Hagler vs Hopkins. 15 rounds.

How many people actually outboxed him? And when, at the end of his career from a fighter who ducked him for 5 years?

 

Touche, Red Rooster. If Hagler could be outboxed it certainly wasn't for a whole fight. Hopkins could befuddle him at best during certain periods of a fight, but outbox him to victory? Hopkins? Can't envision that one.

 

Hagler and Hopkins have many points of similarity. Both are proud with mean dispositions in the ring, both are fueled by anger and the sense that they are "wronged men." Both train like Spartans.

Technically, I'd have to give the edge to Hopkins. He is the superior strategist and may have the edge in terms of "in-ring analytical aptitude."
*However, Hagler is confusing. He had that rare ability to switch from orthodox to southpaw position smoothly and it was a style that baffled even the vastly experienced Duran.

In terms of shut-you-down power, both were significant punchers in their primes. Hopkins, let's not forget, was able to blitz guys early on. His output was considerably more than it is now. His style looked to me like Arguello's on fast forward. Hagler, like Hopkins, was in essence a boxer-puncher.

The edge in experience goes to Hagler (career long, it's not so easy, but we're talking as MWs). The edge in the chin must go to Hagler (because he's Hagler and had the closest human equivalent to a literal iron-cast jaw).

The edge in speed goes to Hopkins.

Physical strength -Hagler.

Conditioning -even.

Prediction: *12 rounds. Hopkins. He's tall, hits hard, can box a clinic, and is strong and durable. Hagler will have a tough time in there with all of this plus the speed factor. I'm thinking about Monroe. Monroe had damn good boxing skills and was tall and fast. Hagler dropped a decision loss. Hopkins was like his Philly frat brother Monroe but with far, far more.

*15 rounds. This would be necessarily different enough to slant the edge to Hagler. No one wants to deal with Hagler in a test of wills and an endurance contest. He's just too strong. At 5'9, he would necessarily be working on Hopkins' ribs and this would be an investment for the championship rounds when he would slow him down enough to start taking over.

I believe that Hopkins was confused by Jones, due to the latter's speed and unorthodoxy. Hagler's speed was not enough to startle Hopkins, and he was not the kind of fighter who fought on a boiler plate that came from hyperspace (ala Jones). Hagler was, however, difficult to read because shots would come from opposite angles than you expected. He had learned to switch positions on a dime -in the middle of combinations. His right jab was surprising strong and his arms were deceptively long. Hopkins would need to adjust to this and while he would be thinking, Hagler would be dinging him with edits to those thoughts. I see Hopkins taking more shots than anticipated and fading just enough for Hagler to take a decision.

 

A very well balanced and sensible post. For Rooster to come to the conclusion that Hagler is better than Hopkins in every department is just biased, as usual.

Technically, Hopkins gets my vote. He's just so sound in all areas. Delivering punches from an orthodox stance, straight down the pipe, and generally having the fundementals to a tee. After he thows punches his guard is right back in position. Hopkins can be straight up and down, but his upperbody movement while twitsing away from oncoming artillery he has down to a fine art.

However, I think you may well be slightly overrating Hopkins' power. He was without question a "wear you down" type of fighter. This obviously has a lot to do with his defensively aware and calculated approach. Hopkins has rarely stopped many natural middleweights. De La Hoya and Trinidad never seen the final bell, but full blown middleweights like Joppy, Eastman, and Taylor went the full course.

Even though the two men to take Hagler the distance in all his middleweight title fights weren't naturals at the weight, Hagler gets the edge over Hopkins when it comes to power.

I don't think Hopkins would seek an inside battle with Hagler. He'd more than likely keep things at arms length; cagely. Only when Hagler closed the distance would Hopkins exchange at close quarters. Thats one area Hagler wouldn't get his own way. Duran and Leonard struggled with his strength inside. During the late rounds Hopkins physically has the capabilities and inside skills to not "feel the heat", unlike Duran and Leonard.

Durability: even. This fight has distance written all over it.

Hopkins on points.

 

He lost to Willie Monroe, and Bobby Watts very early in his pro career, both good Philly boxers. He also drew with Sugar Ray Seales, who was also a good boxer, and oylmpic Gold medalist in 72. Later he drew with Vito Antuofermo, who was no puncher, but not really a pure boxer either. More Of a LaMotta type. Yes, he came back to beat all these guys later, but my point was that Hagler could be out thought, and out hustled over the course of a fight. Styles make fights, I just think Hopkins has the style to beat Hagler over a boring fight.

 

Good retort. Here's a rebuttal on a few matters: Hopkins failed to stop Eastman, Joppy, and Taylor. Let's look more closely. He was a month shy of his 39th birthday when he fought Eastman and he fought him first out of the three you mention. Your argument would be more valid if Hopkins started boxing in his late thirties. He was far more formidable a puncher in his mid twenties and demonstrated it several times. Is he the better puncher here? No, no, no --but he had power enough to give Hagler room for pause.

Hopkins had 19 stoppages inside of 5 rounds -and you can see the cut off. Hopkins, at age 31, suddenly was stopping guys early anymore. He started boxing and countering more while at the same approximate age, Hagler took a different path -the War Path.

I sincerely believe that you may be a bit shortsighted with Hagler. I beleive that his prime years were the late 70s. Hagler himself seems to agree and commented about that after he destroyed Seales in the rubber ("I was working on all cylinders"). His legs weren't quite the same after that... the point is that Hagler could move very well and I do not believe or suspect at all that Hopkins would be able to keep a Hagler at bay -especially a Hagler who is firing on all cylinders.

