Another way to look at the "B-Hop only fought smaller men" theory...

See what's funny is these people who love to lay all this **** on BHop but will defend Hagler to the death when in reality both men had some of their best wins against so called 'smaller' men it's just that Hagler never said something that their feelings :deal

 

I admit some of Hagler's best wins were against some of the best to ever lace them up.:deal

 

Doesnt mean those wins should be discredited. Hearns and Duran both went on to win world titles at the weight later on and beat some aggod 160 fighters.

 

Hopkins and hagler shouldn't be in the same sentence.

Duran srl haglers were the marvellous 3.
Tito, Oscar and Hopkins are definatley not marvellous 3.

It's ony pricks like arcane and popkins that even try compare these three as justification...atsch

 

They shouldn't be discredited not at all, i'm just exposing the hypocrisy of BHop haters who love to jump into the 'he faught smaller men' argument but when I bring up Hagler they suddenly start acting like old men who've had a flashback to a memory of when they were molested by their parents and suddenly they won't even mention the word 'small' anymore Once we bring Hagler into the debate all we hear is 'they were ATG's' which is their justification for Hagler fighting smaller men atsch

 

atsch. You are in love: there's no use trying to talk to you.

 

Which no one is disputing, and no one is disputing that Hagler is one of the best to ever lace them up as well.

Which is the original point I think: Hagler had great victories against very good or great fighters that moved up in weight to challenge him and everyone acknowledges him as a great and tend to agree that issue doesn't matter. Someday, they're likely to do the same with B-Hop.

The only flaw in that line of argument is that at least some of the guys that moved up to fight Hagler did eventually win titles at 160 or higher. I don't think that's the case with B-hop's opposition, but I don't think it takes away from his achievements either.

 

Roberto Duran who's best weight was LW :think, And SRL a smaller man who Hagler actually lost to :dead:dead:dead oh dear :admin

 

:rofl:rofl

You've been exposed as the bellend you are, run along now :hi:

 

...I respectively disagree as these fighters that we're talking about who BHOP fought aren't in the same league as the ones that Hagler fought. There's a big difference.

 

Trust me, I agree. Especially because I despise De La Hoya in particular.

But a fighter not being in the same class as Hearns, Duran or Leonard doesn't make them a bad fighter, and it doesn't make it a bad win to beat them. Fair enough?

 

Keep exposing yourself.

ps. Name me one fighter that Hopkins has fought that even comes close to SRL? Okay: RJJ. What happened? Hopkins was handled with ease by the one-handed RJJ.

 

Its is a pretty good justification tbh..

 

It's about the victories being overrated.

And in the first instance these fighters can't compare with Hagler's opposition (i.e even if De La Hoya etc were being fought at their best weights.)

When people compare Hopkins to Hagler it makes me laugh. I'm not saying BHOP isn't a top top fighter...but his resume is ridiculously overrated.

 

An utter fallacy it is.

I rank his wins as

Tito
Pascal
Holmes
Joppy
Pavlik
Tarver
Eastman
Winky
Johnson
Oscar

Out of that ten only two are smaller guys and both them two were title holders, dominant forces in the lower division and p4p ranked higher than hopkins.

You could also add to that list taylor, johnson, jones, pascal again and calzaghe who are to guys not smaller than him.

The guy was the best middleweight from 96 to 05. He was the middleweight champ from 01 to 05. He's currently the lhw champ at age 46.

Oscar and tito you could argue are smaller but by the same stretch they are also unification fights. Pavlik and winky were guys making a smaller jump than hop himself.

The more you analyse his career the more the word legend comes to mind.