Hopkins-Hagler: The Resumes

Watch some further footage of Sibson. It will make you appreciate just how good Hagler was at the time. Sibson was a very classy boxer-puncher with a smooth, strong left hook. Better than any MW on Hop's resume IMO. Echols didn't have the economy in his game to beat him IMO. A fight between he and Tito would be interesting, though I think Sibson was the more skilled of the two at MW.

 

Marvin truly was a road warrior. He fought all the top tough middles that no one wanted to fight. mugabi would have been trouble for any of todays middles. One of his more impressive KO`s, was his first round blow out of Curtis Parker. Who was tough, always in great shape, and had a solid chin, until Mugabi. Hamsho,was not a big puncher. But he was very strong physically. He kept coming at you, rough tough very physical fighter. As for who had tougher opponents. Hopkins always complains that the `establishment` had it in for him. He had a cakewalk getting in compared to Hagler. They had the door slammed shut in Marvin`s face for years. Until he finally kicked it in...

 

Yeah, I can remember when Hagler was critizised for his weak opposition. That´s why I won´t argue in this thread. People will change their oppinion when time goes by - like always.

 

You are a man of the time, my time then. Nothing like living the time

:yep

 

Sibson was a far far more skilled fighter than Echols, who really just had a big punch.Echols is more comparable to Cyclone Hart in style.A pure puncher.

I agree with Pea, that even though he had the misfortune to be fighting an all-time great turning in his best ever performance, he still looked a classy sharp fighter.Tony made a lot of good moves in that fight that were nullified because Hagler was so damn good.

 

YEah, but thats just bull**** John and not really applicable in this day and age where every fan can seek out vast swathes of film to make their own mind up.

Who gives a **** about biased revisionism, it's done for every fighter just about and shouldn't be an issue other than for those peddling an agenda.You seem to be implying every fighters stock rises simply due to the passage of time.

Waiting 20 years is not going to change my mind on Hopkins opponents when i followed most of their careers as they have happened and have seen them fight scores of times.I'd wager it's the same for most giving opinions regardless of what they think good or bad.

I knew a fighter like napoles was great the first couple of times i saw him for instance(i saw being the key words here as it should for all fighters).Doesn't matter when someone fights when you can see for yourself, assuming the film is watchable and at the right speed.Othewise why even bother to assess older fighters who's rep and talent has been "corrupted" by the inevitable passing of time and implied artificial increase in ability that comes with.

 

Not too sure, it's a fight i could see going either way.I'd pick the Welter Tito PfP in a good fight of course, but Tito didn't have too many fights at middleweight.He proved he was a worthy middleweight in destroying Joppy though.

Sibson had real good footwork and was a better boxer-puncher than Tito at this weight in most respects technically.He's far more fluid with his hands than Tito, able to throw triple lefthooks, double up on the right hand with ease etc.

He's also got better upperbody movement and Defensive chops than Tito, though with their styles it would be a war and Sibbo did not have the reflexes to avoid shipping punishment.

Tito i think is a far more focused, determined fighter however.Sibson tended to be a guy like Toney who couldn't be guaranteed to be focused, often getting frustrated and lazy even in fights he was winning.

It cost him against Don Lee in a fight he seemed to be the more talented in, though Lee was a huge puncher in the G-man class that should have done more with his career.

I see Sibson having a lot of success early when his Defence is sharpest and his movement in and out would make the slow starting Tito look ponderous.Tito will gradually come into the fight as he usually always does, the issue will be that he's trying to grind out a win against a very strong fullmiddleweight and not smaller fighters like Fernando Vargas or David Reid, neither of whom had anywhere near the firepower.

If sibson wins i could see it being a sudden spectacular win somewhere inside 7 most likely, blitzing the puerto rican before he gets going.The longer it goes the more likely he would let Tito start to take over with his precise powershots over the second half of the fight.

I think Tito beast most of Hagler's opponents, albeit not in easy fights.Sibson matches up better than most as he was much better technically than the Hamsho, mugabi, roldan and co. as well as being a big puncher.

