just biased but not much else.

Imo Monzon is above everybody at mw, the clear numero uno. Then there are SRR, Greb, Hagler and Hopkins all about even and a step above the rest and who you rank above who is only based on what you like more.

If you want to compare their standing p4p than it´s clearly Hopkins above Hagler for everything he did above mw when he was methusalem.

 

Yes certainly in terms of marquee names. Those were probably the biggest wins they had in terms of purses and public attention.

 

Hagler SD 12...Close fight but Hagler the agresser

 

After posting that BS list I'm the one who looks like a fool?

Oscar was well below elite at MW. Guys like Sibson and Antuofermo were far better. And putting Tito above Duran is laughable at best. That Duran would've easily beaten Tito. Add to it that Hagler arguably beat Leonard, though not in my personal opinion.

Hagler was just as dominant, and if you compare their resumes, Hagler's clearly comes out on top:

Hagler: Hearns, arguably Leonard, Duran, Sibson, Antuofermo, Hamsho, Mugabi, Roldan, Minter, Scypion, Briscoe, etc.

Hopkins: Arguably Taylor(not very good losses to have), Trinidad, Eastman, Joppy, Johnson, Eastman, Echols, Vanderpool, etc.

Hagler had many better fights before winning the title as well.

I think if you look at that you see Hagler had a very distinct advantage, considering most of his top wins were mostly better than any of Hopkins's.

That's simply nonsense, compare the resumes.

Top 10 MW's

1. Greb
2. Monzon
3. Hagler
4. Robinson
5. Fitzsimmons
6. Ketchell
7. Hopkins
8. Flowers
9. Tiger
10. LaMotta

Compare their above resumes and add only the smaller Winky at catchweight and weight-drained and mediocre Tarver, as well as his loss to Jones though. Add Hagler's early rematch wins over Monroe, Watt, Briscoe(older), and multiple wins over Sugar Ray Seales.

 

But not in terms of quality opposition.

 

Oh, man. Talking up one opposition and talking down the opposition of the other guy does nothing to prove your point it just proves you are biased. And so the discussion ends here because it makes absolutly no sense. Believe what you want but in the futere you should show more respect when you discuss with somebody, perhaps you will be taken serious then.

 

That's because you know nothing about this era and havent seen Roldan or Sibson except in losing battles to Hagler. Don't blame me for YOUR ignorance. Hell, prove me wrong if you know so much.

Sibbo and Juan surely would conquer Bernard with superior strength, power, and tenacity. Bernard is a mere cutie which leads many to mistakenly believe in his resourcefulness as a fighter.

Bernard would never hurt Sibbo. Sibbo on the other hand would make X hurt, hurt him worse than X ever imagined possible with a body assault that would leave him gasping. X would never be able to keep up with him. A bruised and badly beaten X would barely hang on to hear the decison.

And Juan with his head and movement would make X miss all night long while scoring heavily to the body and head. As good as X was in his day this type of opponent is something he's never encountered.

And both would have blown over the scrawny Trinidad just by walking by.

Even Ayala was inexperienced as he was, I'm betting would make mince meat out of the marginally talented X. X was a marginally talented fighter who thrived as as long as he did because the division had never dropped to this kind of low in all its history. Bernard with his marginal talent, speed, and power would be no threat to Marvin.

Can you imagine X in the days of Hagler leading up to the Hearns fight? You don't honestly believe that fight would be in jeopardy because of someone like Bernard Hopkins?

"Bernard Hopkins-a bigger threat than Thomas Hearns"

Please! Hopkins was more on the same level as say, James Kinchen or Shuler but with a better chin. What decent middleweight wouldn't do well in the 90s? He did great with the exception of Roy Jones (another of my favorites)

Everyone of Hagler's opponents was superior to those of Hopkins as well as Hopkins himself. Leonard was surely superior to DLH in skills if not in durability.

I personally don't hold that fight against Marvin because I realize he was a shell trading jabs with an opponent he once would have destroyed in ten seconds. But still, one can say Leonard was overrall the most skilled Hagler had seen who had given the best performance of his career. Oscar was just an over the hill piece of meat by boxing standards.

 

he's not biased. He just knows more than you. I can testify having seen for myself and knowing the background of these fighters because I was around at the time. There was a surplus of talent in those days. Even before winning the title Marvin had already conquered Kevin Finnegan (twice) Willie Monroe, Mike Colbert, Norberto Cabrera and gave Watts a tough fight in their first go around.

I'm not throwing in Hart or Briscoe because both were on their way out. After winning the title the comp got even better with each challenger at their utmost peak. Fighters like Sibson, Hamsho, Obel, and Roldan actually peaked at they reached the number one contender status. And Hearns of course was at his absolute peak as well, judging from how quickly he disposed of both Duran and Shuler

 

I think I explained that with my awnser without actually saying "not in terms of quality opposition"

 

Perhaps if you could come up with a quality retort you'd be taken seriously.