Bernard Hopkins vs Marvin Hagler.

He was jobed against Boogaloo, and the Monroe fight was close and Hagler went into the fight sick. Yet he destroyed both in rematches. And noone came close until the Leonard fight ... While Hopkins lost to Jones,drew with Mercado was behind on points to Allen until the DQ, (getting floored twice as well)`, and lost to Taylor twice.

 

Marvin too strong and too much pressure UD

 

And I`m going out on a limb and saying that Willie `the Worm` Monroe, when he was hot had a damn good shot at beating Hopkins too...

 

That's not a very balanced post.

He drew with Mercado as much as Hagler drew with Antuofermo, and he was 40 when losing close fights to Taylor. And RJJ was a level (at least) above anyone that Hagler fought, never mind beat.

But again - I'm not comparing records here, I'm comparing abilities.

 

There you go ... Anyone who thinks that Hagler truly drew with Antuofermo, is clueless about boxing. That was a highway robbery of epic proportions !! While Hopkins was dropped TWICE and had a close hard fight with Mercado. Hagler`s fight with Vito, not close. If you can`t see that and your trying to compare the two ? Pointless conversation ...As for abilities, while Hopkins can and did get dropped, more than a few times, Hagler doesn`t, ever. Prime Hagler didn`t lose... So Hopkins is going to outpoint a prime Hagler, over 15 rds ?? Please don`t tell me you think Hopkins stops Hagler ??? He can`t beat Hagler because he can`t intimidate him and he sure as **** won`t outwork him either ... As for tougness... You get the point ...

 

I would pick Hopkins close but clear.... Hagler is greater but just looking at how the styles mesh.
Also how the hell do you hold Hopkins kds vs Mercado against him considering the circumstances?
Why not look at what happened in the rematch.

 

I think both were robberies.

Yeah, I think Hopkins might well outpoint Hagler over 15, for the reasons I've already stated. Nothing to have a fit about.

 

I think he'd be playing into Hopkins hands by going after him.

 

Hagler 15 rd UD. Since we are talking about warriors here... 12 rds, not for old school fighters. Hagler`s hunger skills and pressure, he won`t let Hopkins dictate, brings home the win. And Hagler will have no problems with Hopkins shots, granite chin, while I DO think Hagler could get to Hopkins chin a bit, enough to get him defensive ... As for a rematch, damn they were both killers in rematches ! So I`m really at a loss who takes bout 2 !!

 

You guys keep bringing up these Philadelphia middleweights as being better than anyone Hopkins fought. Really? How many of you have actually even seen those guys fight? Show me what they did that was better.

Would Hopkins have lost to Alvin Phillips or Max Cohen like Monroe did in his prime?

Would he have been knocked out against a faded Gonzalez or Nate Collins like Hart was?

Would he have been been knocked out by David Love like Watts was?

Even Briscoe, the best of the bunch, was defeated multiple times by far less than stellar competition.

Hopkins is head and shoulders above all four, nostalgia for a group of extremely colorful, competetively matched clubfighters keeps their names in the public eye but those guys were never championship calibre fighters, none of them, not ever.

Only Briscoe fought on past his physical prime, and only Briscoe fought at the world championship level (losing every time) yet every one of those guys racked up numerous losses to men they should have been able to beat handily if they were as good as some would lead us to believe. Part of the reason those guys were so well publicized is the fact that Russell Peltz was a close friend of Nigel Collins who wrote numerous articles trumpeting those guys in the boxing rags at the time and went on to a position of influence at Ring Magazine where he could continue to trumpet their legacy long after most would have forgotten them.

Briscoe fought something like 8 or 9 future, current, or past champions. He defeated two. Mustafa Muhammad, who was a 15 fight novice, and Vicente Rondon a weak paper champion who himself only had 21 fights, losing 4 and who had already defeated Briscoe once.

So you can inflate Hagler's wins over these guys but its not like any of them were unbeatable or even close to Hopkins' level.

 

Some of them were a fair bit better than ordinary, ie Winky Wright, Tarver. And Vanderpool was very good imho

Southpaw-Orthodox are often partly won by who works the angles better and Hopkins would work them better than Hagler

Haven't seen this one but he's dominated better southpaws than Allen.

Flash KDs in a fight he dominated from start to finish, should have been 9-3 instead of a draw.

I think Hagler would give him a good fight no doubt, but back Hopkins better ring smarts/tactics.

I'll dispute Hopkins having issues at MW:

He was 38 against Taylor and those were razor thin, and Jones is a league above anyone Hagler's faced

That was never a draw my friend, 10-2 or 9-3 Hopkins, the fights on youtube if you wish to view it. I've made a thread on here with my scorecard.

Anyway we could do this with this Hagler: Taken to the limit by Duran, pushed to a controversial loss by a not so great Antufermo (I thought he should have won ofcourse but Antufermo did push him) beaten by a smaller Leonard, went life and death against the unskilled Mugabi. Most fighters have some hard close fights or losses.

 

40 and for the first time struggling to make 160lb

 

I think there's a difference though; in Hopkins' fights, he wasn't allowed the space to work as he usually would. Calzaghe stalked and peppered him consistently, as did Dawson, and Taylor's jab and ability to hang back forced Hopkins to engage. Hagler seemed to neglect the obvious. Duran fought a smart, competitive fight, but not a busy one, so I consider it Hagler's imperative to press. Using an orthodox stance against Leonard for 4 straight rounds was just puzzling. Although you could argue Leonard was also removing the space for Hagler to do his usual work. And I'm starting to get the sense that same-stanced fighters can pressure each other more effectively.

But you do have a point in that Hopkins' reluctance to take chances was there. I don't think he'd go out on his shield if he felt he had in his own mind somehow fought the better fight.

 

Hagler loses to Hopkins.

Alot of guys on this classical forum are fantastic and quoting historical statistics and stories. Generally most of those same guys just plain suck at technically breaking down a fight and coming to an objective conclusion. They have one golden rule, " Always pick the older guy."

Hopkins is bigger than Hagler, and he doesn't lack for the speed department either. Hopkins uses more intelligent foot and lateral movement and off sets others with his movement. Ask yourself, could Hagler dictate against a peak Hopkins? Who has?

Hagler is an ATG Middleweight, maybe the greatest, but he doesn't match up overly well with Bernard Hopkins.

 

This one goes the distance. Close fight. Hopkins is certainly building a case for a higher ranking in an ATG sense, but a lot of his best work has been above 160. I think Hagler is the better Middleweight. I believe Hopkins would spoil a bit and make this an ugly fight, and Hagler would edge it on workrate. Prime Hagler, lets say 79-83, was a better middleweight than Hopkins. Hagler - Duran really wasn't that close. Antuofermo certainly wasn't DRAW close. Hagler destroyed some good fighters in that time frame. Better than most of the fighters Hopkins struggled with in his middleweight run.