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

Not a chance. If anything Hearns would've been a very difficult matchup for Hopkins.

 

I don't think Hopkins would destroy Hearns like Hagler did. Although Hopkins was more aggressive earlier in his career, he wasn't the whirlwind that Hagler was against Hearns (then again, Hagler himself never fought like that before). I don't see Hopkins throwing caution to the wind and taking out Hearns early. I think that would be a good fight that either lasts the distance or until the late rounds.

I think Hopkins handles Duran easier than Hagler did, although I thought those judges were drunk and that Hagler won 10 or 11 of the 15 rounds.

 

The win over Winky wright was huge. Its very possible winky wright could have beaten every fighter Hagler fought so stop acting like Bernards resume doesnt match up:deal

 

Duran nor hearns could have beaten hops and you always want to throw in leonard well bernard fought roy in his prime. If im correctly ray came off of a retirement to fight him so calling him 100% wouldnt be fair RITE?????????

 

Bernard was very dominate in his prime but sweet pea thinks hops was in his prime when he fought roy. If you see hopkins style defensively hops wasnt fully developed at that time and its common since that several years later he started to move around like sugar ray robinson(Echols fights) but he also kept his aggressive side so he was that much more versitile in his prime. Even in the roy fights roy tired but hops didnt thats why hops took those rounds.

 

Neither Hagler nor Leonard were in their primes in 1987.

Leonard was a smaller guy, hadn't fought in 3 years, and just once in 5 years. Leonard's prime was in the early 80s, at 147 lbs. Leonard didn't look very impressive in this one bout versus Kevin Howard.

Hagler's prime was also in the early 80s. He was getting slower and easier to tag, as especially evidenced by the Roldan and Mugabi fights.

 

P4P greatness it is close but I give a razor thin edge to Hagler still, even though two of his better wins are against a former lightweight and welterweight just like Hopkins. Hearns and Duran were superior smaller fighters than DLH and Tito. Hopkins body of work over the past 2 years it was is really closing the gap with wins over Tarver, Pavlik, and Winky. Still slight edge to Hagler.

Head 2 head I favor Hopkins with both at their peak. Marvin had a great, fast jab but Hopkins is able to neutralize the jab so well. Both were sublime counterpunchers, Marvin had better power, but neither is getting KD let alone stopped. Both had great stamina. I give Hopkins the edge in ring generalship. I see Hagler pressing the action but losing a decision over 12 or 15 rounds in a great fight.

 

Pac, you ask some hard ****in Qs.

P4P - I used to say MMH by far but Hop became LHWT champ also so now its close, very close, I lean ever so slightly to Hagler but have no arguements with Hopkins being picked by anyone else.

Greater fighter - Same as above, I havent got a clue but will edge to Hagler.

H2H - Super close pts win either way, I`ll say Hagler wins 6 times out of 10.

:thumbsup

 

Excellent post! Soooooo hard to decide coz both are equally GREAT boxers! Excellent resume.

One thing that separates the two is the ablitity to stay in shape. I'm sure Hagler retired earlier than Bhop.

 

And you'd be sitting pretty doing it. Hopkins is the man P4P, Hagler sat idle in the single division. Hopkins exploits at 160 match Hagler's in various ways and at any rate he's bugger all behind if at all, and when we expand it P4P he rises substancially.

Head to head Hagler's one serious weakness is one of Hopkins biggest strengths, and that's ring intelligence and adaptability. Hopkins superior ringcraft would be the difference between two otherwise closely matched fighters. Hopkins is also dynamite against southpaws. Hopkins is a real throwback to the great technicians of yesteryear and is almost unique in the last 30 years or so. Make that longer.

I think opponents with blazing handspeed would be his most difficult matchups, and there's not THAT many of them over history at 160. Certainly not of the level needed. Jones would always be very tough, even for the much better later version of Hopkins. SRR's slashing fists at their very best would also be awkward. I certainly wouldn't count him out vs any middleweight in history however.

 

Winky wouldn't have come close to beating Hearns, nor would he have beaten Leonard or Duran at his best. And it would've been more meaningful were it to take place at MW rather than a catchweight where Wright was clearly puffed up. Even if the win was deserving of the pedestal you put it on (which it's clearly not), it doesn't make up for the slack in other areas.

Duran wouldn't have beaten him at MW, but Hearns would've had a very fair chance IMO, unless Hopkins were to get right down to the rough stuff early on, which would be quite unlike him, especially against an sharp-shooting power puncher willing to go to war like Hearns.

As for Leonard not being 100%, he sure looked great in the fight, and Hagler was the one by that point that was clearly passing his prime. Both fighters were arguably not at their best if we're being reasonable, but still very effective. And Roy didn't fight Bernard in his prime, they were both pretty green (yet still very good) at the time of their fight, considering it was their first world title fight. Roy beat him easily, regardless, and a matchup between the two prime for prime wouldn't have been much closer.

I don't think he was in his prime when he fought Roy, nor did I ever say anything that would lead you to believe that, you're just being ignorant.

As for Hopkins, his strategy was to pressure Roy, as Roy was the one doing the moving. Yes, Hopkins did often move more in his prime, but what good would it do him to move around waiting while the opponent did the same thing? He'd have likely implied the same strategy in his prime were they to rematch, just with some new twists (though the same applies for Roy). And Roy didn't tire in the late rounds, he just coasted, allowing Hopkins to take a few. God knows he needed them.

 

Hagler would have won this clearly, his fights against Briscoe and Sibson he was a master boxer puncher. He became flat flooted and power based as he got older, in his prime which sadly was pre and very early in his title reign he was a good boxer puncher. Far better on his feet than Hopkins. Hagler was also much more and better prepared to go toe to toe, this would have been a wide UD win for Marvin

 

Hagler was bad too. But I think Bernard's defense, movement, and feints would give Hagler some trouble. Bernard UD in a close fight.

 

Hagler ,, better balance , good speed on his combos , extra extraordinary stamina , well rounded boxer ether from lefty or righty and solid chin.

Benard has all of those quality except balance and the ability to fight lefty or righty . Benard is not alway on balance when he throws his combos , im not sure if that on purpose or something he just never got around to correcting .. but it caused him issue when fighting speed fighter like Rjj and Joe but that just goes to show it take a special type of fighter to expose that one fault.

Hagler would defiantly expose that fault and win buy UD..