I can see how you'd make Briscoe favourite, but not without doubt. Briscoe in 78 was pretty competitive as well. Do you think it was a good win or just a meh one
Old man. Power waned. Vito beat him first then everyone else. Haglers p h illy run is really overrated. Hamsho kicked watts ass first. Vito ko 5 cyclone. Everyone Briscoe. Look at David Loves run there. Hagler in Philly the most overtated story ever. Hagler beating Finnigan prepped him better for World fights by far.
This is one of the scenarios I can see, the other one (which is below) is more likely imo. The reason why it's more likely imo is based on what happened in there respective careers. Hopkins was a southpaw killer, he took apart elite southpaws in his career, with ease like Tarver, Allen and Wright. Hagler had issues with crafty boxers, Leonard, Watts, Monroe and to an extent Duran as examples. There's also the fact that if Hopkins was so easy to ragdoll, Tarver would've done it.
My favorite middleweight champ ever. I’ve always felt he’d have the edge on Monzon, the difference between speed. He beats Hopkins too but it’s also close.
A total media creation. Had an easy road to a so-called title. To be honest he might've been the worst boxer I ever saw. Two left feet and he was always halfsteppin. Couldn't even figure out which stance to go with. The press built this guy into a monster. Lost crown to a lil guy.
I get you and respect your opinion. However, several points… a) By closing Hopkins down, I wasn’t really describing a Hagler, who would ‘ragdoll’ Hopkins. Hagler worked very effectively at close range, with grappling being relatively rare. b) Even so, the example you give - Hopkins/Tarver - was a Light Heavyweight contest and Hopkins weighed 182 on fight night, whereas, he would typically weigh between 166-168 as a Middleweight. Moreover, Tarver, in the main, tried to fight his fight from the outside; not look for an inside war. c) Neither Allen, Tarver nor Wright were a stylistic equivalent or on the same level as Hagler. d) Hopkins was as apt to have is offense picked off, as he tended to lean in with lead rights against Allen and Tarver (Other than some wide, overhand lefts from Hopkins, I can’t say I recall much countering of these southpaw guys’ right jabs, to be honest). e) Hagler was as sharp with his left, as he was with his right and quite capable of delivering well-timed, short left hooks, as a counter to Hopkins’ right-hand offensive. f) Countering Hagler’s right jab consistently is a big ask anyway and I know of none that were able to do this with any noteworthy effect.
Hagler was very cautious. Briscoe was past his prime, but it was still within recent memory at the time of him being the third best MW in the world. Sugar Ray Seales was the biggest name Hagler had fought at that point, and while a good fighter, Seales was not dangerous in the way Briscoe was. Hagler was cautious...maybe a little too cautious (not the last time he was either), but he got the result against a still dangerous fighter.
Hopkins is certainly an infinitely better choice than Valdes. I've seen numerous great posters in here pick Hopkins over Hagler - some of the finest posters we've seen. I'm certainly in good company. Hopkins has the smarts, variety, size, durability and adaptability to give Hagler a GREAT fight. If you're going to beat Hagler it's most likely going to be with speed and or smarts. Outslick him or out think him or both. The smartest middleweight Hagler faced were SRL and Duran who were both at severe size disadvantages. Hopkins matches him in reach and exceeds him in height and loves fighting southpaws with that great right lead of his among other things. Hagler loves nothing more than the more straight forward type guys coming to him. He's at his greatest under these conditions. Valdes is this type of opponent. He has great power, good skill and a superb chin but he is slow of foot - it's his Achilles heel. He also would be at a whopping 6 inch reach disadvantage against one of the greatest jabbers in middleweight history. Hagler at his greatest (contrary to popular belief) was at heart a skilled boxer. His weakness was a poor corner and a lack of adaptability comparative to other greats on his level. This wouldn't matter here. Valdes lacks the versatility and diversity to take him too deep. Hagler would outslick Valdes with his excellent lateral movement, pinpoint jab, punch variety, accuracy and workrate. He's also no powder puff in the power stakes. Valdes would have his moments, he's a very good fighter and would shorten the gap at various points but Hagler's comfortable and skilled on the inside and his chin is concrete which negates Rodrigo's greatest asset. Good fight, competitive at times but Hagler a class above, just like Monzon was. Hagler decision with competitive spurts. Being southpaw against a guy not proven agaisnt them could be trumps too. Valdes is a different animal against guys that come to him. His combination punching comes alive and he is hell on wheels.