I probably rate Sibbo higher than most here i expect.he was a better fighter than the more highly regarded Benn in my opinion.

 

Probably gets knocked out. While Sibson was slick and a very good operator, does he have the boxing ability of the smaller De La Hoya to pepper Trinidad with jabs and combinations, the ring generalship and sheer precision of Hopkins or the crab like defense of Wright? He's not quite on the same boat as any of those guys from a style aspect when pitting him in against Trinidad.

Yes, not one particular style outdoes Trinidad's robotic approach. But your defense needs to be of a high stanard as does your boxing ability. Trinidad's power at middleweight wasn't lethal but enough to hurt Sibbo. And once Trinidad caught his opponent with a flush series of punches that was as good as the end. I can see Sibbo causing Trinidad problems and dropping him, but IMO Trinidad finds him in the end.


Trinidad TKO9

 

Good post Robbi, though i thought Tito was really poor and more or less shot when he fought Wright.He wouldn't stand a chance with a Sibson, benn, hart or mugabi middleweight banger on that kind of form.

 

Is it? Valdez and Briscoe are both much more respected and regarded NOW than they were in their day. This is fact.

I take your point on board regarding the information superhighway, as long as one knows what they are looking at.

Many have, especially champions. Larry Holmes received little credit thru his peak, but has over the years received the just due and credit he deserves. The passage of time has certainly done him no harm. Many champions following another great have had to bide their time for true respect and appreciation when following a great. Sibson was considered a good solid middle in the day, nothing more nothing less. Whether he was unlucky to run into Hagler and his era is up to personal opinion.

You're just one. Lets see what 20 years does for Hopkins.

It's more an increase in appreciation than anything.

As i said, i have an article from the time that really does bag Valdez and Briscoe. These days, especially in here, they are much more respected and appreciated.

 

I think Hagler had good skills as well as power, Hopkins would always be trouble and if you look at the SRL you could see Hagler having trouble with a good boxer, thig is B-Hop did not have the speed of hand and foot that Ray had...Hagler Close Decision

 

yeah but maybe the guy just didn't think much of Valdez and co.That's all it means, nothing less. i've read articles rubbishing Monzon as well as Articles praising him to the heavens, are we to conlude he was at the same time garbage and immense at the same time due to them.

it's just one opinion and i respect it.There were also plenty of people that thought they were very good fighters, rating them similarly as they are now.

Sibson isn't worth a mention here as his stock has certainly not risen(he's ben mocked soundly by many on this forum alone for one, though probably in large part due to the inept trolling of Rooster) and no one is trying to revise him into a great.If he had been a Hopkins era middle my opinion of him would be the same; a very good talented, but quite inconsistent and not great fighter.

I think if internet forums had been around then it would be much the same as it is just now, with a multitude of different opinions on all these fighters we are discussing.I've no issue with anyone thinking they need a few years to digest a fighters career in proper context, but i strongly disagree it's necessary.

Anyone speaking highly of Hopkins opponents 20 years from now, i would like to think they are doing it out of honesty, even fi i don't agree.Not through long held bias and cynical revisionism by taking advantage of a the younger fans that don't know any better until they check out the fights and make their own minds up.

As far as Hagler's competition goes, a lot of people are harsh on it.I don't see much revising of history going on there.

Mike McCallum was the one middleweight that really benefited from revisonism, with the myth springing up that he was ducked by the fab 4.

 

It seems many are under the missapprehension Hagler's opposition would steamroll Hopkins opposition despite Hagler's foes doing nothing close to beating those type of opponents in their own era.

Trinidad - Hearns
Winky Wright - Sibson
Glen Johnson - Antuofermo
Tarver - Hamsho
Delahoya - Duran
Vanderpool - Roldan
Echols - Mugabi
Keith Holmes - Briscoe
Joppy - Monroe

I don't think theres that much in it to be fair but overall edge towards BHOPs