Hopkins, Hagler, and Monzon

IMO Monzon is above them. Hagler and Hopkins are interchangable.

 

Monzon and Hagler have always been level in my view, with very little if anything separating them. Hopkins follows behind due to lesser opposition at middleweight.

 

Monzon #1 MW
Hagler 2-3
Hopkins at the end of top 10 MW

 

2. Hagler
3. Monzon
5. Hopkins

IMO Hagler beats Monzon, Monzon beats Hopkins, and Hopkins beats Hagler.

 

Hagler is the clear cut no.1 MW of all time for me. I think he would dismantle Monzon and make a bloody mess of his face to a UD. Hopkins could tie either of them up to make the distance and may sneak an ugly SD over Monzon

 

Monzon Hagler is a tricky one to call for me, almost a 50/50.

 

I think that Monsoon had a range, chin, stamina and power to keep Hagler outside and deliver UD.

Rodrigo Valdez was a huge MW puncher, he put down past prime Monzon for a short count with a great shot to the chin and Monzon took it like cookie in his mouth. CM wasn't the fighter that you break easily.

 

IMO Hagler´s opposition isn´t much better and Hopkins compensates with numbers and longevity.

 

Hearns>Trinidad
Duran>De La Hoya

The rest of Hagler's opposition > Hopkins's opposition

Losing controversially to Ray Leonard > losing controversially to Taylor

Both spend around 10 years at the top and Hopkins only had 6 defenses of the undisputed title compared to Hagler's 12.

I just don't see how a case can be made for Hopkins.

 

Hagler bests Monzon, and both best BHop.

 

All true.

 

I don´t make a case for Hopkins. I make a case for "there is not much between them".

Hearns and Duran are better than Trinidad and DLH. But Hopkins had less trouble with them too. Something that should be considered. I don´t think Hagler´s opposition is better. Yes, Hopkins had only 6 defenses of the linear title. But you should consider the politics of the time. King owned all the belts but the IBF. The one Hopkins had. He knew Hopkins was better than any of his champs and didn´t want to lose his titles, only with Trinidad he saw the chance to get all belts and Hopkins out of there. This should be considered. Hopkins was recognised as the best mw as early as 1997.

 

Hopkins unifying all the belts was much more impressive than Hagler's doing so IMO.

 

Hagler didn't exactly have it easy either.

Hopkins's opposition at middle aside from Trinidad are below par to be honest. Joppy, Allen, Echols & Keith Holmes stand out, and that's not a good. I have Minter, Antuofermo, Hamsho, Sibson, Mugabi above those fighters.

Hagler has more depth with decent wins over the likes of old Briscoe, Roldan, Fully Obel, Willie Monroe, Bobby Watts, Ray Seales, Mike Colbert, Finnegan, hard-hitting Cyclone Hart and other ranked middles of the era.

Hagler also beat Roy Jones unlike Hopkins. :good

 

Hagler didn't unify the titles as the titles weren't split in the first place. When he beat Minter, he beat the man and became the man. Hopkins on the other hand had to establish himself as the man with superiority over other middles, much like Stanley Ketchel in his day.

It's impressive that Hopkins unified all the titles but more so from a political perspective as in reality he didn't exactly face stiff opposition for the titles aside from Trinidad. But we know how difficult it is to get any of the four title organizations to even contemplate the possibility of a title unification, not to mention all the dealings with mandatory challengers.