Hagler would hold his own in a boxing match -and his confusing style may give him the edge even there. In a war, you gotta go with Hagler. In an endurance contest, I think it risky not to favor Hagler. How else is the fight going to pan out? Hagler wins 2 out of 3 scenerios and is right there for the remaining scenerio... and he can always force it.

 

But at what stage of his career? I dont think there are too many people on this forum who saw Hagler at the time I saw him. I really dont see a comparison between the two. Hopkins is a conventional boxer puncher with little power and hagler is a southpaw with devestating power who can take out a man at any time. People dont even take this into consideration and fill up the page with all kind of fluff. Hopkins is lucky he wasnt around during Hagler's time and the truth of the matter is, if not for roy Jones moving out of the division, he wouldn't be champ during the 90's either. Hopkins would turn out to be the second best of either decade.

 

When this thread was put together by the original poster, I obviously assumed he meant "prime v prime" And the Hopkins who put together 19 stoppages inside 5 rounds wasn't at his peak. I don't believe so. I would certainly say he had better stamina over the course of a fight, especially working at a high pace during every round. But his ring intelligence and astute punch picking weren't the finished articles. Hopkins IMO was at his peak around his mid 30's.

He never fought Eastman first out the three I mentioned. Joppy, Eastman, then Taylor twice. Fights were in between those, as you know. Boxrec wasn't needed for me correcting you.

I will freely admit, I haven't seen much of Hagler when he was knocking on the door during the late 70's. Antufermo 1 and Monroe, thats about it.

Don't forget this. Hopkins likes to force it himself, but only when his opponent is forcing it at the same time. The Hakaar fight an exception when Hopkins chased him down until stopping him. Jones wasn't full steam ahead and neither was Taylor. I'm familiar with the first Taylor fight as I have watched it many times. Just last night I watched the rematch, and Taylor more or less gave Hopkins a mirror image of himself over both fights, which Hopkins never liked. Taylor took Hopkins right out of his comfort zone, and made him think more than he usually did in the past.

 

I had the age right but the name wrong -the point is the same.

I am frankly, not to sure that the conventional wisdom about Hopkins coming into a late prime is accurate. He was technically sound (beyond most of the greats) within his first few fights. As he aged, he adapted his style to be more selective with punching and more reliant on countering. It also so happened that he met his greater challengers, sans Jones, later rather than earlier. So people think he had a late prime. I don't quite agree... Here's an example of an early Bernard "The Terror" Hopkins. In the fights just previous to Jones, he looked even better:

[YT]ga7C8p1FLGM&feature=related[/YT]

It's hard to deal with guys who aren't in front of you on old man legs. That is an iron-clad law in the ring. Hopkins, at the point of his career that he fought Taylor was no longer in prime. I'm not sure that he was even near prime. However, I believe that a 27 year old Hopkins would have destroyed both any version of Taylor and the current version of Pavlik on consecutive nights.

If Hopkins forced it against Hagler, he would be met and raised. If he stood off and boxed, his chances increase, but Hagler had answers there too. For greater appreciation of Hagler, see the Minter bout, Seales III, and take your pick right up to about Scypion. I'd advise staying away from anything from 85 on... because he had faded. Ask a civilian about when Hagler was "prime" and they'll say "Hearns"...but we know better.

 

Hagler SD12.

 

Yeah, I know Hagler was slowing down after the Hearns fight in particular. His heart, courage, and chin were at their best against Hearns. You can add in handspeed and power for good measure. But it wasn't the type of performance where he showed his full repotuar. You could make a case that throwing that fight back 4 or 5 years wouldn't have looked out of place around the time when most observers had him in prime. He was declining before the Hearns fight, but that decline became rapid after the three round war.

I have the Sypicon fight. Impressive.

 

I hold that the Hearns fight itself was indicative of a Hagler decline. Luckily for him, he had already settled in to the "destruct and destroy" phase and was prepared to go to the trenches against Hearns. Hagler may actually had less of a chance against that Hearns when he was in prime.

 

I wouldn't necessarily be in agreement that the Hagler 3-4 years prior to meeting Hearns or whenever any observers think he was in his prime would have adopted a different strategy. So IMO Hagler probably would have been all over Hearns in a "destruct and destroy" fashion whenever the squared off. 1982 would be a great example as they were sheduled to meet back then. Yes, Hagler probably would have done slightly better defensively with his mobility and overall boxing skills if he never decided to push it at full throttle. Nice attributes to have in reserve. He was prepared to go to the trenches, and more than likely always would have done whenever he fought Hearns.

The bottom line here is Hagler taking a few to land a few against Hearns was always the best way to beat the Hitman. I wouldn't say the strategy and performance of Hagler that night were the main indicators he was declining. I feel during his prime years he would have simply been smarter and his defense would mean he'd make Hearns miss while closing the distance more than he did when they actually fought.

 

I, too, think Hagler would have always took it to Hearns. He did it to Obelmejias.

 

I don't necessarily disagree. Hagler took the fight to Hearns because he knew that Hearns would tear him from the outside -he was taller, faster, longer reach, a puncher, and all that. Hagler had really no choice but to put his chin on the line and hope it held up. A courageous tactic that magnifies the respect he should get. I think that Hagler would have realized this had he been the earlier 70s version, who was more likely to box a puncher -the Hagler that got a draw against Vito changed after that fight. His disposition did and I believe that his style did to some degree as well.

I'll elaborate if you want, but I think that 1979 Hagler was a better fighter than 1985 Hagler but would have had more problems against 1985 Hearns...