Bernard Hopkins, Marvin Hagler, Carlos Monzon Breakdown:Who was the best?

Debateable, certainly Fitzsimmons hit like a truck, he was ktfo'ing heavyweights so he has to be considered.

Did you see what happened after he KD'd Johnson? You know that was a playful exhibition match between friends right, well until stan threw that punch...

 

Man, Hopkins in his prime was a thing of beauty. Head shots, body shots, rough housing, anything he needed to do to get the job done. Just an absolute matador with the talent to execute.

 

Haha. I see it being very possible Hopkins roughs Marvin up a bit like Vito did in the first fight. I don't know why but I always think of Vito-Hagler 1 when people bring up a fantasy matchup between Hopkins and Hagler lol.

Even past his prime he still has his moments every now and then, look at these vids when you get the chance. His aggression has decreased but his accuracy and cagey tactics are still there.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GifXosNPd_8[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2ZtfHeLEJo&feature=related[/ame]

 

Great compilations his punch output and activity against Tarver and Pavlick was crazy for his age felt he should have did that with Calzaghe but he got comfortable was making calzaghe miss fairly easily everyone tohught Calzaghes handspeed be too much and he couldnt land a significant blow in the fight i still beleive he won that fight but i felt he should have listened to roach and started walking him down more in later rounds but its still crazy how hes in his 40s and hes still facing all these young exceptional fighters Pascal will be his next opponant lol George foreman eat your heart out haha

 

Man I wouldn't say that Lol, nah he was great at what he did, but man did he have some foul filled affairs, his fights with Allen, Holmes?

You will have to set me straight if im wrong on this, its been a while since i saw it, but wasn't he rolling around on the floor against Echols to? i think he body slammed Syd Vanderpool or something, they both ended up on the floor anyway if i recall.

 

A fantastic topic.

Even though I am a Hopkins fan, he comes third for me, both in terms of his all-time mw standing and his ability at mw.

Hopkins's mw era was the weakest of the three IMO.

And although I believe Hopkins was a genuinely superb fighter in his prime, for me he does not quite match the all-round effectiveness of two of the greatest fighting machines in history, Monzon and Hagler.

After much consideration, Hagler is my number 1 of these three. Performances like his vs Tony Sibson are among the best exhibitions of the sweet science caught on film. Rifle jab, good movement, beautiful punch variation and combinations, granite chin, iron will. I believe Hagler is the most rounded and complete fighter of the three.

 

Yeah it's crazy what he still can do. I feel Hopkins' ring smarts & spoiler-style helped him fight on this long. He definitely is one of the greatest MW's no doubt about that. Top 10 MW's actually and possibly edging Top 5.

I can't be in a position to make a list as Monzon bores me and I haven't researched him much but If I had to it would be:

Hagler
Hopkins
Monzon

For those saying Hopkins should be third I respect your opinion but the man still ruled his era and you can't ignore that. He would be a tough matchup for any of the two plus no one "destroys" Hopkins so he would have a great shot at them. It's really opinion-based on making the list but I see any outcome happening with any of the three being switched except Hopkins being first I just can't see that lol.

Boxing isn't suppose to be pretty all of the time especially when you have guys like Hops that'll do anything to win. How can you not like his skill just watch the videos I put up earlier. As I recall Echols slammed him on his shoulder and yes Hopkins did have messy affairs but boxing will be like that sometimes. It takes a strong-willed fighter to fight through that and win so I give Hopkins alot of credit.

I do agree on Hopkins' mw era being the weakest but he does belong to be mention with guys like Halger & Monzon and has a good chance to beat them but so do they. Hagler is my fav of the three(I'm not even a Monzon fan but still) and I too consider him the most complete out of the bunch. Not Hopkins' fault his era was weak but I'll watch him over Monzon anyday. ANYDAY. His craftiness leaves him having a good shot against Monzon or Hagler H2H and to say he doesn't belong to be bunched up with them is ridiculous. All of them were effective and ironically all of them borke their opponents down.

 

Hagler for me.

 

I found the second Echols fight entertaining if u like a oldschool scrap like i do. Bernard was so in Echols head echols got angry and picked bernard up and dropped him on his shoulder they were trying to make Bernard take a stoppage win by dq but he wouldnt wanted to get revenge. Bernard was very quick in that fight great swarming offense from him and he was avoiding the blows was very slick against the very heavy handed echols.

 

People forget how heavy-handed Echols was.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibtc45FVwKM[/ame]


Even Mercado could crack. He dropped Hopkins twice in the first fight yet Hops never went out for the count against either man. Proof that no one ko's Hopkins lol.

 

Hagler is the most complete of a very high quality trio. He wasnt promoted very well early in his career and fought to such a high level but was retired by 32. Hopkins won the title at around 29 , but was really in his prime around 34 . Im not his biggest fan , but give or take hopkins hopkins is as close to being the pefect example of a middle weight, and is truely one of the sports most outstanding athletes. Monzon is difficult to put with Hagler and Hopkins , he was good , infact very good, but looking at how Briscoe and Griffith handled him I think he would lose to Hopkins and get stopped by Hagler.

 

OK moron, show me where the **** I said that Hopkins doesn't belong alongside Hagler and Monzon??! :think

It always staggers me how people can get all hot and bothered on here defending fighters against an attack that NO-ONE actually made.

 

I think people underestimate how technically excellent Hagler was. He had traits like his iron will, as you said, and, to me, that leads to people underestimating his actual skill. All fighters get 'typecast' because of certain fights and people think of Hagler and it's automatically the Hearns war, the Mugabi war or the Leonard fight. In all those, he didn't show the skills that he had. In his prime, he was an excellent fighter, but those fights don't have the reputation of his more famous bouts, especially against Leonard and Hearns. Against Leonard he was old, against Hearns he went to war, which is deceiving.

I think Hagler was a straight up better boxer than Hopkins. Every few months on ESB, you'll get a "Hopkins vs. Hagler" thread and the usual answers are that Hagler breaks Hopkins down or Hopkins outboxes Hagler. Neither answer does Hagler justice because he was capable of outboxing any middleweight in history, Hopkins included. He was able to go to war too and that aspect of his game is what made him such an unpredictable, tricky, tough fighter.

I don't think either Monzon or Hopkins have the versatility of Hagler, especially Hopkins. Monzon was more versatile but still a clear second.

 

I agree with every word. Great post. :happy:happy:happy