Beautiful ****ing post my man! The switch hitting point is an interesting one - he was definitely better as a southpaw, I agree. As to whether it benefitted him to switch hit, it's hard to say. If I was one of Hagler's opponents, it would throw me off that he could effortlessly weave in and out of stances like he did. He was a natural right hander though which is what made his jab so awesome, I think. I'm not sure if this sentence fully makes sense but he almost fought like an orthodox fighter in the southpaw stance, possibly because he was right handed. You're right about the timeline - Hagler was probably at his absolute peak between Minter and Sibson although he was still a devastating force for a good 18 months or more after that. The Hearns win was an unorthodox performance from Hagler but tactically he got it spot on. The Hearns fight plus a lack of motivation almost certainly affected his final two performances but he was well into his 30s at that point and he was naturally declining by then. I only picked two fighters to beat him - Robinson and Monzon. I don't feel that I can make a sensible call on Greb and Hopkins was probably smarter than Hagler but I still think Marvin had the physical tools to take Hopkins into deep, uncomfortable waters. As much as Hopkins liked to big up his prison background, Hagler was tougher than him and he had the boxing tools and physicality to pick him apart, inside or outside. It would go the distance, but I'd make Hagler a close but clear winner.
I think early in his career, Marvelous Marvin Hagler was a monster, always dismantled his opponents, with anger and skill. He did use intimidation, by being at ringside, making comment on the two pugilist that were in the ring. An example was the World Middleweight Title fight between champion Hugo Corro, of Argentina, and challenger Vito Antuofermo, New York, on June 30 1979, in Monte Carlo, Monaco, won by Vito, by split 15 round decision. He did talk trash during that telecast. And when he fought Antuofermo, on Nov 30 1979, in New Orleans, for the title, he appeared to fight aggressive, and full of anger. I believe that his inexperience cost him in that fight, it was ruled a draw. He lacked the style to win the belt, Vito was also very unafraid of him, even cutting Hagler over the eye. I think he learned a lot from that fight, to become the great champion that he was. He tore up Vito in the rematch. I really believed if he had broken Carlos Monzon's record of 14 title defenses, then retired with the belt, he would have created more of an argument of his place in history. A wise champion knows his limitations, and ignores greed. A champion cannot be compared based on competition, as you can only fight the opponents of your era, not of the future or past. And a fighter cannot force someone to fight him. I do not believe that he would have been knocked out by the greats. None the less, he sure was a terrific World Middleweight Champion, who well does deserves recognition.
Hopkins doesnt have the dimensions to beat Hagler. Like I said in another thread Hopkins is very predictable. I was watching him live against Pavlik and it was the same thing he always does and Pavlik didnt have the smarts or skill to deal with it. Paw jab paw jab glide/shift with the rt hand then hes only in position for a half hearted hook then grab hold and maul. He does this 90% of the time. It's that step with the rt hand that's so unconventional that bothers people. Hagler too smart and too good to let that happen. Valdez showed against Briscoe and Monzon that he can adapt to fighting styles and doing great at it. Very undersold fighter who hit like a ton of bricks. Would have easily been Champ if not for Monzon who BTW also beats Hop and Hagler all IMO. Hopkins has good balance I'll give him that. I despise the way he quit over getting pushed/falling down. For whatever reason he just Quit. I'm a Phila guy and followed Bernard his whole career even had the pleasure of meeting him a few times ( very nice guy away from the cameras) followed Marvin since 77. But no I dont see Hopkins ever beating Hagler.
That was my first thought as well, Robinson had the tools and ability and he'd probably get a win in a trilogy, but the Hagler of around the Sibson fight was a wrecking machine. Marvin and Monzon would be crazy but I believe Monzon would have to stop Hagler to win
And we all know how insurmountable of a task stopping Hagler is, considering he was never hurt despite fighting great punchers