Bernard Hopkins vs Marvin Hagler.

I still don`t think that Joppy was anything special so beating him doesn`t get Tito much points... And Vargas even less points.

 

We can all respectfully disagree, that what makes the sport so interesting. Everyone has an opinion ! I do think though that BHop has gotten considerably more `juic` as his longevity continues . It kind of blurs people`s thinking. He is definitley one for the ages and I love watching him school these kids !

 

Correct, to say otherwise is nonsensical... Hearns landed THE shot, Hagler didn`t fall, fight over ...

 

I should not disrespect Joppy, a good honest fighter by saying he kinda sucked. I stand corrected. Let me restate. He was a few levels below Tito, even at 160, and even moreso Hagler and Hopkins (as were Reid, ancient Duran, and Eastman). Not really a measuring stick in this current discussion IMO.

 

I'll tell you, the discussion that interests me (maybe an idea for another thread), is:

Was Hopkins a better Light Heavtweight than he was a Middleweight?
(I think there are parallels with Pac. Was Pac a better 140+ fighter than he was a featherweight?)

 

Hagler everytime, for me.

 

**** load of posts and only 6 votes. I guess most people don't have a really strong opinion on this one. Count me among them. I voted Hagler, though.

 

Hopkins cant beat someone like Hagler. Hopkins wins the contest of longevity hands down but head to head, he's helpless like the rest of them and would eventually lay down like a human sacrifice to the Gods

Hagler in his prime was untouchable. Hopkins' right hand was nothing to begin with but would never reach MMH since being a southpaw, moves to his right. Most ESBers dont even know this!

Marvin can score with his right, but Hopkins can't score with his. That's just the way it is!

anyways, Hagler scores tko whenever he wants to

 

Hopkins decision, hopkins frustate hagler.

 

Nah,to make interesting you have to restate the question: "Would Hopkins have been a better LHW if he'd moved up during his prime?"

In real life he was undoubtly better at MW, but that's hardly surprising since he did all his work at LHW in his 40's. Seen from that perspective his career there has been sensational.

 

Again I can't for the life of me understand the knocks Hopkins gets for his MW reign. Between facing the 180 lbs phenom that was RJJ and Taylor as a 40-year old he didn't lose once and only had real trouble with Mercado (fought at punishing altitude) and Allen. In both cases he set the record emphatically straight afterwards.

Forget about this ****ing "weak era" BS. You don't do that if you're not one hell of a fighter. And even most great fighters run into someone who has their number, at least on a particular night (Louis-Schmeling/Conn, Ali-Norton/Jones, Tyson-Douglas etc).

To so thorougly dominate a division for more than a decade is a special achievement at any time in history. No need to complicate it beyond that.

 

you're right Bokaj, it wasn't a weak era; it was the WEAKEST era of middleweights. even worse than the late 80s. For what it's worth, Hop would give Nunn a good fight