HOPKINS v HAGLER! 2 answers please: P4P GREATNESS, and H2H Match-Up

Hagler in a P4P sense.

I rate Hagler in my top 10 of all time (no.9 admittedly) and also think he'd beat Carlos Monzon, who is in my top 20 of all time (about 18/19 I'd say) but I actually think Hopkins be a tough adversarie for Marvellous.....I'm tempted to say a Draw.

 

Hopkins on both counts. I've given in depth reasons before in terms of a head to head fight, and I don't see the fight's length being a factor (twelve versus fifteen rounds) based on both being able to sustain their pace start to finish.

 

Both are atgs.

Hopkins.

 

Hagler has not a superior workrate to a prime Hopkins.

 

I'm a big B-Hop fan, but this is stupid.

Hagler is the ATGest...I can't believe there is a thread on this.

Hops is top 5 all time MW, a GREAT accomplishment in itself, Hagler is top 3 all time MW.

 

That is not a certainty. Monzon, Greb, and Robinson all have better resumes at the weight and while there is no footage of Greb, I would favor Monzon and also Robinson on his best night to beat Hagler.

There really is no argument to say Hagler is several places above Hopkins on an all-time list. Both P4P Greatness and H2H could be argued either way, but neither is without question above the other.

 

Hopkins never gets beat by a WW. He never goes 15 with a WW. Hagler is the most overrated boxer of all times, except maybe Rocky Marciano.

 

As I've always said, this is a very close fight between two great, versatile fighters.

Both guys are complete fighters. Hagler was a terrific boxer-puncher with a great jab, good combos, heavy hands, good set of legs, terrific chin, nice parrying skills and head movement, and he could slug it out as well and fight on the inside.

Hopkins is a master of controlling the pace and picking his spots. He knows the angles and knows where to position himself to land good shots and avoid the incoming. Like Hagler, he is versatile. He can box from the outside using the ring, or maul guys up close and "stink it out". He has a big of dirty tricks to frustrate opponents. As proven throughout his career, he is very effective against lefties.

Hagler had the heavier hands, superior jab, and was more proven in the slugging/pressure department. Hopkins was a little quicker and slicker, and just has a brilliant fighting brain in there.

No matter how the fight takes place, I see it being very close. I doubt either guy gets stopped. Hopkins is slick and has a sound chin. Hagler's chin was great, and he didn't exactly have a soft body either.

Over the years, Hagler was developed a reputation as a face-first brawler from people who don't watch enough of his fights, but he usually boxed behind his jab and broke guys down over the course of the fight. It'll probably be a pretty tactical fight, and I see Hopkins winning a close decision, with his straight right hand being the key.

As for their all-time rankings. Hagler with the slight edge at middleweight. He beat better opposition, fighting lots of good middleweights on the road to the title. I also thought he definitely won the first Watts fight and scored the Leonard bout even.

I can see Hopkins being ranked a little higher overall though. Not only was Hopkins a long-time middleweight champ, but also dominated the Ring champ at 175 in Antonio Tarver. At age 43, he fought very close with Joe Calzaghe and dominated the undefeated Kelly Pavlik.

 

I agree, Hopkins would edge it in my opinion aswell

Hagler's main punch was his Jab, and Right hook, and he did these punches best while the opponent came to him. When Hagler used to press he was not as good as when fighters came at him.

Hopkins in his younger days pressured his opponents, then slowly stopped and started getting the correct punches in. A Prime version of the mature Hopkins would have the better ring leadership and just edge it in my opinion.

 

I need to think more about this.

I think Hagler edges him in a h-h.

Regarding greatness, I think Hagler is the greater middlewt, but Bernard might be the greater overall of the two.

Tomorrow, I might feel differently, on both counts.




Important footnote:

Marvin's career is (probably) complete.

Bernard's career is a Work in Progress.

 

Good analysis.

 

I hate to say it because I'm a huge, huge, huge Hagler fan, so much so that I became a boxing fan because of him. But Hopkins is in a very elite league.

So career wise, I gotta lean now towards Hopkins with his last 3 performances. Beating Tarver and Pavlik was huge, something hagler, never did. Some of Haglers best wins are against fighters who normally fought at welterweight, or in Duran's case smaller. Up until recently Hopkin's wins over Trinidad, ODL, Winky, the same argument applied, and I think Hagler's comp was better, but not after the wins over Tarver and Pavlik, that changed this argument.

H2H, well if the first part was a tough call, this is even tougher. If I were forced to bet on an outcome, I think I'd bet Hopkin's by decision, but my heart would hope for a Hagler win. So I kind of hate to say it, but my heart would be with Hagler, but my money would be on Hop.

 

Hagler never beat Tarver and Pavlik because they weren't around in his day, what is your point? Hagler had wins that Hopkins didn't have, and a larger quantity of them, especially during his MW reign.

Hagler's wins over smaller opponents are of a higher class than Hopkins's, considering the level of opponent. Hagler faced Leonard, Hearns, Duran, and Mugabi. All highly touted fighters at the time, 3 of them ATG's who proved their worth at MW and above. Hopkins by comparison beat Oscar (who'd proved his lack of worth at MW), Winky (the bout being at an even higher catchweight), and Trinidad (who had proven his worth at MW). Hagler clearly holds the edge in terms of quality of smaller opposition faced, and many believe he beat Leonard.

As far as other MW opposition goes, Hagler also clearly holds the edge with wins over the likes of Antuofermo, Sibson, Roldan, Hamsho, Scypion, Minter, Watts, Seales, Monroe, Briscoe, Hart, etc. in comparison to Hopkins's wins over Eastman, Joppy, Holmes, Echols, Vanderpool, Johnson, etc.

Hopkins's wins over Tarver and Pavlik lessen the gap a little bit, but not enough IMO to overcome Hagler's advantage, unless you're giving a lot of extra points for moving up against Tarver.

 

P4P it is close BUT the fact that Bernard went beyond middleweight and continues stamping his greatness at 40 plus earns him huge brownie points, so he clearly edges Hagler in this dept IMO. People love nitpicking at Hopkins comp but say what you will but he would not have had as hard a time going 15 rounds against Duran. And he would have destroyed Hearns just as brutally.