Double Standards: Hopkins/Hagler

Like everyone said, both different fighters! Both did there thing at MW Hopkins went on to LHW and proved himself, but I always think Hagler had the Harder fights at MW due to talent at the time in the division.

 

Want to know the truth?



Here it is....
Because Hagler is/was exciting to watch & Hopkins is boring.
There, The secret is out.

 

I think both Hagler and Hopkins are two of the more complete/versatile fighters you'll see (Duran and Leonard are up there too). I've always maintained that the Hearns fight was one of the most impressive displays of a fighter changing from his usual style. While Hagler would jump on a hurt opponent (Lee), his aggression generally was more methodical. Hagler just went balls-to-the-wall against Hearns, and it wasn't just anyone he did this against, it was an ATG. I thought it was also a smart strategy as it made it harder for Hearns to get full extension on that right hand.

Hagler and Hopkins could both fight inside, outside, mid-range, defend, etc...I thought Hagler had the superior jab as well as more proven ability to win a slugfest against a quality puncher. I give Hops the edge in defense, footwork, and speed.

 

hopkins got mad props from me for that win. i dont think that trinidad looked flabby at all that night or at 160 in general

This content is protected

 

Hopkins/Trinidad wasn't boring so...
Hopkins can be hard to watch currently but try to watch fights from his prime in the time of 94-03. Hopkins was exciting most of these years and did live up to his nickname "The Executioner" at that time.

Agreed. People make Hagler to be a slugger but he was pretty smart when placing his punches. The only time he looked wild often that I can remember is against Leonard but by then he wasn't as sharp. Hopkins and Hagler are pretty much as sharp as they come and a thrill for me to watch as a purist.

 

:think Does he post in Classic by any chance?

 

Yeah, I guess chubby was stretching it. My point was more along the line that this is where he maxed out, while Hearns got bigger. Hopkins looks scary as **** right there though!

 

I liked watching Hopkins up to about the Joppy fight. He had some stinkers before that, but almost everybody has them here and there. From 2004-on, he was pretty dull on a consistent basis.

There were still things I loved watching him do after that, where he'd do things in spots that were brilliant, but as a whole the 12 round fights were boring.

The Echols rematch from 2000 was a fun foulfest.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6l2dZu56Rk[/ame]

 

I got used to Hopkins. I can watch pretty much any fight of his but it will be hard for me rewatching the Calzaghe & Jones2 fights. Against Taylor and Calzaghe I thought he showed brilliant defense and I have no problem at all rewatching the Taylor fights which I thought he deserved the nod in the first fight. Jones2 was a bore for the most part and Ornelas was an okay fight. I thought he put a clinic on Tarver & Pavlik and effectively nullified their offense. The Wright & De la Hoya(weird fight) fights were interesting to me. Out of all the above only Jones2 and Calzaghe bored me.

 

Hopkins had some pretty enjoyable fights in his early days when was more aggressive and had more of a punch output.

Even in his older days he still is beautiful to watch at times...though you have to look hard in between all the mauling and spoiling.

 

trinidad wasnt a natural mw, but he was still a threat at 160 and people expected him to win that tournament and unify the title. and he didnt lose because he was smaller, hopkins is just a better fighter. hagler's win over hearns is better becuase simply hearns is better then trinidad. but trinidad was great in his own right, thus hopkins win over trinidad was impressive.

not saying you said otherwise, but that just the truth of the matter.

 

I did, & He was was boring. :deal

 

so you thought the trinidad fight was boring?

 

Trinidad was blown up, weak win, IMO.
(Same with the DLH win)

 

you're so right