Bernard Hopkins vs Hagler opposition

Hopkins has longevity no one else has but head to head, that dont help

It didnt help him in certain fights becuz the opposition proved more than he could handle

The knock on Bernard is that he does everything well, but that there are other fighters who do certain things better, and as well rounded as he is, it still isnt enough to prevent him from losses

 

Mugabi/Hagler would have been a war, IMHO.

John wouldn't have stood for that hugging sh*t that Nard gets away with.

 

That would constitute sloppy use of language, on the same general level as saying so-and-so was unbeatable.

All of the history, stats etc would have suggested that it was impossible that Ali would KO Foreman.

And yet he did.


Numerous similar examples could be cited.

The poster might have gotten away with "virtually unknockouatable" or "practically unknockouatable" but as it stands, his statement was probably erroneous. Nothing simplistic about it.

 

I love BHop but I think he would have had MAJOR problems with the guys Hagler fought before Hagler won the belt... The `Worm`, Cyclone,Watts even Bad Bennie big problems...

 

I like your points SS. But, I think to how Echols was able to drop Hopkins,twice... And look at what Hearns did to Duran and Shuler,does it make you think a bit ? Just curious...

 

Honestly,I can`t see anyone knocking out Hagler,ever...