Double Standards: Hopkins/Hagler

He still looked a bit bloated. That's not meant to take anything away, just pointing out his 'ceiling'.

 

The 'double standards' are just the justifications, or symptoms, of our own biased views...It's why I think you asked an excellent question...

 

Double standards only apply when things are equal, yet treated differently.

I don't see Hagler's win over Hearns as equal to Hopkins' win over Tito.

 

I see no double standards. Hearns was simply much better fighter than Tito, so there should be no surprise Hagler gets more credit than Hopkins.

One thing Hearns and Trinidad do have in common is that they were at their best below 160, but, unlike Tito, Hearns was also successful at 160 and above. Just another reason to give more credit for Hearns than Tito.

 

Hopkins should get a lot of credit not only for his win against Tito, but his performance. It was beautiful. imo, it's the best win of his career. But Hagler's win over Tommy Hearns should be held in higher esteem, because Hearns was better than Tito and went on to prove himself north of middleweight against the likes of Virgil Hill at 175.

Hagler's comp at 160 was also better than Hopkins' - which has been mentioned before.

 

Besides like James Toney, who hasn't Hopkins fought that he should have already? I mean he don't have to fight Dawson if he don't want to, because he is simply really not that popular.

I think Nard gets the shaft when it comes to the credit he gets. Besides, Tito was like 5'11, he could have bulked up more if he wanted to. He just didn't.

 

The four fighters always mentioned are Hearns, Duran, Tito and De La Hoya. If Hopkins gets 'criticized', it's because Hearns would absolutely slaughter Trinidad at 160lbs and Duran would beat De La Hoya up too.

The fact they were seen as welterweights moving up, doesn't mean all four wins are equal. Hagler gets more credit because he beat two good fighters. I don't agree Hopkins should be criticized for these wins, because you can only beat what's in front of you, but the fact is, he didn't beat two good middleweights in Trinidad and De La Hoya.

 

"Coming up in weight" does not make then equal. It might be seen as a double standard in the simplest of terms, but there are many factors to equate in.

 

Exactly. Talent being the first and most obvious.

You can't judge two fighters as the same, just because they've gone the same route. It doesn't work like that. The welters that Hagler fought, were better fighters than the ones Hopkins fought.

 

The answer: It's a double standard. That's all there is to it.

I'm a fan of both Hopkins and Hagler, but Hagler shouldn't get a pass if Hopkins doesn't. As far as I'm concerned, neither one need a "pass", as the smaller opposition they fought were all very, very solid fighters.

 

This is 100% percent correct!Before he won the title,Hagler fought and beat every top middleweight-especially from the Philly area.The middleweight division was loaded in the mid-late 70's,and Hagler beat all of them.Hopkins may have the record for the most title defenses at middleweight,but Hagler has a far better resume at 160.Also,on these boards,a lot of people give Hagler flack because he did fight Duran,Hearns and Leonard.But the reality is that discounting those 3 fights,Hagler's resume is still quite impressive.

 

:good:good:good Don't get me wrong I'm a bigger fan of Hagler than Hopkins but still Hopkins deserves alot of credit for beating Trinidad. Yes Duran, Leonard, and Hearns are much superior to Tito but still Tito was a great fighter therefore that was a great win for Hopkins. Some idiots on here say Hopkins only beat smaller men but forget he dished out a clinic against Tarver and was an underdog when he fought Tarver. Also, Hopkins is great at making weight and is almost if not always around the same weight as his opponents. Funny how before the fight some thought Trinidad would slaughter Hopkins and now afterwards some people discredit that victory. I love Tito but Hopkins put on a masterpiece of a performance plain & simple.

 

To be fair to Hopkins, he didn't have the guys around that Hagler did. He didn't have the Vito's, Mugabi's, etc. instead Hopkins had the Allen's, Echols', etc. I still think Hagler was a more complete fighter not just because he was in the better era but because I felt he had the better skills.