Hopkins Hagler at 160-Who takes it?

This is not debatable. The the two best middleweights Hopkins fought, he got beat by. Marvin, is the best ever at 160.

 

Wrong.Hagler simply was not active.He was fighting once every 1-1 1/2 years at that point.If he weren't so respected by the boxing alphabets,and been a lesser champ,they might have threatened to strip him due to his inactivity at that point.AND he was far more shopworn than Leonard-many more fights as well as being at least 2 years older.And if Leonard were so rusty as his fans and Hagler's detractors like to claim,then he deserves even less credit for his victories after Hagler-especially the con job with weightdrained Donny LaLonde as he "won" both a supermiddle and lightheavy title in one night.The only reason Leonard chose to challenge Hagler at that point after discussing it all those years is that he knew Hagler was done.Now age unto itself may not matter,but when you consider both the volume and age factor of Hagler,both added equals the untruth that Leonard was the rusty one.

 

Says the fellow that only this past Saturday claimed that Jermaine Taylor would have beaten Hagler.

 

Wrong.Hagler's reach was 75 inches,Hopkins 70.And Hagler had a GREAT jab.

 

I just watched Hagler vs Mugabi today and damn, Hopkins just can't beat him. He was one tough SOB

 

I wouldn't go as far as to call him shot but we both can agree that he wasn't prime anymore against Mugabi and Leonard. Even against Hearns he wasn't in his prime but many people don't know that. SRL-Hagler was too close for me to consider Marvin shot.

 

Hagler's footspeed and reflexes were shot.He really couldn't parry anymore and get out of the way of a punch by using his feet,2 abilities that served him quite well throughout his career.In the Hearns fight,he simply bludgeoned Tommy as Tommy couldn't deal with Marv's power and chin.Funny how people give Marv credit for taking Tommy's heavy blows and brawling with him when truth is that Marv couldn't have gotten out of the way of Tommy's punches at that point in his career even if he wanted too.

 

The other truth is that Marvin was a BOXER(I know you know but I just can't stress this enough). He wasn't as sharp as he used to be and not the same man from say the Hamani or Sibson fights. Marvin was a boxer-puncher and brawling wasn't his thing though he could do it he preferred to box.

 

A prime Hagler was a middleweight machine. let's not forget Hagler was a 15round fighter. A superb boxer and counter puncher. He cleaned up the division long befoere he was the champion. Remember the Philly Wars ,with Brisco,munroe and Watts ? Hopkins would give Marvin some problems he would not have the power to keep a prome Hagler off. The knockdown against Roldan was the only one of Marvin's carreer and was more of a slip. a prime Hagler beats and maybe stops a prime Hopkins on any day. Hagler had the tougher opposition and was basicslly unbeatable in his prime.

 

Hagler takes a close decision, i think Hearns would give Hopkins hell as well, though i'd favour him in that matchup.

 

Dont give me that ****!!! you hopkins nuthuggers like to prance around like the hopkins who lost to Taylor weren't at his prime, but going into that first fight you lot weren't saying ****! And when he had great victories subsequent to those losses you weren't saying **** either about him being past it!!! I might be a lame ass ... but you dont know **** bout boxing!!!atsch

 

Hagler altho I dunno really. XDDDD

 

He was prime in 05, no doubt about it. After the Taylor fights, he looked prime again at 175.

Hokpins maybe on his late 30s, but his style is the kind that can be sustained even at old age. He runs, potshots and clnches.

And about Tito, oh yea how can anybody forget hs demolition of the very great Wililam Joppy.atsch

 

Hopkins would have a better chance vs Hagler than Calzaghe did.

1. Physical advantage
- Hopkins has 4 inch height, bigger weight, and equal reach (boxrec)
- Calzaghe has half inch in height, bigger weight, and less reach.

2. Stylistic advantage
- Hagler would have more trouble with a counter punching, lateral moving Hopkins, than a come forward, high volume punching, Calzaghe.
- Hopkins has displayed his boxing skills, he was more of the type that outboxed, Calzaghe is more of the type that outworks.

3. Punch resistance
- Hopkins been down once, Calzaghe has been down on more occassions.
- Hopkins has won more fights over world class big hitters tham Calzaghe.

4. Dirty fighting tactics
- Hopkins is one of the greatest fighters to apply these, Calzaghe aint on that level.

5. Control of range
- Calzaghe was most effective mid range, this is also where Hagler would have been effective.
- Hopkins is most effective either too far out, or too close in.

6. Punches
- Hopkins counter right hand, and lead left hook are punches that a southpaw will always have trouble with. Hopkins has shown these in many fights.
- Calzaghe has a southpaw jab that aint difficult for Hagler to deal with due to head movement, and high volume slaps that aint going to outwork Hagler since Hagler has better stamina.

Thats why I pick Hopkins to UD Hagler, and Hagler to KO Calzaghe

Like you said Styles makes fights.

Mosley > Margarito > Cotto > Mosley :huh > Mayorga > Vernon Forrest > Mosley :huh > Margarito > Cotto > Quintana > Paul Williams > Winky Wright > Mosley :huh > Mayorga > Forrest > Mora > Forrest :-(> Mosley :huh> Mayorga> Forrest > Mora = Mosley

Explain that?

 

He looked prime at light heavyweight against Tarver but he wasn't. He wasn't prime in '05 or later but the guy is cagey enough to fight on even in his now 40's. I see you won't dismiss the fact that Tito still had success past WW and got in the MW tournament in the first place making it into the finale against Hopkins. Clearly, he at least had some buisness there but Hopkins was too good for him. :verysadAgain, if you REALLY think he was prime in 05 you don't know **** about Hopkins' career. He looked great against Tarver but he wasn't prime. Prime Hopkins(around 97-03) was more offensive-minded then he is now(he still had his defense & smarts though) but I wouldn't expect you to know something like that. Again, study his career and watch MUCH more of his fights(especially during his reign) and you'll know exactly what I mean. Looking prime and being prime are two different things.