Bernard Hopkins vs Hagler opposition

I don't think he would have beaten Leonard and I believe Hearns would have stopped him.

 

I honestly believe a prime hopkins is unknockoutable.

 

I think Hopkins would have been very competitive with the guys Hagler faced..

Hopkins would have won a UD against Duran..

Leonard would have won a UD against Hopkins..

And i think Hopkins would have KOD Hearns late, Hearns didn't have Leonards physical strength, endurance, legs, and chin..

 

what about the tough nuts hagler faced.

 

EVERYBODY can be KO'ed.

Mugabi/Hopkins would be a fight I'd like to see.

 

thanks for writing some rhetoric. knew a smart ass would do it

 

NOBODY is unknockoutable.

Fact.

:deal

 

an interesting question. the answer is: Not as well

vs Obel 1, X passes the first time on points due to Obel's inexperience

get's past Vito

Hamsho takes it from him in his third defense, on points of course

vs Lee we can all agree X is safe here

however in a rematch with Obel I think he is not so safe as I can see the obvious: Obel is a vastly improved fighter, at least by 40% an takes out X with a series of deadly right hand uppercuts he cannot avoid. Obel by KO in five

vs Sibson, X will last the distance but be overrun. Sibson too strong, too determined, & too energetic

vs Scypion, I believe X's chances are quite good and prevails by UD

Vs Duran I think is safe here too but not totally unscathed. X on points

Vs Roldan, X is in very dangerous waters and is brutalized , broken, and eventually converted to scrap by round 10

Vs Hamsho. This is a very old and worn Hamsho, not going anywhere. I think Hop's chances are good now

Vs Hearns. Never has hearns been better, stronger, faster, or more dangerous. Hops falls prey to a rebounding Hitman whose rise cannot be stopped, by the blitzkreig that his Tommy's fists. Hopkins will not fall but the ref intervenes due to severe facial lacerations

Vs Mugabi. I give Hopkins a 50-50 chance here

vs Rey Leonard. too close to call. X cant hurt Sugar but is Sugar too slick N too quick for him? a tossup

 

Hopkins has everything that Hagler had with an extra three and a half inches of height. He's basically a light-heavyweight who managed to cut down to middleweight for years. He's bigger than Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore. I can't see him having problems with anyone but Leonard and Hearns. Anybody know if he rehydrated over 160 back in his middleweight years? Hagler is the same size as other middleweight champions and fought in the era of same day weigh ins.

 

he sure didnt have his power. he didnt have his smarts. nor did he have his tenacity. In short, X just wasnt as effective. In Hagler's day, those with superior offensive output wouldve had his number. Even Animal Fletcher (1982) wouldve probably outlated him.

Bernard had the skills, the chin, durability, & stamina, but then so did the contenders of Hagler's day, but with more power

 

another smart ass :bart

 

Hagler had the far harder opposition and I could see him getting beat by the Hagler opposition. B-Hop fought his best fights north of 160 at an advanced age

 

Naw.

Just highlighting a major error in your earlier statement.

It's a fact, man.

Foreman, Duran, Randy Cobb, Mike Tyson... etc.

They were all KO'd.


And anybody that wasn't COULD have been.

Simple physics and physiology.

 

I agree Hagler's level of title comp was definitely better...But to me, when comparing Hopkins straight up Hagler's competition, I would pick Hopkins to win...So much better from technical aspects of the sport...Hopkins might not end some of the fights as spectacularly as Hagler did...but he would grind it out...and also Hopkins is proving that he has that type of longevity right now. It isn't an accident that he is still competing nowadays. One of the most fundamentally sound and dedicated fighters in history.