Hagler vs Hopkins. 15 rounds.

Laughable. Even someone like Manassa, who favours Hagler, would probably disagree.

 

Nope.

And nope.

 

Your looking strictly at age and nothing else, which is wrong. Obviously a person at 32 should be more athletic, quicker, and have a larger volume of stamina left in the tank than somone at 40. Doesn't need to be boxing, even two people going for a run. But not always the case.

Genetics must be taken into consideration, along with a fighter looking after himself in between fights. Not sure if Hagler liked a beer or a burger when living the good life, but Hopkins certainly never.

And if you actually look at the films of Hagler in his early 30's and Hopkins at the age of 40, you'll see that their is a difference. Hopkins does hide his age as well as any fighter in history. He's not the type who will work for three minutes a round, he starts slow, and his approach is high on defensive; smartness. Hagler liked to take risks, something Hopkins seldom does.

Hagler, while having a tight defense in his prime, was more inclined to take punches during the last three years of his career. Why?. Because part of the reason was the opponents he was fighting combined with his own style.

Hagler slipped punches well, fought at long range, but liked to force the issue more often than not. His offense was part of the reason he shut out an opponents offense, with some fine defensive moves; blocking and slipping. Hopkins on the otherhand was more economical and moved around the ring more at long range. He was the type who would look at the map a few times, and check that the battle ground was clear before launching.

Hopkins was quicker at 40 than Hagler was at 32. His reflexes were also sharper.

 

Haglar by late TKO. He would wear him down and take him out.

 

hagler comp was best his first 3 years. Duran was slow and flafooted, never earned a top ranking, and lost to Simms; he never established himself as a top flight contender.

Benitez lost to Hamsho. Mugabi padded his record but wasnt as good as say Roldan.

Leonard was largely untested. I would have liked to seen him defend his title to get a better feel for what he could do at the championship level. Would he be a cheese champ or a legitimate champion and worthy successor?

I think Hagler's best challengers were Obel, Sibson, Hamsho, Roldan. Marvin struggled greatly with Roldan which shows he was already slipping and not the superman of the previous years. As was mentioned in a 1984 edition of World Boxing "Marvin doesn't seem to be popping them over the wall the way he used to" in the Article titled "Marvelous Marvin,, not as Marvelous as he used to be"

The Mugabi fight was postponed from it's original November 1985 date because of several injuries sustained in sparring to his back, and nose which was broken. It was evident that Marvin was in a stage of serious deterioration which is the reason Manassa stated hagler was in rapid decline between 1985 and 1987. Leonard himself saw this was his most promising opportunity so he wasted no time in announcing his intentions to return to the ring. And even after Marvin told him he was interested more in retirement than fighting him, Leonard insisted and persisted to goad Marvin in the ring which, is a a complete 180 degree change in attitude from years before in which Leonard would not accept a fight with Marvin for any reason.

I was there Mendoza, accept the word of one who knows.

 

- No, they had declined about equally

- Yes, Hagler fought better fighters between '83 and '87 (not by that much though), but that wasn't what I was disputing; I disputed that he only looked better because his opposition was worse. That's rubbish. Take the opponents out of it for a second - just look at Hagler. In the early '80s he was quicker, more agile, could fight harder for longer...

 

Especially on his feet.

 

Boring fight, despite Haglers best efforst, Hopkins by UD

 

Wow, where do i start on this one?

Leonard untested? Maybe not as a Middleweight, very much so as a welter.

I think Hamsho, Mugabi, and Roldan were better than you give them credit for. I do agree that Duran was no middle, really wasn't a great welter in my book.

Ask Boddy Cyz about Hamsho. He was a very hard guy to fight for anyone. Magbi was a very, very heavy puncher who was actually a light middle, and Roldan was also a very tough and akward fighter. Ask James Kitchen about Roldan.

I still would go with Hopkins over Hagler at age. Hagler could be outboxed. He was both early and late in his career.

 

You can say Benitez was a better fighter than Hamsho since Wilfred won 3 titles and Hamsho won no title. But who won their fight? Hamsho, therefore Hamsho was the better fighter. Fringe contender Simms beat Duran, Barkley ko'd Hearns and Leonard knew he'd better not attempt any defenses so I'm going with my gut instinct that goes against conventional logic.

None of these superstars competed against these contenders; Sibson, Hamsho, Davison, Fletcher, Obel and when they did, they lost. It's no coincidence that Leonard and hearns did not compete with the top contenders. The only contenders Tommy stepped in with were the weakest of the middleweights Singletary, Geraldo, McKraken (unranked).

 

I think what Mendoza means is that Duran, Hearns, and Mugai were greater fighters and more proven than the fighters you mentioned. While Mugabi wasn't as great as Duran or Hearns he was seen as a serious threat to Hagler, maybe as dangerous a challenger Hagler faced throughout his reign. But it must be said that Mugabi would have longer odds against him had he faced a prime Hagler.

 

Hearns and Duran had better skills than Obel and Hamsho etc. But I see you're point.